Sitting of 21 June 1995

Preamble
The House met at Ten o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER in the Chair]

Population Programmes
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
10.4 am
Mr. Richard Ottaway: In this debate, I want to make two fundamental points. First, I acknowledge that coercive practices take place in international population programmes and I join all those who condemn those practices. No family planning programme will ever be successful unless it is run on a voluntary basis with full respect for human and reproductive rights.
Secondly, at the heart of international population programmes are two organisations: the UNFPA, which is not the United Nations Family Planning Association, but the United Nations Population Fund—why it is called the UNFPA, I have no idea—and the International Planned Parenthood Federation. While those organisations give aid to population programmes in countries where coercion takes place, they do not assist or condone coercion and we should not withdraw their funding.
I fundamentally believe that the root cause of many of the world's problems is excessive population growth. I was born at the end of the second world war and my life has coincided with Europe's post-war experience. Many things have happened and there have been many shifting patterns of history and mankind, yet as we reach the end of the 20th century, the global issue which stands out more than anything else is world population growth. Since I was born, the world's population has doubled. By 2000, it will reach 6 billion. The impact of that is huge, with environmental consequences, resource shortage and immigration tensions. Population growth affects the globe's economic prosperity and its quality of life.
Against that background, the international conference on population development, organised by the UNFPA, was set. It took place in Cairo in September. A year earlier, the G7 summit in Tokyo had recognised the increasing importance of world population growth and called on the Cairo conference to put forward a solution. At Cairo, politicians from such diverse cultures as President Mubarak of Egypt, Gro Brundtland of Norway, Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan and Al Gore, the Vice-President of America, all rose to argue that whatever one's backgrounds and beliefs, the situation could no longer be ignored.
The breakthrough at that conference was that almost every country in the world—including China—was present and almost every country in the world agreed. As a result, it produced a programme of action, with recommendations to
260
the international community. The recommendations are a set of important population and development objectives for universal reproductive health rights in the next two decades in a framework of poverty reduction, women's empowerment, economic growth and changing lifestyles—obviously without the threat of coercion.
The conference received a great deal of publicity, mainly due to the Vatican's attempts to resist the inevitable. People may not have been sure of precisely what had happened in that conference and the conclusions that it had reached, but at least they knew that it had happened. The Cairo conference was not just about abortion—I regretted the singling out of that controversial issue—but much more. Its main objective was to place the individual at the centre of the population debate and to acknowledge that reproductive rights are recognised by Governments as international human rights.
That acknowledgement of the role of the individual must be set firmly in the context of the stark reality that population growth is at an all-time high: a rate of about 90 million people annually or 10,000 an hour. At that rate of growth, it will take only 11 years to add the next 1 billion individuals to our world.
It is inevitable that with such huge numbers involved. the globe's population programmes will be extensive. It is equally inevitable that when sensitive issues such as sterilisation and abortion are involved there will be abuses. Those abuses must be condemned.
As is well documented, many coercive practices take place in China. I do not seek to defend China's population programmes, but the demographic challenge for that country is undeniable. It has 21 per cent. of the world's population—1.2 billion people—but only 7 to 10 per cent. of the land suitable for cultivation. With growth at 1.5 per cent., 160 million more people will be added to its population within a decade.
In response to that challenge, the Chinese Government began the vigorous promotion of family planning in 1971. In 1979 it announced the controversial "one child" campaign, introducing rewards and penalties to induce couples to limit their families to one child. Not surprisingly that campaign was unpopular, especially in rural areas. In the early 1980s intensive family planning campaigns aimed at meeting strict demographic targets led to at least some instances of forced abortions and other abuses, although there is no consensus on how widespread those were.
By 1984 the programme had reached another turning point. Since by then party officials, perhaps recognising that the one child goal was unpopular and unrealistic, have gradually increased exceptions to it. Outside China the one child policy is widely perceived to be universally and strictly implemented, whereas in fact official regulations relative to family size vary substantially within that country. It may be more correct to say that nationally, China has something like a 1.6 child policy. However, official policy notwithstanding, on average Chinese couples have had 2.5 children, compared with the 2.1 child average required to achieve an eventual stable population.
All over the world our experience shows us that family planning programmes should be voluntary if they are to succeed. Countries that have succeeded in stabilising and lowering the rate of growth of their populations have done so almost exclusively by voluntary methods. I always hold out our own family planning programme as a model—free contraception, available on demand at a source of the client's choice.

261
It follows that if a country engages on a one-child programme it is bound to cause tensions and concerns. However, that should not be grounds for picking up our bat and ball and walking away in protest at practices that we find unacceptable. Our attitude should be to try to persuade, influence and assist wherever possible.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Can my hon. Friend give the House any evidence that in the 10 or more years that those organisations have been involved—in China and the third world, for example—they have been able to persuade or cajole, or in any way to change the policies of Governments on coercive sterilisation and abortion?
Mr. Ottaway: If my hon. Friend will allow me, that is the point that I intend to deal with next. I shall describe what the organisations have done and explain why the abuses are not grounds for picking up our bat and ball and walking away. Those organisations have influenced and assisted. Indeed, one of them has done much to stop coercive practices.
Family planning programmes in different parts of the world are run in two ways—first, through the country's own family planning association and, secondly, through non-governmental organisations that run their own population programmes. External funding for the FPAs and NGOs comes from third-party governmental bilateral and multilateral aid. It also comes from the UNFPA and the IPPF. The UNFPA is unequivocally committed to the principles of voluntarisrn in its programme of assistance throughout the world. It categorically condemns the use of coercion in any form or manner in any population programme.
The right to plan and regulate family size is widely accepted as a basic human right. The executive director of the UNFPA, Dr. Nafis Sadik, who has shown outstanding leadership on the issue, said in her speech at the preparatory committee for the Cairo conference:
"The principle of free choice is essential to the success of such programmes. Coercion whether physical or moral, has no part to play. Coercion is a breach of human rights; it is also unsuccessful from a practical point of view".
The UNFPA is supported entirely by voluntary contributions, not by the United Nations' regular budget. It directly manages a quarter of the world's population assistance to developing countries, and in 1994 provided support to 150 countries, including China.
Many countries believe that by providing assistance to China the UNFPA is uniquely positioned positively to influence China's population policies and to promote human rights. It has dialogue with China's officials at every level, and its projects require observance of human rights. It insists on approaches to service delivery grounded in informed consent, free choice and quality care, and its programme introduces China's officials to international standards through international training in foreign institutions.
Over the past 15 years the UNFPA has supported the development of 23 contraceptive production facilities, and China is now totally self-sufficient in the production of modern contraceptives and can offer a wide variety. The fund has also provided counselling that focuses on individual choice and informed consent and—this is particularly relevant to the question asked by my hon.
262
Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton)—it has helped to establish population science curricula in 22 Chinese universities.
Working with the World Health Organisation and with UNICEF, the UNFPA has supported massive training of physicians and health care workers in 300 poor rural Chinese counties to increase their skills in the provision of quality maternal, child health and family planning care. It has also initiated projects in 11 provinces in China to promote women's status in a culture in which women are traditionally held in much lower esteem than men. Its role in China and its commitment to that country has been effective and influential.
The IPPF is a different type of organisation altogether. After the Red Cross it is the largest international voluntary organisation in the world. It has 112 member associations and 136 individual country associations. It gives technical and financial assistance to the work of national family planning associations in more than 160 countries throughout the world. Like the UNFPA, the IPPF entirely rejects coercive practices. I am proud to say that its headquarters are here in London.
The important feature of the IPPF is that it works through its member country family planning associations and has no direct involvement itself. It has many aims and objectives. In simple terms its goal is to meet the unmet demand for quality family planning services and to promote sexual and reproductive health through its strategic plan, Vision 2000.
The IPPF's involvement in China is carried on through the China Family Planning Association—the CFPA—which was founded in the 1980s as a nationwide NGO. The federation's assistance to the CFPA takes the form of technical and financial support—that amounted to about $1 million last year—the bulk of which is used for audio-visual equipment, education materials and administrative support.
The CFPA became a full member of the IPPF in 1986, confirming agreement to the IPPF's standards and responsibilities of membership, which explicitly state that family planning services must be voluntary and non-coercive. It was founded to promote the cause of voluntary family planning using information and education throughout China, and it has never been involved in any way in the distribution of contraceptives or other clinical services.
It is important to remember that China's family planning programme is run not by the CFPA but by the state. In 1991, at the request of the Chinese Government, the CFPA, whose only source of funding was the IPPF, started to observe the state of family planning programmes to identify and report on reproductive rights abuses. That supervision role is new for the association, and represents an important step in the recognition of the safeguarding role of an NGO, affording a crucial point of leverage for modifying over-zealous efforts that cause allegations of abuse. That role continues.
Personally, I would like the Chinese Government to allow couples greater choice over the number and timing of births, while continuing to advocate small families. I believe that China could start to achieve its demographic targets by promoting the two child family, with special emphasis on delaying the first birth and spacing the second.
However, the role of the UNFPA and the IPPF is genuine and sincere. Both organisations are firmly opposed to coercion and are committed to implementing

263
non-coercive practices. The IPPF's main role in China is the funding of programmes preventing abuses, and I hope that I have demonstrated that its funding is closely monitored and is not used in the manner set out in early-day motion 1251.
Withdrawing funding to those organisations would be counter-productive. In the 1970s, the withdrawal of US aid to Pakistan as a protest at human rights abuses achieved nothing, and it was left to the rest of the world to pick up the pieces of Pakistan's family planning programme. We have seen the good work of the UNFPA and the great successes it has achieved, but withdrawing funding from the IPPF would be the most ridiculous. There are numerous examples where the IPPF's monitoring of abuses of state programmes have achieved success and lowered tensions. By education, it has shown that it is in the population's interests to have a small family.
What would we gain by withdrawing aid? We would lose our influence. Our view should be to offer constructive help. It is easy to be critical and condemnatory, but it is less easy to offer a positive way ahead which would take account both of a nation's cultural heritage and of the economic and social restraints. Horror stories, such as the documentary on television the other day, "The Dying Rooms", grip the headlines, but practical help is difficult to offer and is less likely to attract attention. Yes, there are abuses, but we should seek to minimise them and influence the perpetrators. We should make every effort to impose the standards for which we have become an example to the rest of the world.
10.21 am
Mr. Tony Worthington: I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) on his speech and on raising the topic today. It is extremely valuable that we should have an opportunity to discuss the role of the family planning programmes of the United Nations Population Fund and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, and the role of the British Government in assisting people to control their fertility.
There are oddities about the debate. No one in the House would be in favour of coercion, but, as I shall demonstrate, there are different forms of coercion. There is the coercion that we all deplore which was revealed in the television programme to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred. But there is also the coercion caused by ignorance. There are people who would deny access to modern family planning methods to millions of the poorest people in the world.
I hope that some of the Members who catch your eye during the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will make it clear whether they are in favour of giving voluntary choice about methods of family planning to every woman, man and couple in the world. Or will they continue to deny human rights to people by denying them access to the facilities which we treasure in this country? That is an absolutely fundamental question.
Mr. David Alton: The hon. Gentleman said that no people in the House advocate coercion, and he must therefore assume that no people in the House oppose the voluntary principle. The hon. Gentleman must tell the House whether he supports funding programmes which have cost the British taxpayer £100 million in the past 10 years and which have allowed
264
forced abortion, forced sterilisation and the forcible fitting of inter-uterine contraceptive devices to women. Those are abuses of human rights.
Mr. Worthington: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has risen so early in my speech, as it gives us a chance to have a genuine debate. Where there is no question of coercion, does he advocate organisations such as the Overseas Development Administration, the IPPF and the UNFPA providing the means for poor people in ail parts of the world to use the pill, condoms, spermicides and the other contraceptive methods used at present in this country? Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of that voluntary principle?
Mr. Alton: These are not legislative matters, but relate to a personal code of morality. The issue is whether we should continue to fund forced abortion and sterilisation and the forcible fitting of IUCDs.
Mr. Worthington: Rarely have I heard such evasiveness. It is a simple question. Where there is no question of enforcement or coercion, is the hon. Gentleman in favour of public resources being used for such schemes? He must acknowledge that it can only be done with public resources, and that the projects cannot succeed on a wish and a prayer. Resources are needed to fund pills, condoms, spermicides and vasectomies. Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of the world's public resources being used to aid such voluntary programmes?
Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am in favour of the alleviation of poverty, but not the subjection of populations. If the hon. Gentleman studied the history of Ireland, he would see how those arguments were used by British economists and politicians during the 19th century to achieve precisely the objective he is outlining today. The issue is not about voluntary decisions made by individuals, but coercion. That is the issue that he and the House must address today.
Mr. Worthington: I have struck gold there. The hon. Gentleman has not found himself able to say that resources should be made available, despite the fact that the projects cannot be operated effectively without financial resources.
In this country, in Italy and in other countries of the west, people who have been given the resources and choices have voluntarily chosen to restrict the size of their families. To do that, they had to have access to modern methods of family planning. An old saying about natural methods of family planning is "Show me natural methods of family planning, and I'll show you a parent."
It is a fundamental human right that the women of the world in particular should have access to the methods of family planning which have done more than anything else to transform the lives of women in Britain and in Europe. It is fundamental that that same technology and choice is available to people in other parts of the world. But because of their poverty, it cannot be made available to them without the intervention of the aid programmes of the western world, such as the UNFPA and the IPPF. Until the hon. Gentleman stands up and says that he is in favour—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not appropriate to pillory an hon. Member when we are dealing with overseas programmes this morning.
Mr. Worthington: I accept your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it will be interesting to see whether the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members are willing to accept the voluntary principle. All I ask of them is to accept that choice should be provided, and that one cannot have a choice when one is ignorant. There can be no choice when there are no resources.
When abuses in human rights are occurring in China and in many other countries, it is absurd that one should deny resources to the organisations which are most likely to be able to bring a cessation of those abuses.
It is quite clear from my contacts with the UNFPA and the IPPF that their work is founded on voluntarism, choice and women's empowerment. To argue that they should stop working in China, where their programmes are a seed-corn, in order to introduce voluntary methods of family planning in that country is simply absurd. One would simply be shooting oneself in the foot.
I am sure that the debate will make it clear that those who argue for change in China are not arguing about coercion there or elsewhere. China is a bad example of what can happen, but it is just one country. Those who pick on it do so in an attempt to remove voluntary choice from other parts of the world. They are seizing upon the weaknesses in the Chinese programme to put forward a hidden agenda, as we shall see, to deny Chinese people the choice of access to the very contraceptive means that are available to us.
As the hon. Member for Croydon, South said, population control is an issue of fundamental importance to the world, because 95 per cent. of population growth is occurring in the poorest countries. It is estimated that their populations will double in 25 years. It would concentrate our minds if the population of Britain was expected to double from about 55 million to 110 million by the early years of the next century.
What gives ground for hope is that, in country after country, men, women and politicians want access to resources to enable them to control their own fertility. The request for contraception is demand-driven. They understand that the empowerment, enfranchisement and liberation of women is possible only if they can have control of their own bodies. When they are given that choice, they use it. What is sick about China is that, in the long run, there is no need for coercion. If the Chinese women were given proper choice, as must happen, they would seek to control their own fertility. In that movement, based on education and health, they would turn their backs on the repulsive aspect of their own culture which does not treasure women. Female infanticide was common long before mountain methods of family planning were followed by the Chinese. We must deplore that appalling practice.
We must aid organisations such as the IPPF and the UNFPA to introduce the voluntary principle to China. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that that is the number one target. Once that principle is established, every child born will be equally valued whether it is male or female.
10.32 am
Mrs. Ann Winterton: When I first took my seat in the House way back. in 1983 I accepted, like many other people, almost without question the doomsday propaganda of the population control lobby. I thought of
266
the IPPF and the UNFPA—to assist my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), that stands for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities—as good, altruistic organisations, interested in the betterment of the poorer peoples of the world.
I then came across papers written by a leading black American social worker, Erma Clardy Craven, who was chairman of the Minneapolis Commission of Human Rights. She reported the grim story of the Kaw indians of Oklahoma, whose tribe would be virtually extinct by the end of the century because virtually every woman full-blood had been sterilised by groups affiliated to the IPPF and, more indirectly, the UNFPA. She also produced figures to show that three times as many black, Indian and Puerto Rican women than white women were being sterilised in the United States. Far from family planning or voluntary population control, that practice was, to use a term more widely understood these days, "ethnic cleansing".
Any reference to those disconcerting activities was glibly dismissed by apologists for the UNFPA and the IPPF. They justified the statistics by observing that there was a greater statistical representation of such ethnic groups among the poorer sections of society—as though social status was any more justifiable than ethnic origin as a basis for sterilisation.
It was then, too, that I heard about the ruthless manner in which the one-child policy was being implemented in China. Although reports of that policy had been made for some considerable time, it was first given widespread publicity through the work of an American, Dr. Stephen Mosher, a China scholar. In 1979, he was one of the first western scholars to be allowed to visit the People's Republic of China. He was the only one allowed to conduct a village study, when he lived for more than a year in a country area, where he got to know the people and their way of life.
During his stay, Dr. Masher witnessed at first hand how women who were five months, six months, or even eight and nine months pregnant were rounded up if they refused to have abortions. They had their pregnancies terminated forcibly, in the most bloody conditions. Sometimes they were compulsorily sterilised as well. He was appalled by what he saw and determined that, on his return to the United States, he would expose what was happening. He found that he was subject to considerable pressure from the population control lobby to stay silent. He refused and succeeded in gaining coverage in the Washington Post and Time for what he had seen. He finally published a book exposing the brutality of the population control regime.
Although that happened in the 1980s, it is important for the House to be aware that the IPPF and the UNFPA went into China together in 1979 and were involved on the ground through their programmes throughout the time in question. There can be no doubt that both organisations were fully aware of what was happening, not least because, in 1983, the UNFPA made the head of the Chinese Family Planning Association joint winner of its population award.
I support the right of couples to plan or space their children in accordance with their wishes and beliefs. I have no ethical objection to the practice of contraception, but such voluntary activities bear no resemblance to what is happening in China, as the film, "The Dying Rooms", broadcast last week on Channel 4, has unequivocally shown. That documentary, produced by Brian Woods and

267
Kate Blewett, records how they travelled throughout China amassing first-hand evidence of the brutal results of the state population control programme, which restricts families to one child. It confirmed that that programme includes compulsory abortion and sterilisation. The cultural bias has resulted in girl babies and those who are disabled being abandoned in orphanages. It highlighted the plight of children in state asylums, with their arms and legs tied to seatless chairs with potties underneath, who were left to die from absolute neglect. That is a grim indictment, as horrifying in its content as any atrocity ever captured on film. It left me in no doubt that the IPPF and the UNFPA, and indeed our Government—in the first two cases through their involvement and in the latter by turning a blind eye—must bear the responsibility for the impact of those draconian policies upon the women of China and their dead and abandoned children.
Mr. Ottaway: Does my hon. Friend have any evidence that funds from the IPPF or the UNFPA have been directly used for coercive practices, as she alleges?
Mrs. Winterton: The very fact that both organisations are involved in family planning in China props up the regime of the Chinese Government; my hon. Friend must be naive if he believes otherwise. The coercive programme will be changed only if the British Government stand up to the Chinese Government, for the simple reason that the Chinese bow only to strength. Unless we show strength, they will merely use the funding in whatever way they can, and indirectly it will prop up the coercive practices that are being used at present. My hon. Friend should remember that, and perhaps think a little more deeply about those matters before he merely offers 100 per cent. support for what is being done in China.
Mr. Worthington: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Winterton: No. I have just given way to my hon. Friend, and I intend to continue with my speech. [Interruption.] I have given a full explanation to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend has no evidence.
Mrs. Winterton: Perhaps the evidence could be provided at a later date; I could not give it now.
The attitude of my hon. Friend and the apologists whom he represents will ensure that those coercive practices will continue for the next 10, 20 or 30 years, because the position has not improved while those programmes have been in place in China and other third world countries.
The plight of unwanted girl babies in China does not result purely from cultural bias in favour of boys, as some people have naively sought to suggest. It is not as simple as that. For thousands of years in rural China, when a girl married she left home to live with her husband's family. Even today, old couples have no state benefit in the country districts of China, with the result that, if couples are allowed to have only one child and that child is a girl or is disabled, they will be entirely alone in old age and virtually left to starve. That is the brutal truth.
Speaking as recently as last month, on 26 May 1995, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, who introduced the debate, addressed, the inaugural meeting of the European Parliamentary Forum on Population in his capacity as its founding chairman. He told the meeting
268
that in the year 2000 the programme of action that had been agreed at the United Nations conference in Cairo in September 1994 would cost an estimated £17 billion for the implementation of reproductive health programmes in developing countries and in countries with economies in transition. He said that, by the year 2015, that will have increased to a staggering $21.7 billion.
The conference in Cairo was supposed to be the international conference on population and development, yet the entire sum allocated was—as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South told his meeting in Brussels—$17 billion for population control, with not one dollar for development.
The answer to the intervention of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) is that we shall reduce the number of children being born by aid for economic development. That has been the result of economic development in the western world and elsewhere. Security of employment, pension arrangements and so on reduce the numbers of people who are so fearful.
Mr. Ottaway: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Winterton: No, I will not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South is chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on population and development, which published a report in March 1994, arguing that non-governmental organisations seeking overseas aid funding should expect such funding to be reduced unless they agreed to a commitment to population control.
Not only are poor countries to receive nothing from the programme agreed last year at the Cairo conference, but even charities that rely on help to develop their vital work are to be deprived of any assistance at all if my hon. Friend has his way.
Mr. Worthington: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Lady has not deliberately misled the House, but I do know the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) very well, and he is not associated with any population control—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am the judge of whether an hon. Member has misled the House, not the hon. Gentleman or Back Benchers.
Mrs. Winterton: Some people have sought to portray the anxieties raised about Cairo as being exclusive to the Roman Catholic Church. That is not a Church to which I belong, and although the Vatican certainly has been outspoken in its condemnation of that diversion of resources from aid programmes to population control, its anxieties are widely shared by many people in the third world and by the Muslim community.
Commenting on the Cairo conference, 50 eminent Muslim scholars wrote to every Member of the House, observing that it was stage-managed by the wealthy western nations, who were seeking to manipulate the people of the third world. They urged us strongly to support the making of legal international agreements to bring to an end coercive population control programmes.
After watching "The Dying Rooms", I endorse such an opinion. We should not rest until we witness the end of any type of coercive or manipulative population control, whether it be the tying of the development of a village

269
well to limits on family size, or the cutting by our Government of grants to charities that refuse to conspire with the population control lobbyists.
I invite the Minister to assure the House that, pending a full and exhaustive investigation, he will suspend the funding of the IPPF and the UNFPA and, as my early-day motion 1251 suggests, urge the United Nations to transfer from Beijing the proposed Fourth World Conference on Women and hold it instead in a country with a more civilised policy towards women and girl babies.
10.45 am
Mr. David Alton: I support the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), especially her remarks about the unsuitability of Beijing, of all places, as a centre for the holding of a conference discussing women's rights. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to sign the early-day motion that the hon. Lady has tabled, which I believe describes the true position in China.
It has been extraordinary to listen to the speeches, especially those of the hon. Members for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) and for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), in defence of practices in China. Implicitly, whether they like it or not, they are defending those practices if they accept that the programmes that are being used in China to fund forced abortion and forced sterilisation should continue to receive resources from this country.
The hon. Members for Croydon, South and for Clydebank and Milngavie have adumbrated the voluntary principle, and they have said that they oppose coercion. Of course everyone in the House would share those opinions; they sound wonderful, but that is not the issue. The issue is what is happening on the ground. Are we financing it? Are we prepared to aid and abet it? If not, what will we do about that?
The approach of the hon. Member for Croydon, South is revealingly illustrated in his book, which is curiously titled, "Less People, Less Pollution". That is an extraordinary way of regarding the population question—fewer people equals less pollution. The issue for the House is not the pollution that people may cause but the respect that we place on the very right to life itself. It is about the respect that we place on human rights; it is about the position of women in society; it is about the voluntary principle; and it is about poverty.
I will not listen to the speeches that have been made, implying that those of us who share the opinions that will be expressed on the Floor of the House today are reactionary or oppose development. I strongly support the increase of our overseas aid programme and the principle that we should attack poverty at every possible level, but there are ways of doing that. It is never, and surely should never be, part of our approach to defend the discredited policies of a regime that uses such unacceptable methods against its own population.
Hon. Members have intervened to ask, where is the evidence? I intend to discuss that later, but I would especially draw people's attention to the congressional debate that took place on May 24 1995 and the evidence that led Congress again to decide that it did not want to fund those programmes—evidence that led the previous American Administration not to fund the programmes.
270
Anyone who saw on their television screen the events in Tiananmen square hardly needs to be convinced that evidence is required about the brutality of the Chinese regime. The Human Rights Law Review provides evidence, if that is what hon. Members are looking for. I shall refer to that later in my remarks.
I have followed the issue for several years. I have been to see Ministers, presented petitions and tabled motions and questions about what I believe constitutes the most pernicious and evil abuse of women and human rights anywhere in the world today. I am utterly mystified as to how anyone could watch the programme, "The Dying Rooms", to which the hon. Member for Congleton referred, or last year's BBC programme, "Women of the Yellow Earth", and still offer a defence of the payment of £100 million of blood money over the past decade.
In 1994, the United Kingdom Government gave £8.5 million to the UNFPA and £7.5 million to the IPPF. British taxpayers have been underwriting forced abortion, forced sterilisation, the forcible fitting of IUCDs and even infanticide for more than 20 years. Successive Ministers have defended one of the greatest scandals in the use of overseas aid that I have ever come across. They have used a succession of arguments.
Mr. George Foulkes: I have one simple question. The hon. Gentleman is speaking from the Bench of the leader of the Liberal party. Will he make it clear whether he is speaking in a personal capacity or on behalf of the Liberal Democrats?
Mr. Alton: In 1992 my party had quite a divisive argument about whether abortion should be party policy. I am glad to say that, unlike the Labour party, we ultimately decided that it should be a matter for personal conscience. I speak today on my own behalf from this Bench. I should be interested to know whether, when the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) speaks today, he will do so on behalf of the official Opposition. I should be interested to know whether he will state that the Labour party will continue that policy. The hon. Gentleman is confirming to the House on behalf of the Labour party—it is important to have it on the record—that if the Labour party forms the next Government, they will continue to fund such programmes in China.
Mr. Foulkes: I am confirming that if I have a chance to speak in today's debate, I shall be doing so on behalf of the official Opposition. As to what I shall say, the hon. Gentleman will find out then. He should not try to anticipate it.
Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman sought clarification from me and I am simply seeking clarification from him. I am trying to clarify whether he will be speaking on behalf of the official Opposition in such a way that we can assume that the Labour party will maintain the present Government's policies and offer the same arguments advanced by Ministers over the past two decades.
The first of those arguments was expressed by Lady Chalker: funding such programmes enables us to influence them. There is no supporting evidence to show that funding leads to influence over policies.
The second argument that has been advanced by Ministers is that there is insufficient evidence—even though, naturally, they did not approve of coercion. Ministers' next argument was the rural aberration

271
argument. They argued that such policies might be pursued, but they were only the work of a few over-zealous officials in some backwoods area of China.
I have received a succession of identical replies to the parliamentary questions that I have tabled. The Government say that they are "deeply concerned". However, they are not concerned enough to do anything to stop the systematic abuse of women and children. The greatest deceit of all that they commit is to trot out the platitude that we are all opposed to the principle of coercion, while continuing to fund those who perpetuate the crimes against humanity, which is precisely what they are. The Nuremberg war trials tribunal rightly judged the forced abortion of Polish women to have been a crime against humanity. The shocking thing is that it has taken something as horrific as "The Dying Rooms" to shake us out of our complacency.
At the height of the mass sterilisation campaign in the 1970s the UNFPA gave China the first ever UN population award for its success in curbing population. The UNFPA provided training for central Government officials responsible for the policy. It provided computer systems that monitor the effectiveness of the programmes in reaching their targets. It funded the building of two facilities that have made China self-sufficient in IUD production. Some 41 per cent. of Chinese women now have IUDs, which, once inserted—often against their will—they can do little about. X-ray machines are used to ensure that women have not removed them.
The UNFPA is a United Nations agency. The UN purports to guarantee the
"right to freely found a family and decide on the number and spacing of the children".
Yet, in direct contradiction of that, the communist Chinese Minister for family planning, Qian Zinzhong, has said:
"The size of the family is far too important to be left to the couple. Births are a matter of state planning."
China's one-child policy uniquely marks it out as a country where it is illegal to have a brother or a sister; where little girls are eliminated in favour of their brothers and where eugenics laws—like those so favoured by the eugenicists who founded the IPPF—now permit the killing of disabled children.
In October 1994 the People's Republic of China passed a law on maternal and infant health care that came into force just a couple of weeks ago. It allows the Government to force newly married couples to be sterilised and unborn babies to be aborted, where there is disability, illness or "relevant mental disorders". Poor people from ethnic minorities and disabled people have always been the target of racists and eugenicists everywhere. The simple test is whether we would permit such procedures here and, if not, what in the world are we doing funding them in China?
The latest reports from Feng Jia Zhuang and Long Tian Gou reveal a combination of religious repression and political coercion. Using their slogan, "It is better to have more graves than one more child", the local authorities repeatedly raid people's homes, confiscate the family's property, round up the people and beat those who escape into nearby fields. Forced abortions have been performed on women in their last weeks of pregnancy. Several women have been forcibly sterilised against their will. Monstrous fines—bigger than an annual average income—are imposed on couples who do not comply.
272
One villager had his legs so badly broken that he nearly died. When concerned relatives enquired about him they were arrested, abused and forced to pay a huge fine. Another villager unsuccessfully tried to sell his two children in an effort to have his wife freed from gaol.
People are subjected to terrible torture. Men and women have been hung upside down; some have been squeezed into tiny spaces, such as under chairs; some have been exposed to the elements during extreme weather conditions for sustained periods. Some people have had their tongues burnt with electric batons to prevent them from invoking the help of God. Through our funding, we are collaborating in those crimes against humanity.
The systematic killing of little girls is now beginning to reveal itself in the population shift in China and in slave trade in women. At least 114 boys are now born in China for every 100 girls. The plight of women beyond birth is equally harrowing. The Human Rights Law Review details instances of women being taken from bed late at night and brought to 24-hour sterilisation clinics. It records examples of women being inserted with IUDs without their knowledge or consent immediately after giving birth and newborn babies being killed while still partly in the womb. Local officials who violate women's rights are promoted for their ruthless cold-blooded efficiency.
Far from condemning such practices, the executive director of the UNFPA, Nafis Sadiq, said:
"China has every reason to feel proud and pleased with its remarkable achievements in its family planning policy and control of its population growth over the past 10 years. Now China could offer its experiences and special experts to other countries."
Britain should have no part in the programmes. We should use our overseas budget to help those 800 million people who are racked by starvation or despair and who live below any rational definition of human decency. We should not use resources to fund such evil practices.
Wilberforce said in this Chamber nearly 200 years ago that we should
"Disclaim that dangerous sophistry that out of doing evil some good may come."
I hope that it will not be long before we end the evil practice of funding forced abortions, forced sterilisation and oppression of women's rights in China.
10.58 am
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate, but I shall not become involved in the subject of China for two reasons: first, it has already been clearly aired and, secondly, there are other issues in the world relating to population problems that we need to consider. I should prefer to look at the African continent, where poverty has increased markedly over the past 10 years.
I do not want to follow the route taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and condemn the UNFPA, but I support her call for the conference for women not to take place in Beijing. However, I do so for a completely different reason. Apparently the non-governmental organisations—which my hon. Friend and I both support—will be located some 30 miles from Beijing and there is no way of travelling to Beijing except by bicycle. As some hon. Members may know, the eminent members of NGOs are perhaps not capable of travelling 30 miles by bicycle, so the conference may not be of great help to women.

273
I turn to the issue of population problems in Africa. As in China, cultural and religious differences in Africa have led to the prevalence of large families, if only to ensure that there is someone to look after aged relatives and younger children. We in the west have solved that problem by increasing our prosperity, which is also the best way of solving the problem throughout the world.
In dealing with the population problem, we must move in two directions. First, we must alleviate poverty; and, secondly, we must work within third-world societies to help women—who, as the child bearers, are the key—to control their own fertility. The best way to control population growth is to improve medical services and to ensure that women are empowered to control their own lives. In many cases, that means that we must ensure that they have access to farm implements, water and grain so that they can produce food for their families. If their children survive infancy, they will realise that they do not need to have so many children and, with that realisation, will come the reproductive control that is so crucial to solving the problem of overpopulation.
We must also address questions such as why water is not readily available, why medical services are difficult to access and why poverty is prevalent in so many countries. Those problems are often the result of governmental mistakes. Many foreign politicians were educated as socialists in this country. They then returned to their own countries and tried to impose socialism on their culture. Those cultures were simply not ready for socialism and were often very anti-democratic.
The Overseas Development Administration can best assist population programmes by building up a belief in democracy in such countries. The people must remove from the control of the centralised state the levers of economic power which it has signally failed to use effectively. Governments must ensure that they release the energies of their people so as to produce the wealth that is crucial to the delivery of medical care and roads and farming infrastructure. That is vital if women are to feel that they do not need to produce a child every nine months and if men are to recognise that they do not need to prove their virility by fathering large families.
11.3 am
Mr. David Amess: I am very grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has given the House the opportunity to debate coercive practices in population programmes overseas. I suspect that the debate—I shall speak directly to it—might have been triggered by the ten-minute Bill that I introduced last month. On that occasion, the House agreed that coercive practices should be condemned.
My hon. Friend used a cricketing metaphor in his speech and I also rather liked the cricketing metaphor used by the previous Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher. Earlier in the debate it was said that the House condemns coercive practices in population programmes overseas. I was very pleased to hear that and I am sure that hon. Members are united in their desire to do good—even though our approaches may differ.
Two years ago when I attempted to introduce a ten-minute Bill outlawing the practice of determining the sex of a child, the House voted in favour of that practice
274
by a majority of 18 votes. One would have thought it extraordinary that the House of Commons should approve the practice of sex selection, but that is what it did. Therefore, I think that it is wonderful that today hon. Members have made their points with passion, vigour and conviction. If the House is to remain relevant, we must continue to argue about such matters in that way.
This morning I received a letter from a constituent who viewed the television programme to which hon. Members have referred this morning. Life may be cheap in China, but it is completely worthless if one is female. More than 6 million Chinese women are called Lai-Di or Zheo-Di, both of which mean "next time bring a boy". Female infanticide is rife, as is the abandonment of female children. The growing gender imbalance in the Chinese population—currently there are 60 million more men than women—has resulted in the kidnapping of village women who are often raped before being sold.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South spoke of the size of the world population.
Mr. Piers Merchant: My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) mentioned the appalling gender discrimination in China which is smiled upon by the communist authorities. Will he refer also to the Chinese Government's racist activities in areas such as Tibet, where the Tibetan population is subjected to extreme population controls but the Han Chinese—who have been deliberately settled in Tibet in order to ensure Chinese domination of that previously free country—are allowed to reproduce much more freely?
Mr. Amess: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that situation to my attention. Last month during my speech on my ten-minute Bill I told the House that I was to visit China with two United States Congressmen. Sadly, the day before we were due to leave the visas of the two Congressmen were withdrawn. I hope that we wiil make that trip later this year when I shall explore the points that my hon. Friend has raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South referred to the size of the world's population. The world has become smaller with the advent of air travel and I wonder whether we should challenge the premise that the world is overpopulated. According to United Nations figures, only 40 per cent. of agricultural land in China is cultivated—and I am delighted that the Fiat tractor plant in my constituency is exporting more of its small tractors to that country to help with the more efficient production of food. Agricultural land in China is cultivated so inefficiently that, during the past 15 years, the World bank has threatened to withdraw its funds unless practices improve.
Only about 10 per cent. of the world's land area has been developed into cities, towns, roads, villages and farm land. Furthermore, in Europe and America we arc urged to set aside land because we are producing too much. In 1975, Mr. Henry Kissinger presented a 250-page document to the then US President, Gerald Ford. It warned that uncurbed population growth in less-developed countries could adversely affect US commercial interests. It stated that more people in poorer countries would mean an increase in demand and a subsequent call for greater economic control. The United States of America had to promote population control in order to safeguard its own interests.

275
I am a great fan of the United States of America. It is interesting to note that the presidents who most strongly opposed recommendations of the national security study memorandum were both Republican—Ronald Reagan and George Bush. Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush banned funding to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and the International Planned Parenthood Federation because of the abortion policies of both those groups.
Finally, I return to my ten-minute Bill because I recognise that the whole House condemns coercive practices. I note that the Government are also concerned, as was demonstrated more than a year ago when the ODA promised action. I am most grateful for that, but we must go further. The House should be prepared to take a stand against the funding of oppression by calling upon the IPPF, the UNFPA and the ODA to withdraw from the Chinese population control programme.
My Bill proposed, in order to avoid inadvertently supporting those programmes or withdrawing funds for legitimate purposes, that we attach clear and unambiguous conditions to all future contributions and exact full accountability. At the same time, we should make it clear that any support for the practices in China that I have described from the spokesmen of any of those organisations would result in the withdrawal of future funding altogether.
11.10 am
Mr. George Foulkes: I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) on securing a debate on a subject of great concern to the developing world and one which creates great passion among hon. Members on both sides of the argument, as we have seen today. I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the subject—and pay tribute to it—from his chairmanship of the all-party group on population development and reproductive health, of which I am also a member.
The Minister and I participated in the first Wednesday morning debate on Pergau, which was a fiery affair. This morning, the two Front Benches are in somewhat greater agreement.
The growth in human numbers that lies ahead is the fastest in history—a growth in population widely recognised as resulting in serious economic, environmental and political problems in the developing countries and posing real problems for the developed world. As hon. Members have said, that was recognised at Cairo.
The balance of the world population over the next decade will switch dramatically. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) rightly said, free access to all forms of family planning means that population growth in developed countries has slowed to less than 0.6 per cent. In Europe, it is less than half that. Within 10 years, populations in most European countries will probably start to decline.
In contrast, the population in the developing world will increase dramatically. Some 94 per cent. of the increase over the next decade will be in the developing world and the prospects for some countries are daunting. As hon. Members have said, we are not discussing only China. According to World bank demographers, the population of Nigeria will rise from 100 million at present to an eventual 382 million before stabilising towards the year
276
2100. The population in Tanzania is predicted to increase five-fold from about 25 million at present to 116 million. It is a major, daunting prospect.
The Government have already been told on many occasions—I took the opportunity to do so again on Monday—that more than 1 billion people in the developing world now live in abject poverty. It is to that end that measures have been sought and many groups throughout the world are seeking, through respected and organised programmes of family planning, to reduce the number of people suffering from poverty.
Family planning, reproductive health and female education are some of the best aid investments available. That was recognised in Cairo, where a programme of action was agreed to improve access to quality reproductive health care, child health care and educational opportunities and to help reduce child and maternal mortality.
The Labour party supports the range of measures agreed at the conference. We recognise the continuing priority that the Government have given to the problems of population growth, notably in their programme
"Children by Choice and not by Chance".
We stress again that it must be considered in the light of an ever-decreasing aid budget and that action should be taken to maintain and continue that support.
It was agreed at Cairo that the implementation of the agreed programme of action
"is the sovereign right of each group consistent with national laws and development priorities with full respect for the various religious and ethical values and cultural backgrounds of its people, and in conformity with universally recognised human rights."
We are aware of the key concerns of some Catholic and Muslim countries expressed at the conference. However, the overwhelming majority of countries support the programme agreed in Cairo.
Criticisms of certain countries' human rights records and their approach to family planning is legitimate. The exposé of methods prevalent in China by the recent Channel 4 documentary was welcome. Abuse has been documented in other countries, but the removal of UN agencies and non-governmental organisations working within those countries would serve only to isolate them from world opinion and would not in any way help to solve the problems.
Since 1979, the Chinese state has recognised the problem. China has one fifth of the world's population and only 10 per cent. of its arable land. However, it has over-aggressively used birth targets to curb its population growth. People in cities are limited to one child and those in the country to two. The Opposition state quite clearly that the methods highlighted by the media are unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.
I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on one point. It is a tragic irony that the conference on women is to be held in Beijing. There have been calls from hon. Members on both sides of the House for that to be reconsidered.
Any implication that people working in those countries condone or help to facilitate any such programme is completely false. Some people are using allegations of coercion in China's population programme to justify calls on the British Government to withdraw their funding from the UN Population Fund and the International Planned Parenthood Federation. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie called it a hidden agenda; it is a different agenda, and that should be made absolutely clear.

277
The Opposition support the contributions to the UN population fund and to the IPPF. Both those organisations publicly affirmed their opposition to any coercive methods adopted by the countries in which they operate, with the Chinese family planning association, like all IPPF member associations subscribing to the principles agreed at Cairo.
In practice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie rightly said, the right of access to effective means of family planning is often denied. An estimated 350 million couples world wide do not have ready access to family planning. UNICEF figures show that the unmet need of women for family planning is nearly half in sub-Saharan Africa.
Reducing the population growth of the developing world should not be seen in isolation. There is no intrinsic benefit in a reduction of the world's population; the primary concern is the alleviation of the appalling, grinding poverty which currently exists, and to that end the consumption of scarce resources has been looked at in terms of population. It should not detract, however, from the duty of the industrialised world to the developing countries and it is incumbent on any population programme to form a wider strategy aimed at tackling poverty.
The rights to family planning and health education are basic human rights. The attitude of certain states and the use of coercive methods cannot be tolerated. The British Government should stress that fact to countries where infringements of human rights take place and I hope that the Minister will repeat it today. I hope that the Minister will also assure us that in the forthcoming UN world conference on women the Government will press for the cessation of such practices, which are clearly intolerable. Equally intolerable, however, is the suggestion from some quarters that such practices should be used as an excuse for withdrawing funding from the vital programmes carried out by non-governmental organisations and by the IPPF. We oppose such suggestions and, for once, we agree with what I hope the Government are about to say.
11.19 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): This has been an extremely helpful debate. Contributions from hon. Members on both sides have illustrated the sensitivity of the issues. I know that several hon. Members who wished to contribute, including my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight), have been unable to do so due to lack of time.
I have listened carefully to all the speeches. Those of us who take an interest in population and development policies are deeply concerned about reports of human rights abuses linked with family planning. Human rights are indivisible and sacred, and it is quite proper that wherever we discover abuses of human rights we should protest about them. We shall, of course, thoroughly investigate recent media reports which have understandably created considerable concern in this country about China's population policies. We shall carefully examine links between the Chinese population programme and UNFPA and the IPPF—
Mr. Alton rose—
Mr. Baldry: I have very little time in which to reply, and I hope to answer the hon. Gentleman's points in due course.
278
We shall of course protest whenever we see abuses of human rights. Coercion of people in any regard is unacceptable; coercion to use particular types of contraception, or to be sterilised, or to undergo induced abortion is never and never can be acceptable.
Last September I led the United Kingdom delegation to the international conference on population and development in Cairo. Many people regard that conference as one of the achievements of the United Nations and its member states. In Cairo, we agreed on policies which take as their starting point the need to increase choices for women and men. At the conference, the international community explicitly rejected any idea of coercive population control programmes.
The Cairo programme of action introduced new and more positive concepts—most importantly, reproductive health, which embraces health associated with sexuality, conception and child bearing. The underlying principle is that we should seek to respond to people's needs. We believe that men and women have the right to enjoy good reproductive health, not just access to family planning services.
The conference stated:
"Reproductive health care programmes should provide the widest range of services without any form of coercion. All couples and individuals have the basic right to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children and to have the information, education and means to do so."
No one in the House could possibly disagree with those principles.
Since Cairo we have continued, as part of the overseas development programme, to help developing countries as well as those in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to move towards reproductive health care for all; and many countries in the United Nations are deeply committed to delivering on the promises that were made at Cairo.
Despite all this, there are those who argue—we heard their concerns mentioned today—that the UNFPA, the IPPF, and the British Government, in some way support population control. I want to make it clear again: we wholly and forcefully reject the concept of population control. We believe that individuals should be given good opportunities, information and health care, and the opportunity to have children by choice, not by chance.
The reproductive health programmes that we support are fully consistent with the principles agreed at Cairo. They aim to enable women and men to choose when to have children and to enjoy better reproductive health. We want to enable more women to go through pregnancy and child birth safely, and to prevent and treat sexually transmitted infections. We also want to enable more people to have access to family planning information and services.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lail.) reminded us, this is a worldwide debate about men and women's rights and their entitlement to better reproductive health. We believe that all people have a right to these services; they should not be denied them simply because they are poor. Of course, reproductive health for all remains a formidable challenge. That is why, through the aid programme, we continue to help countries to find new ways of responding to the unmet need—ways that make the best use of scarce resources. When we believe that they can make the best use of our funds, we channel some of our aid through the IPPF and the UNFPA.

279
Anxieties have rightly been raised today about China's population policies. Neither we nor anyone else in the House would endorse China's one child per family policy, but that is not the issue. We do not sponsor family planning programmes in China, and we never have. As part of our multilateral assistance, we contribute to the general funds of the UNFPA and the IPPF, which carry out work throughout the world. We believe that both organisations have helped the Chinese to understand better how their population policies are viewed by other countries and how approaches based on voluntary choice could be introduced, in line with the principles agreed at Cairo.
We have no evidence that the UNFPA or the IPPF is siding with or abetting officials in the denial of reproductive rights in China. If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) or any other hon. Member has any such evidence, I hope that they will forward it to me. I will consider it in great detail and with great care.
We consider that those respected international organisations are best placed to make judgments about the nature of their assistance to China, and we see no need to place restrictions on the use of our funds or to reduce the size of our overall contribution. If we withdrew all our support from the UNFPA and the IPPF, we would remove one of the few channels through which we can seek to influence China's population policies.
The UNFPA's spend in China is around 1 per cent. of total Chinese Government spending on population activity, so its withdrawal would not hurt the Chinese financially. Indeed, I doubt whether it would affect them at all. We believe that these organisations can be an influence for good, as demonstrated by the UNFPA's support in China, which has helped with the production of safer contraceptives. Earlier Chinese-designed and manufactured contraceptives were harming women. The
280
UNFPA's support has also improved mother and child health for vulnerable groups in some of the poorest and most remote regions of the country.
Wherever it works, UNFPA's status as a neutral international voice can be as important as its actual programmes. Both the UNFPA and the IPPF continue to act as advocates of reproductive rights. I very much doubt whether any other organisations in the world can match the record, credibility and impact of those two organisations on population and development policies—seeking to ensure that men and women have choices and enjoy decent reproductive health. Having listened carefully to arguments that we should stop funding the two bodies, I would pose several questions in response.
Would a cessation of donor funding bring about the changes that its proponents claim to want? If we stopped funding those bodies, would it have any effect on the Chinese Government? I doubt it. What of the millions of poor women and men who as a result would be denied access to reproductive health services and who would lose this important means of controlling their own lives? The House must ask itself how many additional abortions and unsafe births would result; how many more women would be maimed or killed and how many people would be infected with a sexually transmitted infection or the HIV virus because they were unable to obtain condoms.
We are talking about the lives of real people. There is broad consensus in the House today that coercion is totally unacceptable, that human rights should be protected, that people should have the opportunity to have children by choice, not chance, and that wherever possible the Government should support responsible organisations which promote responsible reproductive health programmes. Where there are concerns about human rights abuses, we should use our influence—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We now move on to the next topic.

Bradford (Community Relations)
11.30 am
Mr. Max Madden: I am pleased to have this opportunity to introduce a debate on community relations in Bradford, but am very sad at the circumstances that led me to make the application for the debate.
I invited all the hon. Members who represent Bradford to participate and am pleased to see in their places my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), and a number of other hon. Members. I am grateful for their attendance and their interest.
The events of 9, 10 and 11 June were, undoubtedly, tragic for the local community, the whole of our city and for the reputation of our district, nationally and internationally. The events of that weekend caused severe damage to race relations, to relations between communities, and between the public and the police. In Bradford, we all share some responsibility for those tragic events and for trying to find a way ahead. The vast majority of Bradfordians—Asian and non-Asian—condemn without reservation the violence and criminal damage that occurred.
The vast majority of Bradfordians do not excuse or condone riots, the throwing of petrol bombs, the looting of shops or the torching of cars. Nor do they excuse or condone the targeting of such violence or criminal damage against cars driven by white people, or against cars or businesses owned by white people. Such attacks are as racist as attacks by white people on Asian people or on Asian homes or mosques, temples, gudwaras or synagogues. Those who oppose and condemn racism cannot he selective or one-sided in their condemnation. All racism is to be condemned, from whatever source it is perpetrated.
Over that tragic weekend, according to the chief constable of West Yorkshire, Mr. Keith Hellawell, to whom I pay tribute for his responsible approach and response to the tragic events that we witnessed that weekend, there were some 115 recorded crimes. There were eight arson attacks—one costing more than £140,000 and another costing more than £500,000. The catalogue of violence and criminal damage is daunting. Some 30 cars and 50 buildings were damaged; six business premises were burgled; five cars were burnt out; there were two reports of assault and wounding; there were four reports of robbery; two cars were stolen; three homes were damaged; and one flat was burgled.
In one incident, according to Mr. Hellawell, a couple driving through the area were surrounded by up to 100 youths who smashed every window in their car before the woman was hit with a house brick. On the first night of violence, 9 June, 12 people were arrested and two officers were injured. The following night, violence erupted when up to 100 youths surrounded Toller Lane police station, and there were further clashes in other parts of the city. Eleven people were arrested and four officers were injured.
Six more people were arrested on the Sunday, and on the Monday, with police hack in normal uniforms, there were five arrests. Mr. Hellawell added:
"Events such as these reflect no credit on us as a community or as a society and I am disturbed by the amount of confrontation there has been rather than conciliation."
282
Over that weekend, I met an enormous number of teenagers—some as young as 13 and 14. It is very depressing when one finds young people of that age who are more cynical than oneself. It is deeply worrying and disturbing when one finds that such young people are angry, alienated and frustrated, and who claim, "No one listens to us," "No one cares about us," and "No one helps us." Those were the grievances that were put to me forcefully by scores of youngsters over that weekend. I must add that they had not in any way participated in the violence or the criminal damage that had been undertaken.
I also urge the House and others to understand that there is nothing unique or unusual about the city of Bradford. Of course, like so many other inner cities and urban areas, we endure high-level unemployment, and have done for years; there is extremely poor housing, little open space and few community facilities. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South will comment more fully on the financial problems that we have faced year on year for decades and the difficulties that we face when the council has to make deep cuts year on year, as it has done again this year, totalling some £18 million.
The same picture can be found in many other urban and inner-city areas. Bradford featured very unhappily in the drama series, "Band of Gold". I watched all of that series. I admired its professionalism and force, but we must all question the criteria that allows such a powerful drama to be filmed and focused on a city. I cannot understand why that drama—I do not in any way oppose its showing, as it was an extremely powerful programme—was presented as everyday life in Bradford.
The consequences were predictable. A large number of people were encouraged to flood into Bradford—some to look at Manningham as a red light district, which had been portrayed so dramatically, and others to participate in prostitution, which has gone on in that area for generations. It is not a recent phenomenon. Clearly, the impact of that series and the enormous number of people who came into the area, including kerb crawlers from all over Britain—some as far away even as continental Europe!—caused considerable resentment among the local community. There has been resentment for decades, but, clearly, the drama caused a heightening of that tension and friction. We have to question the guidelines and the acceptability of such a drama series being focused on particular areas when they are dealing with important social issues.
Again, the consequences were predictable. Over recent months people in the local community who are sick and tired of the nuisance that is caused by prostitution have been forming vigilante groups. They came out on to the streets. Their message was clear: that if the police were unable to reduce the nuisance caused by prostitution, they as members of the local community would undertake the task themselves. That caused friction and tension in sections of the local community and within the police.
Prostitution is undoubtedly a considerable nuisance. Kerb crawlers accost and assault non-prostitute women of every racial origin, colour and background. That presents a real social problem. It is to be found in Bradford and in other areas throughout the country. I urge the Minister and the Home Office seriously to consider that and other issues. It is time for the law on prostitution to be examined and ways found to reduce the nuisance that is caused to many local communities. The matter is not being aired in

283
the House for the first time. I have attended and participated in previous debates on prostitution. It is an issue of mounting concern in many constituencies and it must be given serious consideration by the Government.
I pay tribute to the extremely responsible coverage of the local and regional media, including the newspaper and broadcasting media within the Bradford 'area and region. The Telegraph and Argus allowed access to its pages by many different people. Some extremely interesting articles have been written since the tragic events to which I have drawn attention. Katrina Dick of the Telegraph and Argus interviewed the assistant chief constable of west Yorkshire, Mr. Norman Bettison, who played a key part in all the events of 9 to 11 June. He said:
"There are lots of things that are a matter of frustration for the community there including education, employment, and inter-racial tensions. The police are trying to find their way through that. It would be easy to say the racist police caused the disturbances but there were tensions there anyway that we have to deal with. Loose comments in the press aiming barbs at the police become received wisdom."
The article continues:
"He feared the police could be stereotyped as racist because of one incident which would be wrong. 'The search for a cause and effect relationship of what happened is too simplistic. There was obviously more to it. It's too simple to point to the arrest of two people and blame the disorder on that. The disaffection of youth generates the sort of scenes we've also seen on the streets of Northumberland and Oxford. We all have to try to find an answer, and the police are only partly responsible. We are one of the few agencies in these areas working hard to maintain control and we get caught in the crossfire when the fuse blows.'"
Lucy Ward interviewed a group of Asian girls. These were local young women ranging in age between 16 and 18 years. Rashming Ullah said:
"A lot of Asian youths feel like second-class citizens, missing out on good jobs, good education."
Nageena Altaf said:
"It is horrible and sad to see them go to such extremes. It just shows how resentful they felt."
Razia Saman said:
"Asian boys have a lot of hatred for the police, who were warned beforehand it could get as extreme as it did."
Rehana Khaliq said:
"I think half of the men were there just for the buzz of it, just because the rest were involved."
Kulbinder Kaur Ram said:
"More Asians in the police and talks at school on police careers would be a positive move."
Alam Khan of the Telegraph and Argus interviewed a group of young Asian men ranging in age from early to mid twenties. One of them, Arif Khan, said:
"For some people the rioting was the only way they could be heard. They were frustrated at being pushed back all the time."
Amjad Arshad said:
"There are lots of talented young Asian sportsmen but they are not being encouraged and accepted."
Aziz Rehman said:
"We have got many ideas on how to make Manningham a better place, but nobody listens to us."
I welcome the inquiry that is to be supervised by John Cartwright, the deputy chairman of the Police Complaints Authority. We all remember him as a most respected former Member. I trust that his report will be thorough and will he issued as soon as possible. In my view, the inquiry must deal with 10 questions.
284
What happened when two trained police officers responded to a complaint about teenagers playing football in the street on the night of Friday 9 June? Why did the police take so long to give police bail to those arrested on the Friday night and charged with minor public order offences? We note that the chief constable of west Yorkshire has said that a decision on whether the charges are to be withdrawn will be taken by this Friday. We would all be grateful if the Minister could say whether that decision has yet been taken.
We need to ask whether it is in the best interests of the public or the police for police officers in riot gear, or defensive uniform as I understand the police prefer to call it, not to show clearly their police numbers? It is surely important, especially when allegations are being made, that police numbers are clearly visible and identifiable. We need to ask also whether the training that is given to police officers in West Yorkshire for dealing with complaints over football being played in the street, and in broader terms in policing a multiracial and multifaith community, is adequate.
How successful has the West Yorkshire police been in recruiting ethnic minority community officers, both men and women? How successful has it been in recruiting men and women as special constables? We need to ask whether the community relations budget of the West Yorkshire police is to be cut, and whether community relations officers who leave the force, either for retirement or other reasons, are to be replaced.
We need to ask also if the organisation of the police in Manningham is in need of urgent review. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) will be dealing with that matter when he speaks. Do the police community forums, which have operated in the area for a considerable time, need to become more representative? We need to ask how they can relate more effectively to local communities. We need the inquiry—I have referred to this before—to take up the real social problems that are caused by prostitution and to recommend whether further consideration should be given to the current law on prostitution.
Lastly, we need to ask about the brief given to the architect for the building of the expensive new police station in the Toiler division. If the brief was to build a fortress or castle to give out the wrong signals—to suggest that there is an army that is sent out from behind high walls to quell local trouble—the architect succeeded. The police station, by its design, gives out entirely the wrong signals to the local community.
There can be no excuse in a democracy for any citizen to resort to violence to be heard. In a mature and confident democracy, leaders should respond sensibly to charges that sections of any community do not feel part of that democracy.
I am extremely disappointed that on Monday the Home Secretary refused a request from an all-party group of Bradford Members of Parliament for an independent public inquiry to be established. I regret that he did not have the confidence or the vision to agree to a short, sharp inquiry to find out why the Bradford tragedy occurred and what needs to be done by all of us to try to prevent similar tragedies from happening either in Bradford or anywhere else in our country.
The Home Secretary told me that there were no precedents for the sort of inquiry that I was suggesting. Perhaps that is the most compelling argument for a

285
suitable mechanism and format to be devised. I hope even now that he will reconsider our request for an independent public inquiry. Such an inquiry could be a forum for the whole community to voice their hopes and fears, their ideas and their grievances. It would be a- vital part of the healing process. It could make recommendations for action by central and local government and a whole range of local public agencies.
As it is, there are now calls for a local, community-led inquiry. If such an inquiry is to succeed, it must enjoy the total confidence of the whole community. It must be led by people who are widely respected by that community and, not least, it must be properly funded so that it can be professionally administered and conducted.
Whatever happens in relation to that matter, the Minister and the Government cannot shirk the charge that, in Bradford and elsewhere, there is a burgeoning sub-culture of people of all ages, all colours, all nationalities, all religions and no religion who feel angry, powerless and exploited, in all cases excluded and in some cases even unwelcome aliens. That alienation is reinforced by immigration laws that separate families and that even make visits from relatives and friends of people who have lived in this country for 20 and 30 years difficult. That is deeply resented.
I urge the Minister, the Home Secretary and the Government to think carefully before they embark on further legislation dealing with immigration or asylum. We all know of media speculation that such a Bill is likely to be introduced in the new Session. I counsel caution on the Government before they adopt such a course as we know that the most unlikely spark can erupt into serious violence and public disorder. In Bradford it was complaints about teenagers playing football in a side street; that was the spark that led to the catalogue of violence and criminal damage to which I have referred.
How to include and embrace all our citizens with clear rights and clear responsibilities is the greatest political challenge facing all political parties not only in this country, but throughout the world. That is the biggest political challenge facing all of us into the next century.
I end with some perceptive words that were written in The Guardian on 17 June by Tariq Modood, a senior fellow at the Policy Studies Institute in London. He said:
"Manningham is a situation that Lord Scarman warned against. An expanding and underqualified youth population, a declining labour market, racial discrimination and harassment, drug dealing, conflict with the police. With one important difference. On one side, racism and cultural contempt is mixed with Islamophobia; on the other side, an assertiveness, paralleling forms of black pride, that might be called 'Muslim pride'. An assertiveness that may at times owe as little to religion as political blackness does to the idea of Africa. 'Muslim' solidarity is often criticised, if not in straightforwardly Islamophobic terms, as divisive. But all forms of solidarity involve an 'us' and 'them'. What divides is hardly to be welcomed, but denigrated and powerless groups need to find a focus of pride and political cohesion."
Those words are particularly profound and extremely relevant to the tragic events that took place in our city a few days ago. I hope that they will be addressed seriously and urgently by the Government. I sincerely believe that an independent public inquiry, lasting not two years, but six to nine months, could do an extremely good service to all of us. The voices need to be heard, not only in this place, but throughout our country. I hope that, having
286
heard the voices that will be aired here today, the Government will respond sensibly and sensitively to the voices that need to and must be heard.
11.55 am
Mr. Gary Waller: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has secured this debate, which is extremely timely. I agreed with a great deal of what he said. Tribute should be paid to him for the way in which he helped to calm the position in the past fortnight. It is to his credit that he has not exerted too proprietorial an approach to those who have taken an interest in what has happened in the Manningham area. All hon. Members representing the Bradford district have a vital stake in the city.
There is an overwhelming need to look forward and to seek to find how can we can make Bradford a better place. If there is a need to consider the events of the past few days, we should look back to learn lessons for the future. There is a great danger that people who consider what has been happening in Bradford after watching their televisions or reading their newspapers may find that their prejudices and stereotypes are reinforced. It is important to remember that nothing like this has happened in Bradford before. Nothing like it happened when the National Front was driven out of the Lumb lane area in the late 1970s, at the time of the Honeyford affair or when people saw the vivid images on television and in the press of the burning of "The Satanic Verses" at the beginning of the decade.
It is a complex position. One of those who has analysed it well is Philip Lewis, adviser to the Bishop of Bradford on inter-faith issues. A warning should be given to those who want to make absolutist statements about the reasons for what happened in Bradford: the position is complicated and there were many reasons for what occurred. That will help us in the way that we look forward to the future.
What happened? Why did it happen? What do we do in the immediate aftermath? Above all, how do we ensure that these events do not recur? I am pleased that the Police Complaints Authority is to conduct an urgent inquiry and no one should prejudge its conclusions. I have confidence in John Cartwright, who will preside over it, and I look forward to a speedy and authoritative report.
I have my doubts, and have always had doubts, about a statutory public inquiry, although I have listened carefully to those who have argued for it. There is a real danger that a public inquiry, inevitably lasting for many months, would expose the bad things about Bradford to national and international coverage and that more harm than good could result.
There is also a danger that the establishment of such an inquiry could convey the wrong messages—the message, for instance, that the way in which to attract attention to an area's problems is to start a riot. Not only would a dangerous message be conveyed to other ethnic-minority communities, but there would be the danger of a backlash, especially in other deprived areas where there has hitherto been no intention to riot but where the problems may be every bit as great as those in Manningham.
Bradford is, of course, a very different community from Brixton, which featured in the Scarman inquiry, and that should be taken into account in any analysis. I hope that such an analysis will be carried out, and that a forum will be established in Bradford to enable people to discuss the problems and their possible solutions.

287
As the hon. Member for Bradford, West explained, the catalyst that sparked the riot was—as in so many cases—what most would consider a relatively petty event. Like the hon. Gentleman, I hope that everyone will concur with the view expressed by Ruth Billheimer, chair of West Yorkshire police complaints committee and a local councillor, who said that
"any unacceptable behaviour by the police does not excuse the violence that took place … There is no excuse for any section of the community to take the law into their own hands."
That view was echoed by Norman Bettison, the assistant chief constable, who said that
"no incident can be a justification for the petrol bombing, wanton damage, looting and robbery which took place throughout Bradford."
The chief constable, for whom I have the same regard as the hon. Member for Bradford, West, said that the speed with which the riot broke out was surprising. From what I have been able to ascertain, there can be little doubt that the events of the Saturday night involved agitators from outside, who tried to encourage others to go on a wrecking spree; at the end of the day, however, we must condemn violence against people and property.
When I told someone who is closely involved with race relations in the area that I was not very happy with the statement that had been made, he said that the lack of condemnation of the riots must be seen as a compromise. We cannot compromise when it comes to petrol bombs and bricks thrown through car windows; if we did, there would be complaints about dual standards.
This was not a race riot in the strict sense, but the fact remains that hundreds of thousands of pounds of damage was done to businesses—mainly white businesses—along the route into the centre of Bradford. If the situation had been reversed, everyone—including the Commission for Racial Equality—would have condemned it utterly. The overwhelming majority of Asians also condemn such action; a tiny minority was responsible, including people whose attitudes are just as racist as those of members of the British National party. If we are two-faced, the latter could be the beneficiaries. If we do not express unequivocal condemnation, those with an interest in an outbreak of greater disharmony will benefit; but condemnation is not enough.
The national media, in particular, have focused on the possible link between the violence and the recent vigilante action in Lumb lane. Some of those involved in the vigilante action may have been present during the riot, but I do not think that it was a major factor.
The number of complaints about police officers in the Toiler lane division is the lowest in the force. I understand that there have been 13 this year, none with racial overtones. I believe that the police are doing a great deal of hard work to rebuild links with the community; there are many bridges to be rebuilt after the events of the weekend before last.
According to West Yorkshire Police Federation secretary, Richard Critchley, the
"underlying problems are not policing problems".
I consider his analysis too simplistic. The police are human beings, subject to the faults and weaknesses that affect other human beings, and I know from constituency experience that in some instances they have acted insensitively. They must aim for the highest standards. Overall, however, the police in the Bradford area and west Yorkshire generally—and, indeed, throughout the
288
country—compare favourably with any force in the world in the way in which they deal with the public, including minorities. We should also bear in mind that, like people in other areas, many Asians want more community officers on the beat. How many times have we heard people express that wish?
We should not underestimate the valuable influence of those who, in the immediate aftermath of the violence, played their part in successfully appealing to the public to remain calm and peaceful: we owe them a great debt. That approach united the majority among all races, male and female, old and young. Several people played a particularly valuable role in ensuring that the situation was brought under control. I pay tribute to the Bishop of Bradford, who spoke to young people on Sunday and played an enormously valuable part in bringing people together, not only in the immediate aftermath but in subsequently talking to people and trying to understand. His combination of good humour, pragmatism and firmness when it is needed has been extremely valuable.
On Monday 12 June, just after the events that have been described, the Daily Express published the headline "City Waiting to Explode". I do not think that that was necessarily right; it seemed to suggest that the problems had been caused by basic faults in the people of Bradford or the system there, and that they could easily become considerably worse in the future. Many people say that it will take as long as 20 years to repair the damage that has been done to the community; that, too, need not necessarily be true, but much depends on the way in which we all act now.
Young people in the Manningham area have problems that we must understand, but they too must understand that white people—and, indeed, Asians in other areas—have much in common with them. They should not think that their problems are unique. The problem of having nowhere to go and nothing to do affects many people, not only in Manningham but in Keighley and even Ilkley, which may surprise some. Young people in those areas also want to be listened to, and to receive a positive response.
It has been suggested that part of the problem has been caused by differences between the generations in the Asian community. The issue is sensitive; perhaps it would be more correct to say that many of those young people have values that are similar to those of their parents but their attitudes are different, in that they are more likely to act defiantly to defend those values. They are members of a generation largely born in this country, and they are not prepared to put up with the setbacks that their parents, as immigrants, may have been prepared to endure. As Bradfordians, they often feel that they are being ignored.
Those whose interest is not in harmony have much to gain. We have seen the growth of gangs in the area. It has been easy to play on the fears of those who feel that they are dealing with a society that is hostile to them. There are groups who want to play on the divisions to suit their own agendas. As I have suggested, if a right-wing backlash were provoked, it would benefit only the cause of such groups and reinforce the arguments that they have used in the past.
As the hon. Member for Bradford, West said in quoting a young person from the area, very few of the people are naturally violent but many more perhaps get a buzz from being involved. There is no doubt that many people on the periphery joined in because they were bored. That was perhaps more a factor than anything to do with religion.

289
There are problems to deal with. It is going to be harder to attract businesses into the area. Among the many important things that we need in the area are more businesses. We need to rebuild the image of Bradford. Restaurants' trade has certainly been drastically affected and that needs to be addressed.
However, there are encouraging aspects. Many young people in the area have a very positive approach. We regret what happened, but some good may emerge. There has been a need to talk about the problems, and the events of the past fortnight may encourage that process.
Another encouraging development has been the spontaneous multi-racial demonstration for peace by women in Manningham. The grievances to which they have drawn attention need to be heard. We need to talk about them.
Our overall message should be that while we must condemn, in this instance we must also understand a little more. We must ensure that young people have a stake in the community in which they live. It is up to us to enable them to feel that way and then we can ensure beyond peradventure that the kind of events that so appalled us during the past fortnight will not recur.
12.11 pm
Mr. Terry Rooney: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on being lucky enough to secure this debate. I have no wish to try further to describe the events of that week, which have been brilliantly portrayed already, but I should like to expand the debate slightly. I also thank the Minister for being present and apologise in advance as I may not be able to stay to the end of his winding-up speech, having already had to delay a long-standing engagement.
The community in Manningham is dominated by Lister's mill, which is well known to Bradfordians and to anyone who has visited the city. It is a magnificent building architecturally and at its peak it employed 7,000 textile workers. Today it has less than 200. That is synonymous with, and representative of, the economic decline of the area.
Over the years, there have been very welcome schemes—including the urban programme, task force, safer cities, housing action areas and housing improvement areas—which at the time were all welcome and very successful in pulling together agencies and partnerships. All, however, were time-limited, and each time schemes have ended a feeling of despair has been left behind, with people wondering how to sustain those developments.
Recently a long-running campaign to try to maintain section 11 funding for Bradford has been partly but not wholly successful, once again leaving the feeling that a community was not being fully recognised or regarded as part of the equation.
For eight years from 1983 I was a councillor for a ward which partly covered Manningham. That was a real privilege and an experience. During that time I formed lifelong friendships with people from the many different communities. The area has a long history of settlement of people from abroad. In the mid-19th century there was large-scale Irish settlement. It is interesting that in the 1860s it took three attempts to build what is now St. Patrick's Catholic church—the first Catholic church in
290
Bradford—because the Protestant-dominated population kept burning it down. They did not want to have their faith so disturbed. Perhaps, in some ways, nothing is new.
In the late 19th century, east European Jewish settlements were established. After the second world war many people came to settle from eastern Europe: Poles, Ukrainians, Estonians and Latvians. There is a long and cosmopolitan history people living and working together, trying to form new communities.
Last week, we had what I thought was a well-mannered and constructive debate on the boundary commission report. One might ask what relevance that has to this debate. Until the 1980 boundary revision, the community of Manningham had been in one constituency and represented on the council as a single ward. Since 1980, the community has covered four electoral wards in two parliamentary constituencies with 12 councillors. That in itself makes representation somewhat difficult.
Manningham is covered by three separate police divisions, which means nine different shifts of police officers per day. That leads to tensions, confusion and disagreements. The three divisions have three excellent community affairs police inspectors. However, one is on the point of early retirement; one, as a cost-saving measure, has had community affairs duties taken away from him; and the other is retiring at the end of the year. As I understand it, by early next year those community affairs inspector posts will have disappeared. Between them, those three people have amassed something like 20 years experience of dealing with the community, being aware of what is going on and gaining the respect and confidence of the community. Especially in the light of recent events, we cannot afford to sacrifice such experience, commitment and ability to communicate.
Institutions, not only in Bradford but throughout Britain, should reflect and represent communities. We should not create artificial divisions that no one needs. There is a need for a rapid healing process. We must reinforce the faith of the majority in the community while not trying to silence the minority who have genuine, valid grievances. We need to hear and respond to them. That is a duty on hon. Members as representatives of the community and on those with responsibility for policy and planning future programmes.
I echo the caveat entered my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West about any further diminution of rights under the immigration laws. Week after week, I am contacted by people whose relatives have been refused visitors' visas to come for weddings and similar family events. They now have no right of appeal, although some of those cases are heartbreaking. That, too, diminishes people's confidence in the their place in British society.
I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will end there. I hope that the Minister will take those points on board.
12.18 pm
Mr. Michael Stephen: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on securing the debate. It would be difficult to find two constituencies more different from each other than his inner city constituency in the north of England and mine, which lies between the south downs and the sea on the south coast. However, ours is a United Kingdom and serious issues which concern him and his constituents also concern me and mine.

291
The events of 16 to 18 June in Bradford have shocked us all. The message must go out from the House loud and clear that all our citizens are expected to obey the law. What we saw in Bradford was a rampage in which opportunities were taken to engage in criminal activity of the most vile and despicable kind. The hon. Member for Bradford, West rightly condemned that. Some people- might suggest, although the hon. Gentleman did not, that poverty is an excuse for such behaviour, but many of the people engaged in that criminal activity were not poor or unemployed, while many of those whose hard-earned property was smashed, destroyed or stolen were among the poorest in the community. Members of Parliament must keep faith with the poorest in our community by making it clear that criminal attacks on them will never be tolerated.
It is suggested that some sections of our society are frustrated. All of us, including Ministers, must listen to all legitimate points of view but there are two sides—at least—to every issue. Those who find themselves on the losing side will, I suspect, always feel dissatisfied and frustrated, but that is no excuse for criminal behaviour. We do not want to live in a society in which those who shout the loudest get what they want while those who go peacefully about their business are ignored.
There are perhaps fewer reasons than ever before for anyone in this country to feel alienated. All adults have the vote. We are not living in the days of the Tolpuddle martyrs or the suffragettes, and almost everyone with a legitimate point of view has access to the media and can communicate their views to millions of fellow citizens. Members of Parliament and councillors are more accessible than ever before, and we are all extremely hard-working representatives of our constituents. That applies as much to Opposition Members as to Conservatives. Many of us start work for our constituents at 7 am and do not stop until midnight. We represent all points of view and I greatly respect those expressed by Opposition Members on behalf of their constituents, although I do not often agree with them. Ministers, too, are more accessible than ever before but they cannot always do what we want, perhaps because there is not enough money available or for some other perfectly valid reason.
We must, of course, manage the economy in such a way that our people have the highest possible standard of living and the greatest opportunity to lead fulfilling lives, but I do not suppose that we shall ever reach the stage when all our people are 100 per cent. satisfied. The relentless advance of technology means that we often have to make painful adjustments in our local economies, and Bradford is no exception.
One thing about young men which must be understood—most of those participating in the criminal activity in Bradford were men—is their need for adventure. They are boisterous and energetic and need some way to release their energy. I felt the same at their age and volunteered to join the Army, in which I served for five years. I got the adventurous spirit out of my system and am now able to enjoy life as a rather sedentary Member of Parliament. Ways must he found for today's young people—especially young men—to get that adventurous spirit out of their systems. They cannot be expected to leave school, go straight into a sedate nine-to-five job and behave themselves all the time.
Another problem that we witnessed in Bradford was the cultural breakdown. For generations, the Asian communities in our country had a strong cultural defence
292
mechanism against criminal and other forms of anti-social behaviour, but I fear that that mechanism is beginning to break down. One of the reasons is television, about which I wish to make a few comments.
On television, young members of the Asian community—indeed, young members of all communities—see western culture of the worst possible kind. They see sexual irresponsibility, disrespect for parents and all forms of authority, violence and bad language. Expectations are raised by television to such a degree that no Government have any possibility of living up to them. As Members of Parliament, we have a duty not to raise expectations beyond the level that Governments can reasonably he expected to fulfil. Television is a powerful instrument for moulding ideas and shaping attitudes. In the wrong hands, however—and I fear that it may be in the wrong hands—it could destroy our society.
12.24 pm
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on the excellent way in which he explained to the House the problems in his constituency. Due to the shortage of time, I shall not be able to go into as much detail as I would wish about the problems in Bradford. In any event, we have to hear what the Government have to say and what action they propose. My only sadness about today's debate is that we are discussing a tragic event in the life of a great city.
As has been said, whatever the provocation, there is no and can never be any justification for violence against people or damage to property. During the weekend in question, it was not only property that was damaged but the hearts and minds of Bradford people who were shocked and upset at what happened to our community. Let us make no mistake—Bradford suffered and will continue to suffer until we find solutions to the core problems.
We are witnessing the economics of exclusion. The recent Rowntree report made it clear that, between 1979 and 1992, the poorest 30 per cent. of the country failed to benefit from economic growth. A third of Bradford's population relies on some form of state benefit. I have lived and worked in Bradford all my life, I was educated at Bradford schools, my first job was in the city centre and my partner and I brought up our children there, so it was with genuine pain and sorrow that I became aware of what was happening in Bradford that weekend. There are many conflicting versions of the events that sparked the fury, and I am especially disappointed that the Home Secretary does not agree that an independent inquiry was appropriate. In my view, it would have helped to clear up the myth and the fictions that abound in the area at the moment.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), I was a councillor for 12 years; I also had the privilege to lead the city council. I am proud of Bradford and its achievements, despite the darker moments when the actions of a few minimise the value of the contribution of the majority. There are many tales about the horrific incidents of that weekend but two particular cases were brought home to me strongly. One involved an elderly white woman who had been resident in the area for a long time. Her windows were broken and she was threatened with being forced out of her home. The second involved a young Asian youth who was

293
frightened to go to work the following week because he feared the reaction of his work mates. Racism on either side is not acceptable.
Acts of criminal damage and wanton destruction have to be punished, and it is to the credit of the law-abiding people of Bradford that they want to see those responsible caught by the police. It is also to the credit of Bradford people that they recognise that there are underlying problems which need to be tackled. The police were the focus of all that was apparently wrong: there was a notion that the establishment, or society, was not performing according to the aspirations of the disfranchised.
Disfranchised youngsters have no faith in today's Britain. It offers a vision of materialism and wealth, but the reality for many Bradford youngsters, especially among the Asian community, is one of unemployment and poverty. Sadly, the disfranchised group is not confined to the Asian youth of Manningham but includes the rest of Bradford youth and, indeed, Britain's youth.
To disinterested observers, Bradford's problems relate to the breakdown of relationships between the elders of the Asian community and the young people. The Asian community is described in general terms, but that is far from the truth: the Asian community in Bradford is as complex as any other, with geographical, religious and cultural diversities, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus. It is wrong to generalise and it is important that we do not do so. It is true that there some differences between the generations, but the same is also true of the wider community.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North said, Bradford has a proud tradition of welcoming people from all over the world, mainly due to the fact that it was the woollen capital of the world. We therefore enjoy a diversity of communities and have benefited from that fact.
In 1984, the city council published a document entitled "District Trends" which predicted worrying trends of poverty and unemployment. At the time, we were criticised for scaremongering and talking Bradford down, but those predictions are coming true. The Government have responsibilities to Bradford. They cannot take £40 million from the council's budget, as has happened in the past few years, and expect there to be no effect. Discipline in schools is already a problem, and there are fewer classroom assistants and less resources for special needs. It has to be remembered that many of the people involved were children—still learning at school.
The Government have straitjacketed council expenditure so that 85 per cent. of the council spend is predetermined, making it unable to respond to the many needs of the community. There is frustration when a council spends money in one area but not in another which seems more of a priority. The reason is usually because the council is not able to transfer money from pot to pot. When the Government launched the single regeneration budget, Bradford lost its urban programme: £4 million a year, which was spent across the district, was gone at a stroke.
We have pockets of unemployment of more than 50 per cent. in areas such as Manningham and on our council estates; yet the budget for training and enterprise councils has been cut by £2 million this year. Bradford has lost its assisted area status, which means that private companies have lost the opportunity to make millions of pounds. The health authority, too, has had its budget cut. Such cuts
294
cannot and must not continue. So far this year, the police in west Yorkshire have had to deal with more than 23 murders, compared with 17 last year; yet they have not been given any extra resources or manpower. How can they build the stronger community relations that have been called for when they suffer such restraints?
Resources are not the only answer. There needs to be a cultural change in the attitudes and policies towards the problems of young people, so that they do not turn to the extreme right or left. Attitudes need to change in policies on inner cities and long-term employment. Politicians, both locally and nationally, must make politics relevant and meaningful to the lives of ordinary people from all sectors of the British community.
A catalogue of events in Bradford has contributed to the problems that we face. We need effective local government and we need the community to work together, as it does on many occasions in Bradford. Above all, the Government must recognise that what happened in Bradford could happen everywhere in the country if people do not feel their worth in society. I shall stop at this point, but I hope that the Minister will promise that the Government will take some strong action in areas such as ours in Bradford.
12.31 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall be extremely brief. I am not a Bradfordian, although I have visited the city fairly often in the past few weeks—indeed, just before the events of a fortnight ago. I want to make two points in support of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). I pay tribute to him and his colleagues who speak for the city and the surrounding area.
First, it is not surprising that such events happen, as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) said. This year it was Bradford; in previous years it has been Oxford, Brixton, Toxteth or wherever. Such events are not an indictment of the city, place or people. Groups of young people, especially young men, can turn very quickly from being positive and constructive to being angry and aggressive. It can happen to any group and may be triggered by almost nothing. That situation is not helped when such people feel, whatever their racial background, that their prospects, stake and opportunities are being disregarded by those in authority—not by those in authority locally.
I have been on deputations with the hon. Member for Bradford, West and others to argue for more money for section 11 funding for the city of Bradford. Its youth service funding has been cut by a third in three years, the education budget has been cut, its local authority is not allowed to decide how much it needs to spend, and urban funding in Bradford, as elsewhere, has been cut. Unless the Government understand such things and unless they listen to the voices of the locals, who are the experts, they will continue to face crises in urban Britain. Such crises will occur because urban Britain does not get its share of the cake or the opportunities. When unemployment rises by a third in six years, the chances of success are minimal.
The people of Bradford are doing all that they can. The faith communities, the faith leaders and the women of the city are doing their part; they are doing the work and working together. They want to know that they are being listened to from outside. The young people are saying, if

295
they are saying anything to the Government and the people in power, "Listen to us. We will have a great future if you help us to achieve it." If the Government disregard that future, people are saying that such events might occur—not because they want them to, but because it is built up and brought about by the components of social policy. If the Government listen to young people, young people will give them the answers.
12.33 pm
Dr. Kim Howells: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on his good fortune and determination in securing a debate on this very important subject. Over many years, he has been a great crusader for the cause of racial harmony and a great opponent of those who, no matter from which quarter they come, advocate or practise racial discrimination and harassment.
In his speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West reminded us that the cocktail of grievances and the sets of circumstances which led a fortnight ago to the disturbances in Bradford are by no means unique to that city. There have been previous examples of public disorder in Asian communities, most notably of course in Burnley, Blackburn and Southall. The problems that my hon. Friend described are found all too frequently in many inner-city areas. If there is something especially worrying about the Bradford disturbances, it is the fact that they occurred despite the strong sense of community and the existence of strong community institutions which the Asian population of that city have developed.
It should be remembered, for example, that three of the four local councillors who went to the police on the weekend of the troubles to negotiate a truce—if the House will excuse my shorthand—were Asian. As a number of commentators have pointed out, Bradford's circumstances were somewhat different in that respect from those which Lord Scarman identified as having contributed to the Brixton riots in 1981.
There are similarities in other respects, however, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West has pointed out, they require special attention. Both riots started—it seems—after minor disturbances involving the police. The early course of events involved protests against the police, but then widened to include looting, burning, and so on. The riots were not what used to be called race riots. In the aftermath, both have been the subject of much commentary about their importance, as we have heard today, to feelings of alienation, discrimination and social disadvantage.
Bradford does not have a unique cocktail of circumstances, but the citizens who live in and around Manningham most certainly suffer some acute and specific problems, as we have heard this morning. Laws governing prostitution, for example, must be addressed urgently and properly. There seems little doubt that the relationship between the police and the Asian community was not helped by the friction which seems to have been generated by the activities of certain vigilante groups of Asian males, who took it upon themselves to persuade—by all kinds of means—prostitutes to move way from Lumb lane and the respectable residential areas which are blighted by their presence.
Reports have emerged of expressions of resentment among the west Yorkshire constabulary at the existence and nature of those groups. Other reports indicate that the
296
police are frustrated that they cannot lay their hands on certain Asian pimps involved in controlling the prostitution in and around Lumb lane. The police argue that evidence against the Asian community's rotten apples is very difficult to obtain and that, in such circumstances, a tight community, which feels threatened and under siege, tightens rank still further.
Similar reports have emerged about drug dealing. It is quite clear that the Government have a duty to make known their plans for tackling problems of interpretation and enforcement if any progress is to be made in the efforts to reduce the numbers of opportunities for incidents to occur and for friction to increase. The Police Complaints Authority inquiry may offer a vehicle for pursuing that question, although, as we have heard, my hon. Friends would rather have had an independent inquiry, with a much wider remit than that of the PCA.
Any inquiry which assumes that the causes of the Bradford riots are limited to the lack of training of certain police officers in their relationship with ethnic communities is bound to fail. There is no doubt that greater resources must be made available to ensure that police officers are better trained and better equipped to deal with fractious incidents. But resources should also be made available to allow us to understand how a proper application of the laws governing prostitution and drug dealing might also help to reduce the opportunities for friction.
I do not believe that a local inquiry—however well-intentioned—conducted by the concerned people of Bradford is sufficient to deal with such problems. I hope that the Minister and the Home Secretary will reconsider their decision to refuse a properly resourced and independent inquiry.
There is no doubt that all respectable elements in Bradford have understood the seriousness of the events that occurred a fortnight ago. We have heard about the welcome efforts made on all sides—by the police and the Asian community as well as by the local authorities—to construct out of those events an atmosphere of trust and reconciliation. I am sure that everyone here wishes them all well in their endeavours, for there can be no excuse for violence and criminal damage such as that witnessed on the streets of Bradford two weeks ago.
My hon. Friends and other hon. Members have condemned that violence and the mentality that perpetrated it. There is no doubt in my mind that the sense of cynicism, alienation and frustration so vividly described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West will increasingly threaten race relations in this country. My hon. Friend described the dangers of applying any simplistic analysis to that difficult and complicated problem, but begin to analyse them we must, if we are to protect and improve what I believe are the best race relations of any European Union country.
In some quarters that assertion might be regarded as controversial, but I will say it again: race relations in this country generally are among the best in Europe. We must build on that record, and we must not endanger it in any way. That means that the specific issues and problems, including the policing problems highlighted by my hon. Friends, must be investigated and tackled. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West suggested that a mechanism should be constructed whereby we could quickly set up a short, sharp public inquiry capable of

297
examining those specific questions and, more importantly, capable of making recommendations that would help in the immediate healing process.
I shall deal briefly with one of the specific problems that has been much commented upon over the past two weeks—the alleged relationship between high unemployment and the incident in question and others like it in ethnic minority communities. I do not believe that there is a mechanistic or automatic link between high unemployment and a propensity to riot or to commit lawless acts. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have represented a mining community for many years—like mine, it is now an ex-mining community—and if there was a mechanistic or automatic link between high unemployment and a propensity to riot, the coalfield and dockyard communities would have been ablaze throughout the 1930s. But they were not.
However, it is foolish to think that the cynicism, alienation and frustration that we have heard about is entirely detached from the experience of high unemployment. Unemployment represents an important variable. Whether our constituencies contain ethnic minorities or not, we all know from our experience within them that there is a link. The police know that, too, and we must deal with it as a fact.
If necessary we must get rid of the sociological hogwash that, often in the name of political correctness, prevented us from talking about the link between high unemployment and lawlessness—that tendency to do all kinds of anti-social things that so dragged down our communities. It is time that we addressed that problem, in the inner cities and elsewhere.
Unemployment is an important variable, perhaps as important as any other. Of all the ethnic minorities in this country the Pakistani and Bangladeshi populations are most vulnerable to high unemployment both cyclical and long term. That problem, like prostitution and drug dealing in the inner cities, must be addressed, perhaps by re-examining the application of single regeneration budgets and the way in which the bids for that scheme are drafted.
We must think seriously about strengthening the institutions of communities such as that in and around Manningham by empowering those communities and ensuring that the ordinary people within them have a voice in shaping their lives. If we do not address those issues all of us, whether we represent inner city constituencies or not, will regret it. Our police forces cannot continue to be, in the words of the assistant chief constable of West Yorkshire,
"the anvil on which these youths"—
Asian youths—
"are beating out their frustrations and anger".
Mob rule and collective bargaining by riot can have no place in a modern democracy. It is our duty to ensure that the mechanisms are in place to convince people that there are alternative means of making their voices heard.
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) for raising the subject of the recent disturbances in Bradford, and to every Member who has contributed to the debate.
298
Obviously it is essential to hear the concerns expressed by the Members who represent that great city, and I assure them that we take what they say very seriously indeed. I also thank the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) for the way in which he spoke. I cannot agree with every word that he said, but some of it seemed like remarkably new material from the Opposition, if I may say so—constructive, socially responsible and right.
As the hon. Member for Pontypridd said, every decent citizen of this country, regardless of background, must have been appalled by the scenes of senseless violence that presented themselves to us. I am sure that the House will agree that, whatever the underlying causes, the fact remains that there can be no excuse for the criminal activity of those who commit acts of violence and confront the police in the way witnessed in Bradford over those three nights from 9 to 11 June.
Those involved in the disturbances may have genuine grievances and concerns that should be properly addressed. Many have been described in the debate. But violence is not the way to deal with them. I am glad that discussions are now taking place between the police and members of the Asian community in Bradford. That is a far more sensible and positive approach.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West listed 10 questions, and I can tell him that many of those are now being considered by the police and other bodies. For example, as part of the reorganisation within West Yorkshire police, emphasis is being placed on sector policing. That means that sector inspectors will take charge of community affairs matters alongside their operational duties. It does not mean that any division's community involvement will be lessened. The community involvement unit will continue its valuable work among the communities that the force serves.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the problems associated with prostitution. Even before the disturbances West Yorkshire police, with the approval of the local community, had agreed to prioritise the reduction of prostitution in residential areas of Bradford. That strategy is now firmly in place, with an increase in the size of the local detachment of the vice squad.
Mention was also made of a possible inquiry by the local community groups, notably the Bradford Congress. The Government will certainly take seriously any report or conclusions produced by such an inquiry. No doubt some of the questions that one would have to consider are being examined already. I say that because I think that the local community is the source of the greatest knowledge of the problems with which we are all concerned.
The police should receive our full support in dealing with public disorder, and no doubt they do. It is the responsibility of chief police officers to decide how to respond, but I have no hesitation in saying that the overall response to what happened in Bradford was justified and professional. I know that the chief constable will do all in his power to prevent any repetition of the incidents, both through constructive dialogue with the community and through a commitment to deal firmly with lawbreaking. I believe that the House should commend the police service for the enormous strides that it has made in recent years in meeting the new challenges presented by our multi-racial society.
We have been working closely with the Association of Chief Police Officers under the quality of service initiative to put into place effective policies and strategies

299
that will meet the legitimate expectations of all sections of our society and, in particular, the needs of ethnic minority communities.
Naturally the community must be consulted so that the police know what local people need and want. Indeed, under section 106 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, police authorities are required to make arrangements for public consultation. In the Toller Lane division of West Yorkshire police, for instance, I understand that police community consultative groups meet regularly. The importance of those groups has been heightened by the events we are discussing today. At the last meeting in May, the discussion included details of the force's policing plans, and the problems posed by prostitutes in the area.
West Yorkshire police, like all police forces, places great emphasis on community involvement. I understand that in the Toller Lane division, the community liaison unit is extensively concerned with local projects, working with young people and local schools. It is involved with the Manningham drugs forum—which has been mentioned in the debate—and recently participated in a youth forum run by the Boys' Brigade to consult local people. These are small local initiatives that are terribly important to the community.
The Police Complaints Authority is currently supervising the investigation of a number of complaints made about police conduct arising from the events in Bradford. The investigation is to be carried out by a chief superintendent, whose appointment has been approved. He will keep a close eye on some of the matters which have been raised in the debate.
As the hon. Member for Pontypridd said, the Police Complaints Authority can look into wider issues surrounding complaints against the police, which might include training, bailing policy or force policy. The PCA is independent of the police, and its job is to see that allegations of misconduct are thoroughly investigated and impartially considered. If the investigation now under way uncovers evidence of police misconduct, the Police Complaints Authority has the power to recommend, and ultimately to direct, that disciplinary charges are brought against the officers involved. Any evidence which suggests that a criminal offence has been committed would, of course, be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration.
I understand that about 15 complaints against the police have been recorded so far, and I encourage anyone who considers that they have been treated improperly by the police to come forward and make use of the formal complaints procedure. Parliament has laid down an effective procedure for dealing with complaints against the police, and I have every confidence that the Police Complaints Authority will carry out its statutory duty and ensure that there is a thorough and independent investigation of those allegations of police misconduct which have arisen in Bradford.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I met the hon. Member for Bradford, West and others on 19 June to discuss many of the issues affecting community relations in Bradford as a result of the events in Manningham. We were grateful for the helpful, practical and constructive way in which hon. Members approached the discussion. It was a useful exchange of information and opinion.
300
The hon. Member for Bradford, West also discussed with us his wish to see work put in hand to identify the issues that led to the disturbances, and he called for a wide-ranging public inquiry to be set up. The Government are satisfied that the inquiry by the Police Complaints Authority will investigate all the circumstances surrounding the complaints against the police over that weekend. We do not feel that any more detailed and lengthy inquiry is the best way to look at the root causes.
Many of the concerns of the community are already matters of public knowledge and are the subject of consultation and action, both locally and nationally. In fact, one of the community relations consultants from the Home Office spent many hours over that weekend talking to the police and members of the community to assess for Ministers what had led to the disturbances and how they might be resolved.
Clearly there are matters connected with these issues which lie within the responsibility of central Government and local government, but it is very important that the community in Bradford itself now be given the opportunity to get on with repairing the damage it has suffered. Experience shows that any community needs to be given a clear role and responsibility to help solve its own difficulties.
We cannot expect, nor do we, that all the responsibility lies within the community itself. But unless the people of Bradford feel that they own some part of the solution to their difficulties, the chances of coming to a conclusion which means anything and can be accepted by all is that much more difficult to achieve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said, a public inquiry will not help that process. It would concentrate on the negative aspects—such an inquiry would specialise in apportioning blame—rather than seeking to build on the very positive spirit that exists in Bradford. Despite the disturbances, hon. Members representing the city have referred to that positive spirit. I do not feel it would be productive to delay the process of reconciliation and healing until a report was prepared in a year or more's time.
Mr. Madden: Even at this late stage, I would urge the Minister not to close his mind to the suggestion of an independent public inquiry. Many people in Bradford are puzzled that the Government are prepared to give their blessing to a local public inquiry and have assured us that they will co-operate fully with such an inquiry, yet they are rejecting a wholly independent public inquiry which could be conducted speedily because they believe that it would be negative. How can the Minister reject out of hand an unprecedented inquiry which could be a positive, worthwhile and effective step in the healing process, and yet be prepared to support a local inquiry about which many of us have deep reservations?
Mr. Nicholas Baker: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but—for the reasons which I have elaborated—I believe that a public inquiry would not be the best way to discover the needs, concerns or solutions that the city has.
It is particularly sad to witness such unrest in a city such as Bradford which actually has a long and successful history of celebrating a rich and diverse community, and which takes the best from all of the backgrounds and cultures of its people. The history of Bradford demonstrates a commendable, effective and above all successful approach to the integration of different

301
communities. Hon. Members have mentioned that, despite their sadness, in the debate today. It is not the record of a city suffering from major tensions within and between its communities. It would be a great shame if that record was to be in any way challenged by the actions of a few irresponsible and selfish individuals.
As the hon. Member for Bradford, West will know, the number of groups active in Bradford illustrate the city's record. They are working with local and national agencies to tackle issues affecting the community. Those groups include Manningham Asian Residents Association and the Pakistan community centre, and police groups such as the community consultative group in the Toller Lane division. These groups are all working locally, and the knowledge, concern and information needed to produce solutions will come from them.
Many of those groups have made considerable efforts to canvass the views of young people and to encourage them to participate. For example, the last meeting of the police community consultative group in Toller Lane was deliberately held in a venue which would be likely to attract young people to attend, and the Bradford Council of Mosques has an established youth group. The community in Bradford will no doubt wish to consider how it can build upon this good work, and how best it can provide young people with an appropriate platform for their views. Many of those issues will, no doubt, relate to local ones, for example, the relationship with the police; local authority provision; employment, education and housing. I am sure that West Yorkshire police and Bradford city council will also be looking at ways of addressing those concerns to ensure that the views of the community are properly considered.
Reference has been made to the Government's investment in Bradford, which has been remarkable in three respects, the first being the single regeneration budget—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Vehicle Excise Duty
1 pm
Mr. Peter Butler: I am grateful to the president of the House of Commons Motor Club, otherwise known as Madam Speaker, for permitting me my first Adjournment debate. I should also like to thank others who have raised with me, and supported, the concerns expressed about changes to the rules on vehicle excise duty, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), whom I thank not only because he is a well-known old car enthusiast but because he is the Conservative deputy Chief Whip. I therefore feel that it is tactful to mention him.
I declare a number of non-pecuniary interests as a member of the Vintage Sports Car Club; honorary legal adviser to the Bentley Drivers Club; a member of the 750 Motor Club and as one of two Members of Parliament who is eligible to hold an international race licence. I also declare a rare victory for Conservatives—the winning of something—in the London to Brighton run last year, which is not, of course, technically a race, when I was the guest of the president of the Veteran Car Club in a 1900 Stevens Dogcart. My final interest is that after 34 years of assiduous graft, I have gone from having one Austin Seven, which was given to me on my 10th birthday, to being the proud owner of two Austin Sevens. That says something for the property-owning democracy.
I am grateful for the Minister's presence. He is an honourable man, who has said:
"It is not our intention to penalise the law-abiding motorists."
He has also said:
"We are determined to produce workable proposals that will attract a wide measure of support and will not disadvantage honest motorists."
I am happy to give my hon. Friend the chance today to achieve both those objectives. I know that he is a man who does not miss many chances and I am sure that he will take the one that I am offering. In doing so, I hope that he will reassure the many hundreds of thousands in the country who have been concerned about the proposed changes. I do not exaggerate. I would like to thank first the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs. One of its constituent bodies was put together to fight a previous proposal for tax on possession put forward in 1980 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), but subsequently, on mature reflection, withdrawn. That federation alone has 285 affiliate clubs representing between one quarter and one third of a million members. I mention that because one sits in the Chamber sometimes and hears talk about "widespread concern", which amounts to no more than half a dozen letters.
I thank Lord Montagu, who has done a considerable amount of work with the Minister and others on the proposed changes. I also thank the more temperate of those who have written to me on the subject.
I make it clear that there is no objection to making the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's records better. An accurate V5 confirms the identity and to some degree the history of a vehicle. It also helps to trace vehicles for defect recall, although I accept that that does not apply to many historic vehicles. It identifies the keeper of a recovered stolen vehicle and the current keeper immediately for breaches of the road traffic Acts.

303
Everyone must agree with those excellent objectives. There is nothing but positive support for the improvement of the records.
It follows that of the two proposals, joint notification is not one which would be a problem, except to the extent that, in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the consultation document, a requirement is placed on the disposer of the vehicle to establish the "true identity" of the purchaser. Many might feel that that places an undue and legal obligation on someone disposing of a vehicle to act in some way as a policeman of the honesty of his purchaser. That is impracticable and I have no doubt that in due course the severity of that obligation will be reduced. The very idea of prosecuting someone for having been misled into recording the name of his purchaser incorrectly is abhorrent.
As part of the joint notification and the other proposals in the document, we look forward to the establishment of proper records to show when a vehicle has been scrapped or written off. A proper list of previous keepers should be shown, with the mileage on change of keeper visibly recorded on the document. Those improvements, to which we look forward, are greatly to be welcomed.
The difficulty comes under what is quietly called "continuous licensing". The documentation on that is headed:
"Proposals for reducing vehicle excise duty evasion."
First, one must consider how much evasion occurs and whether it is reducible. It is estimated by so-called "professional statisticians" that 4.1 per cent. of vehicles currently on the road do not display a tax disc. That represents a reduction of nearly 50 per cent. since 1980 and suggests, first, that measures against evasion have been extremely effective in the past 15 years and, secondly, that perhaps we have reached a level that cannot be reduced still further except at disproportionate cost. I must concede that both those figures—8 per cent. in 1980 and 4.1 per cent. now—are estimates.
The Government calculate a £145 million loss to the taxpayer, by which, presumably, they mean a loss of gross revenue as opposed to a loss to the taxpayer net of the cost of collection. Of that loss, £16.5 million is accounted for by vehicles over 12 tonnes, which are to be exempted in any event from the continuous licensing or continuous taxation proposals, on the interesting basis, put forward by a spokesman for the DVLA, that
"The view is that it would have a detrimental effect on business."
Hon. Members might feel that the first people who should not be running untaxed vehicles are those who are running heavy goods vehicles in the course of their business. No doubt the Minister will correct me if I have got that wrong.
One major fault that the proposals aim to tackle is the missed month—the slipped or lost month. That occurs when someone inadvertently or otherwise forgets to renew a tax disc. One must then fill out a form, which asks for the date of acquisition of a vehicle, or the date of expiry on the tax disc. It also asks for the date from which the licence is to run. If there is a gap between the two, one must sign a simple statement at the bottom of the form to confirm that the vehicle has not been used or been kept on the road between those two dates.
I respectfully suggest to the Minister two more effective, and certainly cheaper, ways of approaching that problem. When I say that a declaration must be signed,
304
that simply means that a signature is put at the bottom of the form to confirm that the particulars given are correct. I believe that one signs a statement to the effect, "I understand that I might be prosecuted," but no one, of course, reads that. In certain jurisdictions a similar form requires a proper legal declaration to he witnessed. The signature must be witnessed to give it the form and substance of a proper legal declaration. I am told that that is an effective stop to evasion, because it makes people pause and think. They realise that if they sign that form falsely, they are committing a criminal offence. I commend that idea to the Minister for further consideration.
Secondly, I suggest an alteration to the law to permit the wheel-clamping of cars that are seen on the highway not displaying a current vehicle excise licence. I recommend both those suggestions as practical means of dealing with a serious problem. They are simple and effective. I appreciate that they may be too simple, but they would work.
If I intended to be fraudulent, the proposed new system would help me enormously. If I am prepared to sign a fraudulent declaration that my vehicle has not been on the road, I would equally be prepared to sign a fraudulent declaration to get an off-road licence. Whenever I was finally stopped driving it with an off-road licence, I would say, of course, that it was the first time that I had used the car with that licence—no doubt I would probably say that I was on my way to the post office to change it to an on-road licence. All of us who have been in magistrates courts professionally will know that the police always catch someone the first time that he goes out in an untaxed motor vehicle. The new system will make it easier because, instead of simply doing it for a month or two, I will get my off-road licence and use it until I am stopped.
Having made a couple of practical suggestions, I shall explain exactly what we are talking about. Who are those historic vehicle owners, what do they do, why do they do it and why is it a serious matter? What they do, first, is to maintain a living archive of British engineering and social history. For example, the original advertisements for the Austin Seven described it as being a car so simple that it could be used by one's wife or one's servant. I make no comment about that, except to say that my daughters also drive mine.
That archive is also a source from which industrial and motor vehicle historians may work. It maintains pride in the engineering achievements of some great motor manufacturing companies. It gives a continuum right through to today's Formula 1, Saloon Car championship and other racing teams. Eighty per cent. of the world leaders in those sports are based in the United Kingdom. There is a straight continuum in that—the same people having the same interest. Those sports, including rallying, are watched by outstandingly more people than the number who watch football matches. Even more people take part in them than go fishing.
The hobby also, frankly, is fun. Sometimes in the House we are suspicious of anything that is fun—the pursuit of happiness. Being British involves rights as well as responsibilities, and those include the right to enjoy a harmless hobby and not to be taxed in that enjoyment.
It is not a hobby only of the rich, as exemplified by the fact that various Members of the House own historic vehicles. I did some calculations and discovered that

305
I could buy an eligible vehicle for less than the cost of a full set of fishing tackle, so it is not a hobby only of the rich, although I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister at one time indulged in it. It is also an enormous fund-earner for charities. Every weekend, almost throughout the year, charity events take place at which motor vehicles of one type or another form a major attraction.
The people who have that hobby are the ones whom Lady Thatcher described as the quiet people, who grumble a little but pay their taxes and are the backbone of England. Why are they so upset?
First, there is a suspicion that the Government have given up on tax dodgers; that the 4.1 per cent. is effectively irreducible so the Government will recoup the loss from law-abiding people who already pay tax. I mention that suspicion so that my hon. Friend the Minister may correct it.
Secondly, there is a suspicion that this is a tax on possession coming along again, 15 years after my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield first proposed it. That suspicion arises from the wording of the consultation paper, which says that for one's off-road licence there will be
"a small charge to cover administration costs (say £5)".
I challenge my hon. Friend the Minister to state publicly, first, that the £5 mentioned is indeed the full administrative cost and, secondly, that it is limited to that recovery cost by statute law, and that to recover more than the administrative cost of £5 would require primary legislation, which the Government have no intention to introduce. I look forward to the Minister's response to that.
The test of the proposals is, in my hon. Friend the Minister's words: are they simple and are they workable? The proposals are alternatives. There would be either two categories of licence instead of the present one, or three categories of licence. Under two categories of licence, one would have the present licence, plus a new one called an off-road licence, which might run for six months or 12 months.
So far, so good and so far, so simple, but the problem comes if one does not want to have one's car on the road for a whole six or 12 months or indeed off the road for the whole six or 12 months. The proposal is explained in the following way:
"Two possible ways of allowing vehicles to be brought back onto the road before the expiry of the off road licence are:

i) the keeper could be liable to pay VED hack to the beginning of the licensing period. This would mean that there would be no incentive to declare a vehicle off the road falsely, because VED would have to be paid back to the point of expiry of the previous licence; or

ii) the keeper could be required to pay a surcharge (perhaps £15)"—

perhaps a lot more—
"on top of the full rate for a six or twelve month on road licence, commencing on the first of the month in which it was applied for".
So far, so slightly less simple.
Let us assume that a vehicle is used for the London to Brighton run once a year. Under the scheme, the owner surrenders his old tax disc or allows it to expire. He then obtains a 12-month off-road licence at nominal cost, but that expires after next year's annual event so, in the
306
meantime, he must apply for a six-month off-road licence. When that expires, he applies for another. To put the vehicle back on the road to go to the rally, he has to pay the back tax of five months. He buys a six-month licence, but after one month he surrenders it.
I paraphrase that because I would not wish to ridicule the proposals, which I am sure have taken much time to think out, but I give that as an example of the fact that they are not simple or, in a practical sense, workable. They require a full administrative system in the home office of every person who has one, two or more old vehicles.
However, the real problem with that in the minds of the proposers is that it is not complicated enough, so there is a second proposal. That is that there should be three categories of licence: an on-road licence, an off-road licence and a temporary off-road licence. I shall not go through that as I did the first proposal. Suffice it to say that, under the second proposal, there are at least two, and possibly three, further administrative steps. May I, slightly humorously, suggest a fourth and fifth category—that we have on-road, off-road and temporary off-road licences, coupled, from the owner's point of view, with an off-rocker and a temporary off-rocker licence, as he attempts to fill up the various forms?
What is all that to achieve? It is to achieve full and continuous registration—up to date and detailed. Joint notification will achieve that substantially, and with the good will and support of all the people involved in it. The proposal document says:
"Increased public perception of the value of the registration document"—
with all that extra information in it—
"and a growing awareness of the benefits of compliance will encourage people to participate in the new system."
When I first read that, it seemed like a new definition of optimism but, having considered the facts, I believe that it is correct. First, there should be full and continuous registration. Secondly, there should be full payment of tax on use only, not on keeping or owning, or on possession. So the full and continuous registration amounts already to an off-road record. I do not call it an off-road licence because it does not license or permit anything, but it is already, with full joint notification and the other amendments that we have supported, an off-road record.
One should then apply for a tax disc, which would amount to a declaration that the vehicle will be used on the road only for those months covered by that application, with automatic reversion, through a simple computer programme, to the off-road record status upon the expiry of the vehicle excise duty; no complex rules, no complicated applications, no off-rocker, no home office required.
Much of the problem of "on to off" and "off to on" arises from the occasional use—the charity rallies, the London to Brighton run and so on. With respect to Lord Montagu, who gave me the original idea, I make the following simple, radical and, dare I say it, workable proposal.
First, you will he aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that pre-1948 manufactured vehicles have a reduced vehicle excise duty, currently £70. I know that it is already in the mind of the Minister that that should be altered to pre-1960, according to the press, or pre-1970, according

307
to the more optimistic press. I respectfully suggest that that definition be changed to 25 years old or more. It will then continue forward, year on year.
Those vehicles should pay 25 per cent. of whatever the current vehicle excise duty is, and that should cover any period up to a whole year. In other words, whether the vehicle is used once, for one month, six months or the whole year, the owner of a vehicle that is 25 years old or more pays 25 per cent. of the VED. We should abolish the six-month licence for that category of vehicles and abolish the bureaucracy of unused months' refunds, for that class only.
While my hon. Friend the Minister considers that, I shall make three short suggestions. First, the definition of a vehicle must be included. It is not in the regulations at the moment. Obviously, it would be a vehicle of a type which at some stage would require a MOT test. Secondly, I commend him and encourage him to continue the protection for traders and museums that he has already included. Thirdly, I ask him to assure me that whatever licence is needed will be readily available at post offices, following the closure of local vehicle licensing offices.
I thank my hon. Friend enormously for listening so carefully to the debate and to the representations that have been received. As the proposals are demonstrably neither simple nor workable and as my hon. Friend is an honourable man, I know that he will, in due course, respond with substantially different proposals. If so, will he undertake a consultation exercise on the new proposals?
1.19 pm
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I know that when my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) used the term "honourable man", he was thinking of the parliamentary rather than the Shakespearean definition. On that assumption, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the points that he has made.
There is no doubt that our proposals to improve the quality of our vehicle records at DVLA and to reduce vehicle excise duty evasion have attracted considerable interest. We have received about 20,000 letters since our proposals for continuous licensing were first announced by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 20 July last year. The DVLA has issued 12,000 copies of the consultation paper and we have received 3,000 responses.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Quite a lot of those responses undoubtedly came from me. I must declare an interest as the owner of nine Morris Minors. I have received an enormous amount of post on the subject. There are strong feelings about it.
Mr. Norris: One of the delights of the House is to find out something new about one's colleagues almost every day. I now know that the possession of nine Morris Minors must figure large among the many qualities that I already attribute to my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend need not apologise for writing to me on the subject; I know the strength of feeling on the subject of my hon. Friend and other owners of vehicles that are not customarily on the road for 12 months of the year. It is important to put that on the record. None of the proposals has the slightest
308
impact on someone who, like me, simply taxes his car from one 12-month period to the next. Such people have nothing to be worried about.
I shall explain why we want to look at how the present arrangements work.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Norris: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman must be quick as we are under time constraints.
Mr. Tyler: I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) on introducing the debate. As the Minister recognises, there is widespread concern on the subject. Will the Minister address the point of principle raised by the hon. Gentleman? If the purpose of the tax is to tax usage rather than ownership, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) will be saved from any cost. But those who use the roads infrequently—even if they have vehicles other than vintage vehicles—will still be penalised.
Mr. Norris: I shall refer to that point in the remaining few minutes.
There has rightly and understandably been some criticism of our proposals and there has been much speculation about what they might lead to. There has also been widespread support for the overall objectives that we set ourselves in the consultation document. About 25 per cent. of DVLA records are out of date and inaccurate at any one time simply because people who buy vehicles do not immediately inform the DVLA—some people take up to a year to do so. They often do so when they want to retax their vehicles and realise that their V5 form is not in their name but in the previous owner's name. It astonishes me that more people do not realise that, when they sell their vehicle, it is in their interest to ensure that the DVLA is aware of the change of owner. There cannot be many of us who have not received a fixed penalty or a parking ticket relating to a vehicle that has long since been disposed of. If the DVLA was informed, it is highly unlikely that such trouble would be encountered.
It is not simply a bureaucratic ambition to ensure that the DVLA database is up to date and truly relevant. There are three obvious reasons for an accurate DVLA database. First, and most importantly, we operate a system whereby, once manufacturers identify a safety fault on a vehicle, they must send a notice to everyone who has bought that particular type of vehicle. They must tell the owners that their vehicles, which may not be new but may be two or three years old, have a fault. They must tell them urgently to go to any garage, where the fault will be put right straight away and free of charge. The House will understand the need for an accurate DVLA database in order to trace those owners.
We also need an accurate DVLA database to tackle vehicle excise duty evasion—the second main pillar of the proposals. We must, from the outset, have an accurate tax database.
The third and obvious reason for an accurate database is that we are increasingly moving into a world where traffic will be regulated by technology, whether that be camera or trip technology. If we are to use such camera technology, the sine qua non—the precondition—is that when the ticket is issued for an offence, we must have an accurate database to back up the system, otherwise there will be trouble.

309
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East suggested that there was a suspicion that we had given up on the £160 million a year that goes uncollected. The figure amounts to about 4.1 per cent.— I do not know the exact figure. Most of that figure is the result of short-term evasion. As my hon. Friend suggested, people simply try to skip paying the tax—they do so pretty regularly.
Many people are angry and say that we should do something about such evasion, which is a very visible form of tax evasion. In every constituency it is possible, when walking to the station or pushing a shopping trolley in a supermarket car park, to see vehicles with no vehicle excise duty disc or an out-of-date disc displayed in the windscreen. It has been estimated that, at any one time, there are up to one and a half million vehicles on the road without a valid disc. We must do something about that.
For all those reasons, we intended to eliminate evasion and improve the quality of the records. It is fairly clear that the joint notification proposals have received pretty unanimous support. They will deliver tangible benefits such as information on mileage and previous keepers, which we propose to show on the registration documents. In my experience, classic car owners positively welcome that because the thrill of ownership comes from the vehicle's history—it is part of the hobby's attraction. Other benefits will include a more secure registration document, which will make fraud and vehicle ringing more difficult. That, too, will be in the legitimate owner's interest.
The continuous licensing proposals have been less uniformly welcomed.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That is an understatement.
Mr. Norris: That is a masterly understatement. I have never been known to exaggerate, so it is possibly appropriate to put it in that context.
310
We intend to close off the options for VED evaders, particularly the month dodgers. In the couple of minutes remaining to me, I shall outline our two propositions. First, there is the two-tier option, under which the owners of occasionally used vehicles will pay more. That is a fairly simple system to operate. The other option is what we refer to as the three-tier system, which is more complex to administer. It will cause more paperwork and is arguably more bureaucratic, but it will not involve additional cost to owners. It will, however, involve owners putting an amount down as a deposit at. the first point at which they take the vehicle off the road—an amount that is subsequently recoverable.
I shall now respond specifically to the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East. First, I know that Lord Montagu of Beaulieu has clearly said that we have adequately covered museum vehicles and vehicles undergoing restoration—there is no concern about that. Secondly, we have always made it clear that we do not wish to use the proposal simply to extend the tax base. The £5 charge to which my hon. Friend referred is a charge to recover DVLA costs. The DVLA is empowered by statute only to recover costs at the level at which they were incurred. The charge is not the thin end of the wedge, leading to £135. If there were to be any proposal to go further than recovering costs—that is, to tax rather than simply to recover costs—that would require specific legislative proposals. It is important that my hon. Friend should have that assurance and I am happy to give it to him.
We believe that the consultation has been extremely useful. Sadly, I have not had time to expand on the various arguments for and against the proposals. Suffice it to say, we have been very keen to bear in mind the fundamental objectives of improving the quality of the record and dealing with the issue of evasion. We have borne in mind the many expressions of concern about the level of additional cost or the additional paperwork. It may surprise my hon. Friend—but I hope that it will not surprise him too much—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The time for the debate has expired.

Television Services (Wales)
1.30 pm
Mr. Llew Smith: I shall try to be brief, as I wish to share my speaking time with my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), who has done a lot of work in this area over the years.
The debate is not about whether we are for or against the Welsh language: it is about freedom of choice. I was employed for 15 years as a tutor organiser with the Workers Educational Association, and much of my work involved organising classes in Welsh language and culture in community centres. Those classes were supported by the Labour-controlled Gwent county council, of which my hon. Friend was a prominent member. So I start from the position of wanting to see the Welsh language flourish.
About 12 months ago, I read an article in the Western Mail which stated that people in north Wales who cannot receive the S4C television channel had secured all-party backing for their claim that they should not be deprived of Welsh language broadcasts. The article went on to state that Welsh nationalist, Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians agreed at a meeting that it was a civil rights issue, and that people in Delyn should receive coverage of all local programmes.
One should compare that tolerant sentiment with the intolerance often expressed by some Welsh nationalists and by those people within the Welsh language movement in response to demands from communities like my own—where English is almost inevitably the first and only language—that they, in turn, should have access to English language Channel 4. I was reminded of that intolerance when I read an article in the Western Mail responding to a petition demanding that communities throughout Wales should have access to English language Channel 4. Those who made such demands were compared with Hitler and his belief in one kingdom, one people, one language.
Many of us have come to expect that sort of response from Welsh nationalists on that and other issues, but it is insulting to many people in my community who fought and died opposing Nazism and to those people who are still fighting, in a different way, whenever such prejudices are expressed. While it is a question of civil liberties when the people in north Wales cannot receive Welsh language channel S4C, similar reasoning is not applied to those communities in south Wales and in other parts of Wales who demand access to English language Channel 4.
We recognise the right of the people of north Wales to receive S4C. We do not want English language Channel 4 at the expense of S4C; we want it in addition to S4C. In other words, we want to increase freedom of choice for viewers throughout Wales.
It is somewhat ironic that Cardiff, the capital of Wales, receives English language Channel 4, while communities like those in my constituency cannot receive that service. Although only 2.2 per cent. of the people of Blaenau Gwent speak Welsh, they are forced to receive a channel which they do not understand. Unlike people in other areas, they are not given the choice of viewing all Channel 4 programmes at a reasonable hour.
In my time as a Member of the European Parliament, and in the past few years as a Member of the British Parliament, not one person has contacted me defending the present position. However, time and again people have
312
voiced their opposition to it, and have demanded access to Channel 4. That view was reflected in a recent opinion poll conducted by the Gwent Gazette, which covers my constituency. The poll showed that more than 90 per cent. of my constituents demanded access to English language Channel 4. That and other opinion polls have showed the support for the position that I am arguing today. They also reflect the people's depth of feeling and anger at their exclusion from receiving that television channel.
While the opinion poll was conducted in Gwent, it must be remembered that the problem is not peculiar to Gwent, as only about 40 per cent. of Welsh people can receive Channel 4.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: My hon. Friend has referred to the Welsh people's depth of anger and frustration. As a Member of Parliament, I felt anger and frustration when Welsh language programmes were available on both BBC 1 and HTV. S4C was devised to serve two purposes: first, to allow Welsh language broadcasting to expand; and, secondly, to remove from the two major channels Welsh language programmes that were causing tremendous offence. I think that my hon. Friend should be reminded of S4C's dual purpose.
Mr. Smith: I accept my hon. Friend's point. I think that that situation was having a detrimental effect on the Welsh language. However, the present situation is having a similar effect. We have managed to contain the anti-S4C feeling, but, if the present situation continues, people will not call for Channel 4 in addition to S4C, but will demand it in place of S4C. I am certainly not of that view.
S4C has responded to my points by saying: if Channel 4 is available in Wales, should not Welsh language channel S4C be available in the rest of the United Kingdom? That is an interesting response. S4C says that it does not object to Channel 4 being provided in addition to S4C. It also states that approximately 70 per cent. of Channel 4's programmes are also broadcast on S4C. However, it is important to recognise the time of day at which those programmes are broadcast—it is very rarely during peak viewing time.
It is also interesting to note that the highest proportion of viewers who watch Welsh programmes on S4C regularly are those in managerial and technical occupations. Only 5.1 per cent. of those who are not in paid work watch S4C Welsh language programmes. Some 1.2 per cent. of those who cannot speak Welsh watch Welsh language programmes on S4C regularly, compared with 9 per cent. of the total population.
I have taken those figures from the Welsh Office social survey which was published in February this year. It is also interesting to note that only 4.6 per cent. of the population of Gwent bother to tune in to Welsh language radio. According to the Welsh Office survey, approximately 80 per cent. of the population of Gwent never watch Welsh programmes on S4C. The Broadcasting Act 1990 states that Channel 4 should be provided for
"so much of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland as from time to time be reasonably practicable".
The legislation must be changed if areas like mine are to receive Channel 4 by right. I think that that would be fairly simple to do, as one could just replace the words "England, Scotland and Northern Ireland" with "United Kingdom".

313
The matter may also be resolved through the use of additional transmitters. I know that S4C would say that there is a problem with cost. I do not wish to push the point too much, but I think that it is somewhat ironic that S4C should take that position, when one considers that it is probably the most subsidised of all the television channels. We should also consider the possibility of rescheduling, so that programmes can be televised at the same time but in different areas, depending on the language of a particular community.
It is also argued that we should wait for the digital system. I am sure that will result in major advances, but the decoders will cost between £200 and £500. Many communities in Wales that cannot receive S4C or Channel 4 English language programmes are also the poorest communities. I was interested to read an article by Andrew Neil in The Independent on 16 June, stating:
"There is every chance that the digital revolution will be dominated by Sky and its leading shareholders News Corporation, which control the essential system."
So there are problems ahead.
According to recent correspondence from representatives of S4C, they would be concerned if people's failure to receive Channel 4 led to an anti-S4C feeling. I have responded to that point, but I am aware that there is such a danger unless the problem is resolved.
For some people, the only measure of Welshness is the Welsh language, so for them, the only television channel relevant to Wales is S4C. Such an argument insults the majority of people in Wales, who are English-speaking. When people talk about civil liberties, they mean civil liberties only for those who speak the Welsh language, whereas the rest of us recognise the value of both languages and the diverse cultures that make up Wales. We should build on that diversity and encourage it. Access to S4C for the people of north Wales is an issue of civil liberties and we ask them to recognise the civil liberties of those who wish to view the alternative Channel 4 in the English language.
1.41 pm
Mr. Don Touhig: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), and I am delighted to give vent to the feelings of the people I represent. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to the Secretary of State for agreeing to share the time and allow me to take part in the debate.
Welsh, it is said, is the language of heaven. While I have no sure knowledge of that, I have no intention in my sojourn in this life of preventing it from being spoken. The deliberate suppression of the Welsh language in the last century was one of the worst acts of our Victorian forebears. If Welsh is to survive all the pressures, and not a few prejudices, of the 20th century, it should be encouraged wherever possible. Welsh medium broadcasting has a part to play in that.
I am proud of the fact that, in the past decade or more, Gwent, through the Labour-controlled county council, has invested large sums of money in education for young children who want to be educated through the medium of Welsh, but the language will survive and flourish only if people are encouraged to use it. If they perceive it as being foisted on them against their will, they will react accordingly. Recent history is proof of that.
314
I remember as a young reporter on the Free Press at Pontypool writing about public protests over Welsh language broadcasting going out at peak times in English-speaking areas.
The emergence of S4C was a progressive and positive step. It encouraged the language, while removing the antagonism to it from many television viewers, but I fear that, unless we address the legitimate demands of the English-speaking Welsh people to be given the choice whether to watch S4C or Channel 4, we risk a renewed backlash. In an attempt to avoid that, I pressed S4C to consider the possibility of rescheduling, to which my hon. Friend referred.
I asked S4C to consider rescheduling so that people in different parts of Wales could watch different programmes at different times. In that way, it would be possible for the English-speaking majority in south-east Wales to watch a programme in English, while in north and west Wales, where Welsh is often the first language, a different programme could go out in Welsh. I hope that S4C will respond positively to that suggestion, but I recognise that it is but a halfway house.
In an early-day motion last week on S4C in Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent and I underlined our support for S4C, but in all honesty we had to state quite clearly that S4C does not cater for the vast majority of people in Wales whose only language is English.
My hon. Friend referred to a poll conducted by his local paper, which sought to obtain readers' views. The South Wales Argus, the local evening paper serving my constituency and much of Gwent, conducted a similar poll, showing that readers were overwhelmingly in favour of being able to watch Channel 4 as well as S4C. I do not consider telephone polls a wholly satisfactory method of measuring public opinion; they do little more than give the flavour.
More significantly, some 8,000 people have already been prepared to put their names to a petition in support of choice, which I understand will be presented to the Secretary of State in October.
It is not that English-speaking Welsh people in the south Wales valleys are against the language. They simply want the same facility as those who live in Cardiff, the capital city of Wales, to watch both television channels. I cannot emphasise too strongly that the debate is not about replacing S4C with Channel 4; it is about giving the people of Wales the opportunity to watch both stations.
I am fortunate that, in the part of Gwent where I live, I can already do that, but it is not the case everywhere. In the Graig area of Cwmcarn in my constituency, people are unable to receive any television, whether it is broadcast in English or Welsh. My constituents have to pay £100 a year to a cable company to pipe in the signal in addition to £100 for a television licence. As Mr. Ken James, one of my constituents, wrote to tell me, the quality of the television signal is appalling, and is affected by the strength of the wind across the local hills.
I have sought to give the Minister an idea of the feelings of people in my area on the issue. If we do not respond to public feeling, we are in danger of harming Welsh language broadcasting. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent has already outlined a possible solution, although not a simple or cheap one—the development of digital television broadcasting. My hon.

315
Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has secured an Adjournment debate on the issue tomorrow night, and I do not propose to stray into his territory. However, I would welcome a statement from the Minister about the early publication of a promised White Paper on digitalisation. It will help extend choice, but will not in itself solve the problem.
We also require a commitment from the Government to extending to Channel 4 the right to broadcast in Wales which is currently denied by the Broadcasting Acts 1981 and 1990. I understand that S4C may not necessarily oppose that.
Taken together, those measures will answer the legitimate complaints of my constituents, and at the same time ensure that the development of Welsh medium broadcasting continues without antagonism and rancour.
1.47 pm
The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I begin on a matter of some sensitivity. The reason why I have the pleasure of replying to the debate is that my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport is currently in South Africa supporting a rugby team. It is an important part of his ministerial duties to support our national teams. I am sure that I shall enlist the support of the Welsh Members present for wishing him Godspeed and improved fortunes in the remaining game for the English rugby team.
My first serious point is to say how much I agree with the basic line that the hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) and for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) took about the importance of the Welsh language and ensuring that there is proper support for the development of Welsh speaking and proper respect for Welsh culture in Wales.
As both hon. Gentlemen said, it is not a matter of a choice between S4C as an agency for the promotion of Welsh television and English-speaking Channel 4. They both presented the case that they wished to argue to the House in terms of extending choice and access to English-speaking Channel 4. It is not an issue of Welsh people or their representatives in the House being against S4C or Welsh-speaking television; it is a question of their English-speaking constituents not wanting to be denied the opportunity to see English-speaking Channel 4 on the same terms as are available to the rest of the United Kingdom. That is a perfectly fair argument for representatives of English-speaking Welsh constituents to make in this House.
It is worth pausing at this point to reflect on the contribution that S4C has made to the development of Welsh speaking and of proper respect for Welsh culture. As Secretary of State for National Heritage, I think it important not to seek to create an homogenised, centralised culture in Britain, but to build one that respects regional and local diversity and traditions. I regard the fact that my Department is responsible for the public contribution, in terms of finance, to S4C as part of a wider contribution to the delivery of a varied and pluralist cultural life in Britain—one that respects the differing traditions of various parts of the United Kingdom.
It is fair to record the fact that S4C achieves a significant audience share, not just among the Welsh-speaking population—its share of peak viewing is nearly 19 per cent. of them—but among the whole population of Wales: its peak viewing share amounts to
316
9.5 per cent. of them. As for audience reach, 66 per cent., or two thirds, of the people of Wales look at S4C at least once a week, although the programmes in question are not necessarily Welsh language ones. So S4C is not, as it has been constituted, a minority interest channel. It is a broadcaster that performs a service right across Wales, and it is used at different times in the week by two thirds of its population.
S4C has a distinguished record of developing various aspects of the cultural life of Wales. The reputation of its children's programming and its animation department spreads far beyond the borders of the Principality. Its animation programmes and its children's programmes reach audiences not just outside Wales but outside the United Kingdom.
S4C has also been an important contributor to the development of the independent production sector in Wales. It is clearly a Welsh-oriented station, and its support for the Welsh independent production sector has been an important factor in that sector's progress.
Finally, it is important to stress again that the easy availability of Welsh language broadcasting has made an important contribution—possibly the decisive contribution—to halting the decline of Welsh speaking and to heightening perceptions of, and respect paid to, Welsh culture. I regard S4C as one of the Government's successes. We legislated for its existence in the Broadcasting Act 1980, and we continued its existence in the Broadcasting Act 1990. It has been the biggest single achievement in living memory to demonstrate real public support for Welsh culture as a living, developing entity, not just the pursuit of a tiny and shrinking minority. All in all, S4C makes a significant contribution to the life of Wales.
The problem which the hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent and for Islwyn put to the House is that, when setting aside spectrum space to allow this broadcasting to take place, a choice had to be made about access to the spectrum and about the terms on which S4C would have the chance to deliver all the benefits that I have described. As both hon. Members made clear, it is not a straight choice between English language and Welsh language broadcasting. S4C's schedules include a large element of English language Channel 4 broadcasting. The objective is to deliver roughly 75 per cent. Channel 4 English language broadcasting over the S4C element of the network—that is, 75 per cent. excluding Channel 4's news programming.
Thus, S4C is an important transmitter and broadcaster of English language Channel 4 programme material, and there is no straight choice between English, represented by Channel 4, and Welsh, represented by S4C. The latter seeks to deliver its Welsh mission by mixing English and Welsh language programming but according a higher priority to Welsh language broadcasting than has been delivered by any other means in the history of Welsh broadcasting.
More than once, the hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent and Islwyn sought to argue that the offer of a clear choice between the S4C schedule and a recognisably English Channel 4 schedule was restricted by costs—either costs incurred by S4C or costs incurred by some other, unmentioned body. In the present state of technology, the limitation on providing a clear choice between two complete schedules—one the same as Channel 4 and the rest of the United Kingdom, the other run by S4C—is

317
not cost: it is technical feasibility, or the availability of spectrum, given the state of modern technology. That is the answer to the conundrum that both hon. Gentlemen described.
The world of broadcasting is on the verge of a revolution which will make broadcasting in 10 or 15 years' time unrecognisable. The introduction of digital technology, not simply to terrestrial broadcasting but to cable and satellite broadcasting, opens the door to a world in which it will no longer be correct to talk about spectrum as the limiting factor on access to audience for a broadcaster. Ever since the beginnings of broadcasting, the limiting factor has indeed been access to spectrum, but as technology has developed, so we have learned how to narrow the broadcasting signal and make more efficient use of the spectrum.
The digital revolution takes the process a dramatic stage further. We stand at the dawn of the digital age of broadcasting; and the effect, over a period, of the introduction of digital technology to radio and television broadcasting will be progressively to remove the block that has hitherto limited access to audience by broadcasters. In future we shall be able to move—rather more quickly than most politicians realise—to a world in which the limiting factor on the establishment of new choices for viewers, and the development of new broadcasting stations, will no longer be access to a bureaucratically allocated spectrum but the straightforward economics of broadcasting.
318
Thus, a broadcaster who can find an audience prepared to pay for, or a sponsor prepared to support, a broadcast channel will find that spectrum is available. Then, subject to the regulatory regime for which the Government will remain responsible, a broadcaster who can design an economically sustainable station will be able to set up in business to demonstrate that his views on the viability of his station are correct.
Both hon. Members asked me what stage the Government have reached in delivering the promised White Paper on the introduction of the digital revolution. I can lift the veil concealing Ministers' diaries at least a little, and say that I shall be leaving this House to have a meeting on precisely that subject. I hope that the White Paper to which the Government are committed will be ready for publication in the next few weeks. It is quite close; it is in the final stages of preparation. It is the second stage of the changes that the Government plan to announce to the broadcasting world, following the media ownership changes that I announced at the end of May.
Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Dorrell: Very briefly.
Mr. Rowlands: Will the White Paper subsequently require legislation?
Mr. Dorrell: Yes.
In conclusion, hon. Members put a problem to the House. The answer to that problem lies in the recruitment of new technology to deliver greater choice to the consumer. That is an objective that the Government warmly embrace.

Job Creation
2 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important subject for debate today. It is one of those subjects on which it is extremely difficult to get any coverage whatever when things are going well, but when things are going badly tends to lead the news bulletins. Having said that, however, this morning, on page 2 of the Daily Express is an article entitled, "Boom-time Britain" in which it talks about the British economy being
"in fine shape, with soaring exports, falling unemployment and growing output".
An influential report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has stated that, not the Daily Express. It also states:
"Unemployment could fall by a further 300,000 over the next 18 months to just over two million".
That is excellent news.
If one looks at some of the recent statistics about unemployment, one will see that only last month it fell yet again by another 10,000 to 2.32 million—the 21st successive fall. Within the United Kingdom, the work force in employment now stands at 25.5 million, which is a superb figure. Manufacturing productivity in the three months ending April 1985 rose by 3.2 per cent. Export volumes, which are important, excluding oils and erratics, are up 11.5 per cent, in three months to March on the year earlier. Underlying inflation is at its lowest level since the 1960s. That is all good news for the economy.
My constituency has the lowest level of unemployment in the whole of the United Kingdom. Therefore, one might think it strange that I have decided to ask for this debate today. My constituency is blessed in having a very good and skilled work force. We have a good infrastructure—the motorways—in and around the Ribble Valley. The west coast main line could improve that infrastructure dramatically, and I hope to see further investments in that, which would encourage more people to travel by train, and more freight to be carried by train.
We are also blessed in having Manchester airport not too far away. It is one of the largest international airports in the world and provides great service for people in and around the region. I have a superb rural constituency, which attracts many tourists, and Blackpool is not too far away, which attracts many more tourists and conferences as well.
There is also tremendous manufacturing capacity within the Ribble Valley, and just outside as well. One leading firm, British Aerospace, is world-renowned, particularly with its carbon technology. It is a good supporter of the community, and I am extremely grateful for the work it does in supporting schools and technology, particularly the William Temple school in my constituency, which it supports with its technology courses. It has done much innovative work and has provided many jobs in schemes such as the European fighter aircraft, airbus, and, I hope, the future large aircraft and Tiger in future.
We have some superb manufacturing skills. On top of that, my constituents also travel long distances to work. If they do not find work on their doorstep, they travel to places such as Manchester, Liverpool, throughout the north-west—wherever the jobs happen to be.
320
In my constituency, there are also smaller firms than BAe, which none the less are vital. Ultraframe has to be one of the success stories of my constituency. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to come to my constituency, in the not too distant future, and visit Ultraframe, so that he can see for himself at first hand the successes that can be achieved when a firm is run by people with a belief in what they are doing, who are constantly reinvesting money back into their firm, a firm that has faith in the people who work there, and which not only ensures that they are properly trained in the work they do but encourages them to undertake national vocational qualifications.
In 1992, Ultraframe had 152 employees; in 1993, 207; in 1994, 293. It currently has 420 employees. It pays a lot of attention to exports as well, which is extremely important. Last year, its turnover was £25 million, and it is the UK market leader in conservatory roofing systems. It takes on a lot of youngsters from the schools at 16 or 18 and offers them jobs and training. It is a superb asset, not only to the Ribble Valley but to the United Kingdom as well, particularly with its exports.
We have to look at what we offer people in this country, to ensure that we have the right skills and a good work force that companies will want to employ, and at the encouragement that we give to businesses to expand. That means that we must have good schools and colleges, the right courses and relevant training. We must also ensure that the training and enterprise councils are delivering the right packages of training. There are 82 TECs. I am sure that they are not all of a superb level, but I hope that we will encourage those that are not as good to raise their standards to those of the best.
To see another reason why we are doing so well in this country one has only to look at the strike record. One can remember the 1970s, when strikes dogged this country. Businesses did not know whether they would be able to operate. Customers did not know whether they would be able to get their services. It was a blight. It was the British disease.
No longer is that the case. We now have one of the lowest strike records since records have been collected. That is important. We take that for granted, but we should not. We also have consistently low inflation. We should not take that for granted, because we can remember the 1970s, under the previous Labour Government, when inflation ravaged industry and people's savings.
We also have competitive interest rates, which are important for businesses, as they enable them to borrow with confidence to invest in their businesses, and they know that they will get returns.
We also have low taxation. We can remember what taxation rates were like under the previous Labour Government. There was hardly any incentive to take risks, because the Government, if one made any profits, were taking the lion's share. That is no longer the case. I hope that we shall continue with our tax-cutting policies in future to ensure that people who take the risks in business are able to keep the lion's share, so that they can reinvest that money in their businesses.
We also have a policy of deregulation, which is vital. I sat on the Standing Committee last year that considered deregulation, with my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes). I believe that it is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we have passed since I have been a Member of Parliament.

321
One has only to talk to business people to know that the last thing they want is regulation after regulation heaped on them, for all sorts of reasons. Goodness knows why some of them are put into place. We have to appreciate that every rule and regulation imposed on business has a cost. Therefore, if we can lift the burdens of bureaucracy off the backs of businesses, they would be able to ensure that their businesses were more profitable, that they could expand and reinvest the money they make back into their businesses.
I am not saying that I want to scrap every rule and regulation—some of them are there for good reasons—but we have to look at each of the rules and regulations, particularly those that have been around for some time, and question their worth. There should be a cost-benefit analysis of some of those rules and regulations. We should remove as quickly as possible those that happen to be politically correct or those that are extremely expensive but show little or no reward.
Mr. John Sykes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. We are all pleased to hear that he has been made a privy councillor. I wonder whether he knew that Small Business News has awarded him a privy councillorship. I think that it is richly deserved.
Will my hon. Friend contrast the levying of regulations in this country with the manana attitude towards regulation by some of our so-called partners in the European Community, some of whom do not even obey their own laws, never mind directives from Brussels?
Mr. Evans: First, my hon. Friend and the bureau are somewhat premature in their congratulations to me on being made a privy councillor. Secondly, I fully appreciate that, in the United Kingdom, we have a structure in place that demands that, when we sign up to rules and regulations, we enforce them.
Many other member states of the European Union are happy to sign up to almost any rule or regulation, and they do not read the small print. They are not bothered about that, because they will not enforce the rule or regulation with the rigour of the United Kingdom. Perhaps we should approach some rules and regulations in the same way. It would be better, however, if other member states' enforcement was the same as the UK's. If that were their approach, they might think twice before signing up to more rules and regulations in future.
I am glad that we are able to gain so much inward investment. It takes place in the north-west, as it does throughout the country. We received 41 per cent. of Japanese investment in Europe. Close to 40 per cent. of the investment made by the United States in Europe comes to the UK. Why is that? Overseas companies have confidence in investing in the UK, because they know that they will not have social on-costs heaped on them, as happens in other parts of the EU. Levels of unemployment elsewhere in the EU are telling.
In Spain, unemployment is 23 per cent. Youth unemployment is a staggering 43 per cent. In France and Belgium, it is 12 per cent. and 10 per cent. respectively. The EU average is 10.8 per cent. How grateful I am that unemployment in my constituency is 2.7 per cent., and 8.3 per cent. is the average throughout the UK.
322
We must ensure that we have proper training. General national vocational qualifications are vital, and superb work is being undertaken at St. Mary's college, Blackburn. We must ensure that job clubs and our various schemes provide relevant advice and proper guidance.
I hope that we can do more to encourage employers not to adopt agism within the work force. Far too many people are unable to obtain work when they are in their 40s and 50s. In fact, they have a wealth of experience. We must do more to convince employers that they should not turn their backs on older prospective employees. We have a flexible work force, which means that someone who starts work at 18 will not be in the same job until he is 65. It is more likely that employees will have several careers during their working life.
I hope that employers will stop using advertisements in newspapers that state that they are interested only in people who are under 30 or over 25. It is wrong to take that attitude. It gives no encouragement to people in their 50s and 60s, and the country suffers because a wealth of experience is not being used properly.
I was delighted when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister fought hard within the EU to ensure that we had opt-outs from the social chapter. If we had signed up to the chapter in its entirety, companies would have looked beyond Britain when investing in the EU. Without opt-outs, the chapter would have been extremely expensive. I see no reasons or advantages in being a signatory to it without opt-outs.
Mr. Sykes: My hon. Friend does not need any additional information, but he might be interested to know that, in my constituency, a large food manufacturer that normally supplies the home market decided that it could not afford to build a factory in France, and so doubled its production line at Scarborough, much to the benefit of my constituents who work for the company, whose jobs are now guaranteed. What does that say for the social chapter?
Mr. Evans: It says everything for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister having won opt-outs. My hon. Friend has given a constituency example. I am sure that it is one that could be replicated throughout the country. So many businesses have decided to contract within other parts of the EU and to expand in Britain. Companies outside the EU decide to come first to Britain. They take full account of the advantages of investing in Britain. I think that it was Jacques Delors who said that it would be to experience paradise to engage in inward investment in Britain. Instead of following Britain's lead, the rest of the EU decided to try to get us to follow them. That was ridiculous.
Most damaging of all policies for our future economic prosperity is the minimum wage. We all know that socialism is a creed that dare not speak its name. The minimum wage is a concept that dare not name its price. If it is such a good idea, why should its level remain a secret?
It is rather like a perverted form of the "Price is Right" approach, except that the losers in the minimum wage game will lose their jobs. It will be a case not of low pay but of no pay. Silence on the level of a minimum wage is not for the virtuous reason that there should be consultations with the unions and employers. To say that such consultations should take place is to put up a smoke screen. The present vacuum allows an unpriced product to be shown in a shop window. If anyone has to ask how much it is, he should know that he cannot afford it.

323
A menu without prices means that Labour spokesmen can say to employers, "We are new Labour, not old. Don't worry about the level of the minimum wage. It will be so low that it will have no effect on the profitability of your business. We want only to catch a few cowboys who are paying poverty-level wages."
At the same time, Labour spokesmen are saying to the unions, their paymasters, "Don't worry about new Labour tosh. It is just to con the public into thinking that we have changed. We can't set a level for a minimum wage. If we do so, employers will be able to work out how much it will cost them and how many jobs they will have to shed. Obviously, we are going to look after you. After all, you look after us." The only losers in the game will be those whose jobs disappear in the black hole of socialist dogma. As many as 1.8 million jobs could be lost.
I watched the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) being interviewed on "On the Record" on Sunday. John Humphrys gently savaged the hon. Lady to pieces. It was a cruel display by Mr. Humphrys, who had the effrontery and cheek to ask the hon. Lady a few elementary, simple and straightforward questions on the minimum wage. How dare he? Whenever she was unsure of what to say, she resorted to making a dash behind the name of Winston Churchill, who was the saviour of many people. Never was his name called on so many times in such a short time as by the hon. Member for Peckham.
When the hon. Member for Peckham said, in her Mother Teresa demeanour, that she wanted to get rid of poverty, she should have started with the poverty of her argument. Winston Churchill was a great man, but not even he could have saved the hon. Lady or her feeble argument on Sunday.
Two further complications with the minimum wage are the black economy and differentials. We would be stupid to ignore the fact that the black economy exists. Indeed, it existed to a greater extent in the 1970s under the Labour Government, when taxation was so high. If we introduce a minimum wage, many cowboys will still pay poverty wages. They will do so in an underhand manner and behind the back of the Inland Revenue. Without a minimum wage, we have a transparency in the system.
No one—especially not a member of the Labour party—should be allowed to hide behind the argument that his role is to look after only the poorer sections of society, those who are earning £1 an hour or less. If a minimum wage is introduced, those who are earning £4, £5 or £6 will want to ensure that differentials continue. The unions have said as much. The result will be demands for inflationary pay increases.
It will not be only those who are earning £1 or £2 an hour who will lose their jobs. Jobs will also be lost by those who are earning £4, £6 or £8 an hour. It has been estimated that a minimum wage of about £4.15 will cause about 800,000 people to lose their jobs. That would cost £2.2 billion in additional unemployment benefit expenditure.
It is pointless to argue that the taxpayer is subsidising low pay for many people. A minimum wage will mean that the taxpayer will have to subsidise many more unemployed people. When Bill Clinton was campaigning to become President, he said that he would increase the minimum wage in the United States. He has not done so. That was even before the rise of Newt Gingrich. The President knew how many jobs an increase in the minimum wage would cost.
324
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said that he was aware of the consequences of a minimum wage. He told us that any silly fool would know that there would be a shake-out. The right hon. Gentleman was speaking the truth.
Does the Labour party, which treats the country with contempt, really think that the wages of some people can be jacked up without job losses, shorter hours, loss of differentials and the fuelling of the black economy? The higher the minimum wage, the higher will be the number of job losses. The Labour party fails to tell us what price is worth paying in terms of job losses to fulfil its bargain with the trade unions.
We must continue with the successful policies that the Government have followed in the past 16 years, which are leading to more job creation, more inward investment, more job expansion and more employment generally, with unemployment coming down. We must continue with the deregulation policy and ensure that the town halls, Whitehall and the know-alls of Brussels take into account the fact that businesses are there to ensure that jobs are available and to produce goods and services; they do not need such people coming on with a tirade of bureaucracy, rules and regulations.
In Europe, 20 million people are unemployed. The rest of Europe should consider what we are doing in this country, find out why we are so successful, and start to put our policies into place. The choice is simple. We know what is happening in this country. We have the job and wealth creation; the evidence is there for all to see. The choice is either sticking with that and with something that is successful, or listening to the Labour party, which is offering something for nothing.
2.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) for choosing this subject. He is well known as an hon. Member with great knowledge and understanding of the issues involved.
My hon. Friend mentioned at length the effect of a minimum wage on jobs. He was correct to point to the unemployment level in Europe, because every one of those European Union countries with minimum wages that are set at significant levels has higher unemployment, and particularly higher youth unemployment, than Britain. The figures that are quoted are based on the International Labour Organisation international standard for compiling unemployment statistics, so the claim that Opposition spokesmen sometimes make—that those figures are fiddled—is nonsense.
Every one of us wants low-paid people to earn more, but it is unfair and deceitful to the less well-off for politicians to pretend that they can wave some magic wand and raise wages without any cost to the economy. What we can do, and have been doing since 1979, is to continue to make the economy more competitive, to improve training and education, to create the conditions for sustainable non-inflationary growth, and to give people the chance to be more productive so that they can really earn more on a sustainable basis.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, his constituency has a fine record of good quality employment. It has that record because people in that region are productive and work for

325
companies that produce goods that people want to buy. That is the only honest way for us politicians to say that people will be able to earn more, and that better-quality jobs will be created on a sustainable basis.
The Labour party's minimum wage policy is doubly dishonest. It pretends to the less well-off that there is some easy, cost-free method of raising their pay, and then it will not even say what the minimum wage will be until after the next election. It gives the less well-off a menu with no prices, in the hope that they will not discover the true cost in jobs, as my hon. Friend rightly said, until after the next election.
No wonder the Opposition spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) got in such a mess in "On The Record" last Sunday. I found it probably the best comedy programme of the year. I think that my hon. Friend, as a Welshman, probably thought a better comedy occurred on ITV an hour or so later, but I did not find that show quite so funny.
During the programme, the hon. Member for Peckham said that she could not set a minimum wage level until after the election, because Labour could not meet employers to achieve consensus until it was in government, but when John Humphrys said that the reason Labour was waiting until after the election was that it could never achieve consensus—as too low a rate would annoy the unions and too high a rate without regional variations would worry employers—the hon. Lady suddenly changed tack and said that Labour had been meeting employers, and that there was a great deal of consensus. If that is the case, fine, but why cannot she now tell us what the minimum wage level would be? No wonder she kept harking back to 1906. If that is new Labour's idea of progress, how far back would old Labour have gone for inspiration?
During the programme, the hon. Member for Peckham insisted on repeating several myths. She said that we are alone among European Union countries in not having a minimum wage. That is wrong; only seven EU countries have national minimum wages. She also said that pay had fallen in wages councils sectors since we abolished the wages councils. She should know the answer to that, because she asked me a written question in which the labour force survey, which both the Labour party and the unions say they find fully reliable, showed that pay for workers formerly covered by the wages council was rising at double the rate for the economy as a whole.
The Opposition say that the minimum wage would end what they term the £2 billion taxpayer subsidy for low pay in the form of in-work benefits such as family credit, but, as Andrew Dilnot of the Institute of Fiscal Studies said, even if a minimum wage were set at £8 an hour, many families would still receive family credit, so the Opposition are wrong on that point as well.
Labour—and, again, the hon. Member for Peckham during that programme—persisted in claiming that pay had fallen in Britain and that Britain competes on the basis of low pay, yet pay has risen at all levels since 1979. The real take-home pay of a single low-paid man in the bottom 10 per cent. of earnings has risen by £27 more than inflation since 1979. It actually fell by £1 under the last Labour Government.
326
My hon. Friend ably made the point that our economy is much more productive and competitive compared with 1979. It is because we are so much more competitive and productive that real pay has risen significantly at all levels, in stark contrast with the period 1974–79, when productivity and pay stagnated. During the 1960s and 1970s, Britain was bottom of all the major industrialised G7 countries when it came to the increase in manufacturing productivity, whereas in the 1980s we were equal top with Japan. That productivity boom has led to a sustainable increase in real take-home pay and living standards.
Even Labour's union buddies do not find its policy credible. The Trades Union Congress, in a document published on 22 March this year, said:
"No campaign on the minimum wage issue will carry real weight … unless it clearly states who would benefit, what impact it would have on unemployment … and the impact on differentials."
Sir Gordon Borfie, chairman of Labour's Social Justice Commission, wrote in April that the key to the minimum wage was the level. He said:
"too low would not have much benefit—too high would cost jobs."
Even William Hutton, economics editor of The Guardian, wrote around the same time that the
"key to the minimum wage is the level"
at which it is set.
Therefore, why will not Labour say or give any indication of the level at which it would set the minimum wage, what it would do about differentials, and whether there would he different rates for young workers, regions and different industries? Why the deafening silence?
The answer has been given by Labour's leader and deputy leader. Three years ago, its deputy leader, who, sadly, is not here to listen to the debate—I can understand why—said:
"I knew the consequences were that there'd be some shake-out"—
in jobs—
"any silly fool knew that."
The Leader of the Opposition was a little more oblique in his comment. He said:
"Econometric models indicate a potential jobs impact."
Now we all know why the hon. Member for Peckham is keeping so quiet about the level at which she would set the minimum wage.
We now have the spectacle of an Opposition—
Mr. Peter Butler: There is no Opposition.
Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is right, but I understand why Opposition Members are afraid to turn up for this debate. We have, rather, the spectre of an Opposition whose shadow Chancellor—[Interruption.] Now that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir. A. Grant) has apparently joined the Opposition, we have an Opposition—and a much worthier and more substantial Opposition than the one to which we are accustomed.
We may not have the spectacle of an Opposition here, but we have the spectacle of an Opposition in the country whose shadow Chancellor talks of the obscenity of directors' pay but said yesterday, in a Select Committee, that Labour would not introduce a pay maximum, and

327
whose employment spokesman habitually speaks in flowery tones of putting a floor under low pay, but will not say what that floor would be.
That is the worst type of deceitful populism. Labour is cynically using the low-paid as political pawns, and it will not wash. By the time of the election, Labour will have
328
to say what the level of the minimum wage will be; otherwise, the low-paid will know that they are being conned, and cruelly deceived.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Regional Government, London
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the introduction of regional government in London. [28027]
    Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about whether regional government is needed for London [28033]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I have had no recent representations in favour of introducing a top-heavy new layer of regional government in London.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, if London had to suffer a regional government, it would become the most over-governed capital city in western Europe? May I, as a former London borough councillor, remind him that the GLC mark 1 was an expensive irrelevance that caused confusion and cost to London's ratepayers, and that no one except the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) wants a GLC mark 2?
    Mr. Gummer: I hope that the House will remember that in the last five years of the GLC's existence its spending rose by 170 per cent. while prices were rising by 29 per cent., and that in 1986 it had 92 councillors, 20,000 staff and a budget of almost £1 billion. It is difficult to see that we are missing anything.
    Labour's plans for regional government—which, happily, have now been leaked in an official Labour party document—reveal that the London assembly that it wants would take economic development, the environment, planning, water, transport, higher education, health, community care, police and emergency services, energy and training away from everyone else.
    Mrs. Roche: A poll conducted recently by the Association of London Government showed that 79 per cent. of people supported an elected authority for London. Does the Secretary of State agree that what has been said by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) is arrant nonsense?
    Mr. Gummer: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is wrong. We consulted 10,000 people in London, and very few of them put a strategic authority—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—with as usual, a slight grin on his face—is trying to ask a question. The need for a strategic authority was not among the first 40 issues raised by the people whom we consulted.
    Mr. Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend accept that outer London boroughs more than 20 miles from the centre have little in common with central London, and that neither a Greater London council nor a regional structure would make sense? Will my right hon. Friend encourage the "confederation" view of the Association of London Government? Surely that, rather than the imposition of nonsensical views such as Labour's, is the sensible way of promoting subsidiarity among London boroughs.
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend may have noticed that the London boroughs—even those under Labour control—do not seem very enthusiastic about yielding their perfectly proper powers, particularly those relating to education, to some regional government controlling the entire capital. He may also have reflected that the old GLC area is far too small to deal with many matters, such as transport, while in regard to others—such as tourism—central London boroughs should work together, as they do in the new cross-river partnership. The Thames covers a completely different area which extends both above and below the old GLC area. There is no doubt that regional government, as run by the GLC, is entirely unsuitable for London, and is unmourned by the majority of Londoners.
    Mr. Dobson: When will the Government recognise that the majority of people in London—ranging in polls from about two thirds to four fifths—believe that there needs to be an elected, strategic authority for London to speak up on behalf of Londoners and to replace the present regional arrangements whereby a collection of faceless men and women, at the behest of Ministers who then deny all responsibility, take decisions behind closed doors that affect the future of all Londoners?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman would carry more credence in the House if he had ever produced a plan for London that he had managed to keep on the table for more than two days. Every time that the Labour party produces a plan, it has to withdraw it because not everyone in the Labour party in London likes it. The hon. Gentleman has no plan for London. The reason is that the Labour party in London does not want a new GLC because it knows how unpopular it would be. The London boroughs want to go on running their own affairs. The hon. Gentleman is, on this issue like most others, utterly incredible. He has failed to produce a policy. If he thinks that he can explain to the leader of Southwark that he wants to take away education, economic and other powers, he will have a very tough time.
    Dr. Twinn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only evidence about the desire for a GLC came when we abolished it? Labour boroughs privately gave us every support to hurry its demise. They hated it. Power is where it should be—at the local role level with the London boroughs.
    Mr. Gummer: I agree with my hon. Friend. However, it is noticeable that the Labour party remains seated when anyone asks what it would do. It pretends to want regional government to balance what it wants to do in Scotland but when it comes to London, it says that no powers would be given to regional government. Labour really must make up its mind.

    Standard Spending Assessments
    Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the area cost adjustment element of standard spending assessments. [28028]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I have previously said that I wish to take a fresh look to see whether we might improve the boundaries of the zones used in the

    331
    calculation of the adjustment. We and the local authority associations are currently looking at the initial findings of research on this which we commissioned.
    Dr. Wright: I am grateful for that answer. Can the Minister go on to explain to my constituents in Staffordshire why each pupil in secondary education in Surrey gets an extra £310 a year compared with my constituents' pupils in schools in Staffordshire? Would he also explain why the 10 counties that have had the largest increase in standard spending assessments since 1990 are all in the south-east and have all benefited from the area cost adjustment? Finally, can he tell the House why he has not been minded to accept the new basis for the area cost adjustment suggested by the Association of County Councils which would give Staffordshire an extra £9.5 million and go some way to offset the damaging cuts to education and other services that are taking place at the moment?
    Mr. Jones: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is as aware as anybody else that that sort of argument falls into fault lines according to those who receive it and those who do not. It is therefore all the more important that the Government should carry out research to make sure that the area cost adjustment is based on proper statistical analysis. We have carried that forward by discussions with the local authority associations. The ACC is one of those which have put forward ideas, but those ideas also have to be tested by proper and rigorous statistical analysis. So far, I am afraid, it has been unable to justify its approach. What I think is dangerous about the hon. Gentleman's argument is that he has failed entirely to recognise the additional costs that fall on local authorities, not only those such as Surrey, which he cited, but on inner London local authorities, which are controlled in virtually every case by his party.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Does my hon. Friend recall that for many years, I have drawn the attention of the Government to the crazy situation whereby if people take one step over the border from Bedfordshire or Hertfordshire into Cambridgeshire, they are suddenly deemed to be in a low-cost area? That is manifest nonsense. The result is that millions of pounds have been lost to Cambridgeshire which could have been used for education purposes. Therefore, any initiative that my hon. Friend takes is welcome. When he gets the results of the research, which I hope will suggest changes to travel-to-work areas, will he act quickly?
    Mr. Jones: Of course, we will look at the results of the research. I know that my hon. Friend has been a doughty fighter for Cambridgeshire in this and other cases for many years. Of course, he is right. We have to look at those methods of statistical analysis that match best the real pressures to spend, whether the areas involved are in the existing south-east or immediately outside.
    Mr. Illsley: The Minister will be aware that the amount of money spent on the area cost adjustment has doubled since 1990 to something like £1.6 million. He has heard from hon. Members of all parties that there are many discrepancies between adjacent areas, some of which receive the area cost adjustment and some of which do not. Will the Government consider a specific cost approach and London weighting, or other specific data, in order to achieve an immediate change rather than wait until the research is available?
    Mr. Jones: Our approach is based on specific data and research carried out by reputable organisations. London weighting is not the only additional cost borne by authorities in the south-east. Indeed, I see the hon. Members for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), who are sitting on either side of the hon. Gentleman, squirming in embarrassment about the fact that he is arguing that the area cost adjustment should be reduced because that would hit their constituencies very hard. The adjustment has to be justified by rigorous statistical analysis, not by the hon. Gentleman's political prejudice.

    Regional Assemblies
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received asking him to move responsibility for certain services from local councils to regional assemblies. [28029]
    Mr. Gummer: Since last October, we have had more than 30,000 letters about local government from members of the public, and we cannot trace or remember any that demanded regional assemblies.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Regional assemblies are not local government.
    Mr. Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is no popular demand whatsoever in England for the setting up of unnecessary, expensive and socialist regional assemblies and that the people of Kent have no desire to have their local government affairs run from Woking or Reading? They believe that local government must remain local to Kent.
    Mr. Gummer: I think that my hon. Friend received his answer from the Liberal local government spokesman, who said that regional assemblies are not local government. That is the whole point: regional assemblies are, in fact, utterly alien to Britain because they are not close enough to the people. People do not see themselves as living in regions and there are no natural boundaries to regions. The idea of the Labour party in the south-west, for example, saying that people in Cornwall should have their fire services organised in Bristol, or that people in Wiltshire should have their affairs run from Bristol, is entirely alien to the concept of local government. The idea that the counties, which fought for the independence that they have now been given since the changes, should have their powers taken away from them by a future Labour Government is anathema to most people.
    Mr. Betts: That is one of the most nonsensical answers that I have ever heard the right hon. Gentleman give in the House. Does he not accept that the important point is that the Government have transferred powers, not to regional assemblies, but to quangos and have centralised more local government functions than any other Government in history? Economic regeneration, transport, housing and other matters are currently run by faceless officials in regional offices, but it is those things for which local people want elected councillors to have responsibility at a local level so that they can have a say. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with that point.
    Mr. Gummer: I can understand why a former leader of Sheffield city council would want someone else to run his city, given the disastrous position in which he left it

    333
    and the debts that he ran up for it. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that parents are quangos and that people who run their own affairs are quangos. In fact, schools are now run by parents, teachers and governors on behalf of pupils. It is not only such matters that would be given to a regional assembly: it would, it appears, be responsible for economic development, the environment, planning, water and transport, all of which are currently run by local government. The idea that we have taken powers away from local government, when responsibility for something such as community care—one of the most important social services—has been given to local government, reveals just how empty the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric is.
    Mr. Harris: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the document to which he refers—Mori. MEMBERS: "Which document?"] The Labour party's document for regional government in the south-west which puts forward the concept of a regional assembly covering an area stretching from the Isles of Scilly in my constituency, right up to Swindon. As my right hon. Friend says, that would not only be anathema to the people of Cornwall, but would make absolute nonsense of the whole concept of local government and the provision of local control over those services.
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. The document, which has now received welcome publicity, is a recent publication by the Labour party in the south-west. My hon. Friend is right to say that the only problem with the geography of the document is that the map on the front includes Berkshire as part of the south-west. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) would like Newbury to be run from Bristol, for example. The difficulty for the Labour party is that it is in a party political mess. It needs regional government to justify having Scots in this House to vote on English matters without English Members voting on Scots matters. That is its only reason for regional government. It has nothing to do with the people of England.
    Mr. Rendel: In relation to the powers of local government, what is the Secretary of State's reaction to the final report from the Commission for Local Democracy which was launched this morning? What is his reaction in particular to three of its recommendations that, first, there should be a single transferable vote system of elections for local government; secondly, that we should as a country ratify the European charter for local self-government; and, thirdly, that there should be a power of general competence for local government, except where prohibited by statute?
    Mr. Gummer: I note that the question is about regional government. The first thing that that body said was that regional government was not a sensible policy for England. That was one of the few important things that it said—many of the other things that it said suffered a fundamental gap. It did not talk about the connection between who gave the money and who decided on the policy. The trouble with the whole issue of local democracy is this: if the money is supplied by the national taxpayer, it is difficult to have a kind of local democracy which enables people to pre-empt the decisions of central Government and have access to taxpayers' funds, without any kind of responsibility for the way in which those funds are spent.
    334
    The difficulty for the Commission for Local Democracy is that it failed to address that central issue. The document does not properly address that issue because none of the people concerned with the Commission for Local Democracy has had any history of trying to make sense of the reality of having to account for the money spent.
    Mr. Thomason: Does my right hon. Friend find it in the least surprising that the majority of my electors in Bromsgrove are appalled at the prospect of their area being run by regional government in Birmingham? Does he find it ironic that Labour Members have been campaigning for the abolition of county councils for the past few years and yet, suddenly, they are arguing for the creation of super county councils in the form of regional assemblies?
    Mr. Gummer: If that were so, it would be much easier. The Labour party is really campaigning for five levels of government. It wants Britain to become the most over-governed nation in Europe. It is very deeply concerned. It wants parishes, districts, counties, regions and the national Government. It wants all that—[Interruption.] Well, some of them want that and others do not want it. Above all, the trouble is that the person who speaks on the subject occasionally is not the man who will make the decision—he cannot be trusted with it. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is entrusted with that.
    Mr. Salmond: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be highly appropriate if a Scottish assembly had powers over oil and gasfield decommissioning? Do not the Government have a huge financial interest—up to £1 billion—in deep-water disposal as opposed to onshore dismantling? Was the Secretary of State consulted yesterday by the President of the Board of Trade before he made his sabre-rattling comments about denying—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a game try, but it was not relevant to the question.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people in the Ribble Valley were deeply disappointed when Lancashire county council, which is controlled by the Labour party, was not scrapped, but that they totally oppose handing powers away from themselves to a body that they would regard as even more remote and out of touch than the current county council?
    Mr. Gummer: But those people would be supported in that by several members of the Labour party who are desperate to get rid of Lancashire county council. One of the problems with regionalism in the north-west is that although nobody outside the Labour party has asked for a regional assembly, many Labour party members, such as the hon. Member for Blackburn, see the prospect as a means of getting rid of the Labour leader of the county council, whom they are desperate to get rid of by one means or another.
    Mr. Trimble: Is there not already a significant amount of administration that is regionally based, and would it not be better if such administrative regional devolution from Whitehall were subject to democratic control, rather than being run by quangos, as at present? Is not the Secretary of State right to say that there is no threat to the future unity of the United Kingdom from a uniform

    335
    system of regional devolution, but does not the real threat lie in having devolution for one region alone, as the Government propose?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman may recognise that the issues raised in one part of the United Kingdom are particular and difficult, and I have no intention of being drawn on that subject here. However, one of the reasons why there now appears to be a bias towards female-only lists has been revealed. I have discovered that there is another way of getting rid of the leader of Lancashire county council. Is there no end to the Labour party's desire to attack her?

    Sewage Treatment Works
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in upgrading sewage treatment works which were in breach of their discharge consents at the time of privatisation of the water industry. [28030]
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): Of 918 sewage treatment works identified in 1989 as requiring investment, 95 per cent. are now compliant with their consents. Further investment is planned over the next 10 years.
    Mr. Congdon: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having become my right hon. Friend. I welcome the improvements that have taken place in the treatment of sewage since the massive investment following privatisation of the industry, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there is more to be done to ensure that no sewage is discharged into the sea in an untreated state?
    Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The problem that he mentions has been around for a considerable time, and because of its size it is not likely simply to go away. However, since privatisation many companies involved in the disposal of sewage have spent vast sums on improvements. My hon. Friend's point is well taken, and I am sure that the water companies already spending that money will continue to do so, so that, in the not-too-distant future, the concerns that he has expressed will vanish.
    Ms Ruddock: Does the Minister agree that the improvements to which he alluded have been made as much to comply with European directives as because of privatisation? Is he also aware that the beaches at the major resorts in this country are still being contaminated by the discharge of sewage into the sea, and that the European Commission's recent annual report placed Britain third from the bottom of the league table for bathing water quality? Is it not true that this summer holidaymakers should be given the health warning, "Bathing in sea water in Britain can damage your health"?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Lady raises several points, although, as usual, she puts her finger on a problem that is easy to attack, but she does not understand the solutions. The fact remains that this country has spent more on cleaning up its beaches and providing sewerage facilities than any other country. That has happened as a direct result of privatisation, although the hon. Lady is right to say that the European Commission has played a part. Surely the point is that for years in this country we thought that poking a pipe into the sea off the coast to get
    336
    rid of sewage was acceptable, but we now reckon that it is not. It will cost a lot of money and take a lot of time to redress that, and it does not help if Opposition Members such as the hon. Lady attack tourism, the towns that depend on it and Britain as a whole by suggesting that our beaches are unsafe, when they are not.
    Mr. Hawkins: May I join in the congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his well-deserved advancement, which was particularly welcome among fellow Lancashire Members? Will he confirm that one of the best of the recent advances in sewage treatment is the splendid investment that North West Water is making to clean up the sea off Blackpool's beaches to ensure that our leading resort remains the best in the world? Is it not outrageous that the Opposition seek always to run Britain and its tourism down?
    Mr. Atkins: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. Blackpool is arguably the most important tourist resort in Europe, and certainly the most important in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), speak firmly and regularly in favour of the town they represent. Anyone who attacks Blackpool and its contribution to the British economy through tourism does Lancashire and this country a grave disservice. We know who is doing that.

    Homelessness, London
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the total number of homeless people in London. [28031]
    The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): Last November, a count by voluntary sector agencies found 288 people sleeping rough in central London.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does not the Minister think that it is quite disgraceful that anyone should be sleeping rough in London? Can he explain why 28,000 families have been accepted as homeless by London's local authorities, and why hardly any building by local authorities or by housing associations is going on? Why are the Government relying on hostels to solve the homeless crisis? Does not the contrast between the 20 million sq ft of empty office space in London and the enormous housing waiting lists, and the enormous number of homeless people, suggest that the Government have got it badly and totally wrong? The Government's real priority must be to build houses for affordable rent so that people can get a clean, decent and safe roof over their heads, rather than experience the misery of bed-and-breakfast or hostel accommodation.
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again. He knows that the rough sleepers initiative has been a great success in the past few years. That has been due to the remarkable co-operation between the voluntary organisations—to which I freely pay tribute—and my Department. The principle of that co-operation has been to find people who have difficulties and move them through into hostels. They will then be put into permanent accommodation so that they can move into some form of settled life. That will never be available for everybody, as some people with particular problems with drink and mental illness will not be able to live autonomous lives without a great deal of assistance. The system is working

    337
    extremely well, and I have given an undertaking that it will be followed by a new rough sleepers initiative. I am pleased to pay tribute to all of the volunteers who have worked so hard to make the scheme succesful.
    Mr. Brooke: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the voluntary sector on the progress which the figure of 288 rough sleepers represents. But does he agree that definition in this problem is important? Would not a regular and comprehensive indexed scale of the problem—agreed with the key charities—be helpful, both in the context of policy making and informed questioning?
    Mr. Curry: My right hon. Friend is right in that regard. We have a clearing house which helps to identify people who find themselves in that position and which can find accommodation for them. It is also important that we ensure that the voluntary agencies share information more effectively with each other. We have identified the schemes which are working most effectively, and we will see how we can focus those schemes on people with particular problems—for example, mental health, alcohol or drug problems. The infrastructure is largely in place, and making sure that it works efficiently is a key priority.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: When will the Minister announce the Government's proposals to come to the rescue of long leaseholders who are contemplating the prospect of becoming homeless because they have bills of up to £27,000 for capital charges which they cannot possibly begin to pay? A working party has bounced ideas around the Department, but nothing has been said on the subject for months. Those people are desperate for some news, and they want to be rescued from a predicament which they never envisaged.
    Mr. Curry: I will send the hon. Gentleman the announcement that we made last Monday.

    Regeneration
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in which main areas in England there has been significant regeneration. [28032]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): Our cities and towns are benefiting from more than £1 billion per annum in special regeneration initiatives, on top of national housing, training and education programmes. The special initiatives include urban development corporations, city challenge and the single regeneration budget challenge fund, and are building new partnerships throughout the country. They have stepped in where Labour authorities on their own have frequently failed abysmally.
    Mrs. Lait: I am pleased at the success of the regeneration policies, but does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the time has come to look at other areas in need, such as Hastings? My constituents are aware that the town has high levels of unemployment, criminality, drug, solvent and alcohol abuse as well high levels of child and sex abuse, poor housing and bad roads. Does he agree that it is about time his Department started to recast its policies and moved in the direction of other areas, such as Hastings, which need help?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I think that my hon. Friend is already aware that we have moved in the right direction. In fact, Hastings has done so, because it is receiving just under half a million pounds from the round one bid for the challenge fund. My hon. Friend should persuade, if she can, her local Liberal-Labour council to work with the grain rather than against it and launch a decent bid—I hope with success—for the next round.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that it does no good to make an unnecessary swipe at Labour councils, as he did a few moments ago? The Burnley initiative, which comprises business, local industry and the community, is working well with the council. Their only comment to the Government would be that they should not have to get money through competition, because the Government should give out money based on need.
    Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. He has obviously not read the newspapers recently; otherwise, he would have noted that a small Labour authority called Monklands is in some trouble. We have in our midst the ex-leaders of Islington and of Sheffield, where there is degeneration rather than regeneration. That is why we must opt for partnerships.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Was not the Thames gateway one of the most fascinating recent decisions of the Government's regeneration policy together with the choice of Ebbsfleet as the station on the channel tunnel rail link? Does that not augur extremely well for jobs and many other improvements in north-west Kent?
    Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend is right. He has obviously noticed that we recently launched the final strategy, which was successfully received with a positive response. Even those one would expect to be critics have joined in praising the venture.

    Private Rents
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average rent paid by tenants of private landlords; and what was the equivalent figure for 1978–79 in actual and real terms. [28034]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: The average weekly rent paid by tenants of private landlords in England is £60.00. The average weekly rent in 1978–79 was £6.30—equivalent to £17.00 a week at 1993–94 prices.
    Mrs. Campbell: Does the Minister accept that as a result of Government policies there has been a massive increase in private sector rents, which has caused a huge increase in the cost of housing benefit in the past five years from £1.1 billion to £4.9 billion?
    Mr. Jones: We are anxious to ensure choice in housing for the people of Britain, and that means a healthy private rented sector. It follows from not being able to get a decent return that landlords will not come forward. If Opposition Members argue for rent controls, they must bear the consequences. For example, in 1974, when rent control was extended to furnished lettings, the number of such lettings fell by 400,000 and were therefore unavailable to people.

    Rented Homes
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many rented homes were provided through the Housing Corporation in 1993–94; and how many will be provided in 1995–96. [28035]
    Ms Hodge: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many rented homes were provided through the Housing Corporation in 1993–94; and how many will be provided in 1995–96. [28042]
    Mr. Curry: The Housing Corporation estimates that it will provide 46,000 rented homes in 1995–96, including properties freed up by tenants' incentive schemes and the do-it-yourself shared ownership scheme. In 1993–94, about 52,000 were provided.
    Mr. Miller: Those figures are somewhat misleading. Data provided by the Government in their own statistics show a massive fall in approvals from 1993–94 to the current year and a fall in completions. Add that to the difficulties faced by local authorities because of the rather ridiculous restrictions placed on them by central Government and the fact that the house building market has stagnated because of the Government's fiscal policies, and it is no wonder that we have a housing crisis. When are the Government going to do anything about it?
    Mr. Curry: What matters is that properties become available, and it makes sense to use resources to make the maximum number of properties available for whatever resources are available. It makes a great deal of sense, for example, to use tenants' incentive schemes, encouraging people to buy in the private sector and freeing up property, because of their effect on the number of properties entering the marketplace for new tenants.
    Mr. Miller: How many are available?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman should not forget that about 250,000 local authority housing association tenancies become available each year, and that 75 per cent. of the programme to which he referred is for homes to rent. He should have the common sense to realise that the important thing is to free up the maximum number of properties so that people can take advantage of them. He should not become too hooked on the idea of new build and he certainly should not become hooked on the idea that local authorities should throw some mythical crock of gold into the gap. Even Members on his own Front Bench will not tell us how they would manage that.
    Ms Hodge: I agree that it is important to have properties available, but it is also important that properties should be available at affordable rents. Does the Minister agree that, when he allocates grants to housing associations through the Housing Corporation next year, he will have to have regard to the quality of what is produced and the existing rents of those housing associations?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Lady, in her capacity as chairman of Circle 33 housing association, has perhaps been more successful than in her more distant capacity as leader of Islington council.
    Ms Hodge indicated dissent.
    Mr. Curry: Therefore, she speaks with some experience on that matter. We are obviously reflecting on questions of the type that the hon. Lady asked us, because
    340
    it is important to ensure that rent increases do not reach the point at which they start costing resources and that maximum use of resources is made. I am sure that, if the hon. Lady will bide her time, she will discover that we shall cover those in the forthcoming publication.
    Mr. Raynsford: To put the record straight, may I remind the Minister that his Department recently published a memorandum confirming the need for 60,000 to 100,000 rented homes to be built each year, and that at the same time his Department's annual report—which I assume he does not repudiate—shows that output from the Housing Corporation's approved development programme this year will generate only 18,900 rented homes, not the much larger figure to which the Minister tried to refer in his answer?
    Although I understand the Minister's wish to obfuscate and confuse the issue, will he now come clean and reveal that he is responsible for reducing the output of rented housing to the lowest point for 50 years?
    Mr. Curry: I thought the hon. Gentleman would come up with that one. He is confusing new building and new letting. Let us place the facts on the record. In 1995–96, 36,000 properties will be made available in approved development programme lettings, 7,200 properties will be released by tenants' incentive schemes and about 2,820 will be released by do-it-yourself shared ownership. That gives a figure of 46,020, to which I referred in my earlier answer.

    English Partnership
    Ms Corston: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to meet the chairman of English Partnership to discuss its progress. [28036]
    Mr. Curry: My right hon. Friend will meet Lord Walker on 17 July.
    Ms Corston: What steps does the Minister propose to take to ensure that local councils receive the help that they require with their plans for regeneration? Does he not realise that it is vital that the creation of a new agency should not be regarded as a substitute for Government action to help local councils with their plans for local regeneration and to help local businesses to bring prosperity to communities and cities?
    Mr. Curry: I am sure that the hon. Lady will know that I have had detailed discussions with the Bristol development corporation, of which the chairman of Bristol local authority is a member, to try to make progress on the development scheme and to bring it to a successful completion. Two schemes previously proposed by the corporation have not materialised. There is now one on which I have authorised negotiations. I hope that that will be successful, but we must ensure that, when the corporation does come to an end, an organisation exists that is able to take over the assets. I have therefore insisted that there should also be discussions with English Partnership, a body that is very experienced in the subject. I hope that the private sector development will succeed, that I shall be able to authorise it and that the third one will be the lucky one. At the same time, it is important for the protection of Government money to ensure that there is a failsafe mechanism.
    Mr. Vaz: Does the Minister accept that when the Government created English Partnership they failed to

    341
    make clear that organisation's role? Will he now accept the views of the private sector and others, and initiate a thorough review of the role and functions of English Partnership so that it plays an important part in our regeneration process rather than being just another Government quango, as it is at present?
    Mr. Curry: The Opposition have clearly caught review mania. It is amazing that they do not demand a review of whether today is Wednesday. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) does not even know the answer to the question—not surprisingly.
    English Partnership has a clear role: to assist in development, to act as a partner in development and as a focus and help for inward investment, and to use Government resources in the most cost-effective manner. That role is played admirably by Lord Walker, who has a very good knowledge of how government and the private sector work, and of regeneration—in fact. he is almost everything that the hon. Member for Leicester, East is not.

    Construction Industry
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to minimise procurement disputes in the construction industry. [28037]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: My Department is working with the Construction Industry Board in taking forward the recommendations in Sir Michael Latham's report, "Constructing the Team". The Government are also consulting on legislative proposals arising out of Sir Michael's recommendations, which are designed to address some of the causes of disputes in the industry.
    Mr. Luff: Does my hon. Friend understand the concern of construction industry subcontractors such as Metal Constructions Ltd. in my constituency, which wants to see a construction contracts Bill in the next Session of Parliament? What reassurance can he give me to share with such companies, that the Government are committed in principle to legislate on issues identified in the Latham report?
    Mr. Jones: I share my hon. Friend's concern for the position of subcontractors as, before entering the House, I spent my working life in the construction industry. I can confirm that the Government have made it clear that, provided there is a consensus in the industry on how to move forward, we will legislate. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot bind the Government over the contents of the Queen's Speech. We are making steady progress, which is due to the hard work of many people in the construction industry and, of course, Sir Michael Latham himself.

    Central and Local Government
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he will take to improve relations between central and local government. [28038]
    Mr. Gummer: Last November, the Prime Minister and the chairmen of the local authority associations agreed written guidelines for the conduct of relations between local and national government. We are committed to seeing active and robust local government delivering quality services which their residents want and can afford.
    Mr. Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way of countering the rubbish that we hear from both Opposition parties about regional assemblies is to improve further the relations between central and local government? Should that not include improving the co-ordination between the two tiers of central Government, where there are two tiers, central Government taking account of the functions that they devolve to local government, the outlawing of extremism, corruption and maladministration such as we have seen in Monklands and Hackney and, finally—building on my right hon. Friend's excellent decision last week in respect of Somerset—the relaxing of capping?
    Mr. Gummer: I hope very much that we can continue the good relationships that we have built up with local authorities. That can be achieved across the party-political divide by people who are concerned to give local authorities a proper role in the way in which the government of this country operates. It does not help to pretend that local authorities had powers taken away from them when their biggest challenge at present is the implementation of community care—a major new sphere in which they can operate in an enabling way. They have accepted the challenge gladly and with enthusiasm. It does not help to threaten local authorities, whether county, district or unitary, with yet another tier of local authority—regional government—particularly without any reference to how it would be done and knowing it to be a party-political ploy.
    Mr. Macdonald: What steps will the Secretary of State take to improve relations between the central Government and my local Western Isles council following its successful campaign to stop the dumping of the Brent Spar at sea? As the Government have been so completely wrong and so completely humiliated with regard to the Brent Spar, is it not time for an apology or perhaps a note of humility from the Dispatch Box?
    Mr. Gummer: The solution to the Brent Spar problem is now less environmentally friendly. That is the issue, and Opposition Members will have to accept that fact.
    Relations between central and local government—that is what the question is about—are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Bearing in mind the fact that central Government may have to supply some 90 per cent. of local government finance, will my right hon. Friend consider carefully whether it is time for his Department to issue to every household in the country the exact position in relation to the amount of funding going to each local authority? That will ensure that the position is readily understood, despite the misleading propaganda from local government.
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend has raised this matter before and he is right to press it. I hope that the simple performance indicators that we are now publishing will help in that direction. The truth is that good local government is extremely good, but there are many examples—as we have seen from the newspapers in the past few days—of where local government has been very bad indeed. Monklands is one such example. We must try to draw a distinction not only between local authorities that are manifestly operating in an unacceptable way but

    343
    between those that are just badly run. I should have thought that Hackney and Haringey would be two very good ones to start with.

    Planning Policy
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding his review of planning policy. [28039]
    Sir Paul Beresford: The only review that my right hon. Friend proposes at the moment is to revise PPG6, on which he has received a number of representations.
    Mr. Hanson: Is the Minister aware of the continued pressure from developers for out-of-town shopping? Will he take the opportunity today to assure the House that, in any future review, he will stick closely to the Government's position of opposing out-of-town shopping and not pander to developers?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman seems to have missed the various discussions and debates that have taken place. That is the reason for the revision and the rethinking of PPG6.
    Mr. Mans: When my hon. Friend reviews planning policy, will he take careful note of the more silly structure plans of various counties, such as Lancashire? It is suggesting that another 66,000 houses should be built in the county in the next 10 years, particularly around small towns such as Garstang and Preeshall, which would completely alter the character of the villages and towns. Those houses are not wanted in the county by anyone who knows what is going on there.
    Sir Paul Beresford: As my hon. Friend will know, I am abundantly aware of those points. I spent a rather enjoyable hour and a half one morning having them rammed down my throat. The only member of the Labour party present protested with a small voice, but it is his party that should get its act together on the issue.

    Rats
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received alleging failure to control rats by the water and sewerage companies. [28040]
    Mr. Atkins: It seems singularly appropriate that rats should be answering a question about rats. My Department has received no such representations.
    Mr. Griffiths: Has the Minister seen the report released in June by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health? It shows—if the Minister had chosen to inform himself, he would know this—that the number of rat infestations has increased by more than 40 per cent., that one in seven houses is now infested with rats and that the water companies have slashed the budgets of pest control officers. Is the Minister satisfied with those cuts, which have obviously been used to fund some of the boardroom bonanzas?
    Mr. Atkins: According to the survey that was carried out, there has been an increase in the number of infestations from 4.4 per cent. to 4.8 per cent. I suggest that most of those are in Monklands.
    Mr. Fabricant: What does my right hon. Friend intend to do about an infestation in Staffordshire that we do not
    344
    enjoy? They moan about the standard spending assessment, they have more than £70 million held in reserves and they threaten school children with teachers losing their jobs? Should not we do something about the rats in Labour-controlled Staffordshire county council?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend has a point. However, there is a serious issue. Scare stories are being spread by the likes of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) to suggest that rats are on the increase. There has been a small increase in certain areas, but the problem must be viewed in proportion. According to the survey by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, the number of rats has increased by 0.4 per cent. In those circumstances, the stories from Opposition Members are little more than scaremongering and my hon. Friend has a better point than the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South.
    Mr. Banks: Since the Minister seems to know precisely the percentage increase, what is the United Kingdom population of rats?
    Mr. Atkins: It depends whether they are rattus vulgaris or whether they are black rats. My comment about Monklands would apply to the black rats.

    Regional Government
    15. Mr. Day: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about regional government in the north-west. [28041]
    Mr. Gummer: I have received no representations in favour of regional government in the north-west and I doubt whether anybody ever will.
    Mr. Day: My right hon. Friend will know that in my eight years as Member of Parliament for Cheadle I have received no such representations from business men in my constituency or within the region and further, and that in my eight years as a vice-president of Stockport chamber of commerce I have received no such representations from businesses in Stockport requiring regional assemblies. Does he agree that the north-west is a powerhouse for exporters, high-tech industry and aerospace and is doing great stuff for Britain? Will he ensure that that remains so and never even consider the Labour party's ridiculous proposal for regional assemblies? What would they do other than get in the way of private industry?
    Mr. Gummer: But I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that we have had no requests from the Labour leader of Manchester council or from the Labour leadership in Lancashire for a regional assembly. Nobody wants a regional assembly, not even the Opposition, but they have to support it because it is the only way of ensuring that Scottish Members of Parliament can vote on English issues, while English Members of Parliament cannot vote on Scottish issues. We all know perfectly well why the Labour party is so silent, with the single exception of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), who is busy wanting regional authorities to make up for his very sad past. Labour Members are keeping quiet because they know that it has nothing to do with the governance of Britain, but concerns the Labour party's determination to fix the electorate.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: In so as far as many decisions relating to my constituency and the constituency of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) are actually taken in

    345
    the north of England—they are taken in Preston, Manchester and, in my case, Newcastle—surely there already is a regional tier of government?
    Mr. Gummer: No. Ministers are, perfectly properly, advised by civil servants, but Ministers take the decisions and are accountable to the House. The Opposition want not only Ministers responsible to the House but five tiers of government. The hon. Gentleman would not put up with it for a moment. He would insist that he had powers in the House. He should speak out in his own party against the silly devolution plans that it is putting forward.
    Mr. Elletson: Will my right hon. Friend give the House his latest estimate of the cost to the taxpayer of an extra tier of local government in the north-west? Will he tell us how much more tax the people of Lancashire would have to pay for the privilege of being governed from Manchester?
    Mr. Gummer: Now that we have the Labour party's scheme for the south-west we are applying it to the whole country and working out what it will cost. We will then be able to give my hon. Friend a much more detailed breakdown. I hope that my hon. Friend has noticed that, at the same time as advocating an extra tier of government that would increase costs for businesses, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) is attacking the British tourist industry and making people afraid to go on holiday in Britain—because she does not even care about putting party political profit ahead of the people of Blackpool.

    Council Homes
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes have been built by local councils in England over the past five years; and what were the figures for the period 1974 to 1979. [28043]
    Mr. Curry: Twenty-seven thousand seven hundred and 460,900 respectively.
    Mr. Mitchell: The Minister is telling us that, at a time of desperate and growing need for low-cost social rented housing, the number of starts and completions by councils is down by more than 90 per cent. Is he proud of that? Is he proud of the fact that councils will build only 1,000 new houses this year and that housing associations will build fewer than 20,000, at a time of need? Is he proud of the fact that, this year, there will be the lowest number of starts for low-cost rented housing for 50 years?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman has been in this place long enough to know that the earlier figure referred to local authority building at a time when local authorities were the prime new builders of social housing, whereas the latter figure refers to a period when that role has been largely taken over by housing associations. Last night the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) and I were at a meeting to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the National Federation of Housing Associations, whose members are now significant builders. He might have added that 260,000 new lettings in the relevant period came from housing associations.
    The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is therefore simple: the Government do not believe that new build should be undertaken predominantly by local
    346
    authorities. We believe in diversification of tenure and in choice. We believe that housing associations are better placed, more skilful and more effective at delivering new housing than local authorities.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that, taking council house building and housing association building for rent together, the total this year will be the lowest for the 50 years since VE day?
    Mr. Curry: We have produced 180,000 new lettings in the past three years, and we will produce as many again in the next three years. What matters is letting, not building. It is nonsense to assume that the only house available is one built from scratch. What matters are properties coming to the marketplace for social letting. We have made significant achievements in that respect, and we shall continue to build on them.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received on changes to the capping criteria for local authority budgets. [28044]
    Mr. Curry: I shall consider the capping criteria for 1996–97 in the context of decisions on next year's local government finance settlement.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should relax the capping criteria on local authorities, so that profligate and wasteful expenditure decisions by councils can be well and truly exposed and local people can make their decisions known via the local ballot box?
    Mr. Curry: Any Government will seek to find ways in which people can distinguish at local level between those offering themselves for election, at the same time as making sure that Government's responsibility for overall economic policy continues. In the light of that, we shall consider the capping criteria next year.
    Mr. Denham: Will the Minister confirm that on current projections Hampshire county council will be required to cut its budget by £38 million next year? Why, then, has he absolutely refused to meet representatives of the county council, the business community and local residents in Hampshire to discuss the crisis into which he is forcing the council? Is this not a case of "those who won't listen won't learn"?
    Mr. Curry: Next year's budget for Hampshire county council has not been set; the capping criteria have not been set; decisions on the SSA have not been taken; and the budget has not been announced. When the hon. Gentleman talks about what might happen next year he is indulging in sheer fantasy.

    Cement Kilns
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the burning of secondary liquid fuel in cement kilns. [28046]
    Mr. Atkins: I wrote to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on 13 June welcoming the

    347
    Select Committee's initiative on burning SLF in cement kilns. I said that the existing controls are sufficient to regulate cement kilns and SLF.
    I can assure the House that the trials are strictly controlled and that Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will stop any which endanger the environment. Permanent burning will be allowed only if HMIP is satisfied that the environment will not be adversely affected.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that people who live close to cement kilns have suffered for a long time from pollution from the dust and that they are now extremely worried about the possible effects of burning this new fuel? Would it not be far better to reassure them by ensuring that
    348
    the trials are short-lived and that no permanent permission for burning this new fuel will be given unless the same conditions apply as those for burning waste?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has been particularly involved in pursuing me on a matter affecting his constituency directly, and the hon. Gentleman and the Select Committee have asked similar questions. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his Committee's report and, as he will know, I am in full agreement with some of the things that he said. The trials that are going on are being conducted by HMIP, which is a highly regarded and internationally renowned organisation. I must await its advice before I make any decisions.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Sir Peter Hordern: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you tell the House what can be done to protect the rights of right hon. and hon. Members when it is quite clear from press reports that officials in the Scott inquiry have been leaking misleading information to the press? I have in my hand an article that appeared in The Times today, which says:
"Sir Richard is understood to believe that the leaks are intended to undermine his report…and believes that some of those criticised in his report are seeking to discredit his findings before they are"—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The Scott inquiry has absolutely nothing to do with the Chair.
Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek advice in relation to what the Prime Minister told the House yesterday afternoon, when he said:
"I have made it clear in 'Questions of Procedure for Ministers' that Ministers who deliberately mislead Parliament should resign, except in exceptional circumstances like a devaluation".
Only a couple of minutes later he referred to me individually, when he said:
"If the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is so concerned about open government, will he say today that he will publish the earlier, secret report held by the Labour party into Monklands council, which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has consistently refused to make public?"—[Official Report, 20 June 1995; Vol. 262, c. 149–150.]
That statement is untrue. The report to which the Prime Minister referred was published in March 1993, and it was made available to the press and to the public. Therefore, what he told the House yesterday, with specific reference to me, was not true. I can say only that he must have been misleading the House.
I wrote to the Prime Minister yesterday, pointing that out to him, and asked him whether in honour he would come to the House to clarify the point and apologise to me and to the House. He replied to me this morning, acknowledging that what he said was not true. He said:
"You know as well as I do that … a report may have been published as a result of your Party's internal inquiry."
Have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had any indication from the Prime Minister that he will now come to the House to give the apology and the clarification that, in honour and integrity, he should give us?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have had no communication from any hon. Member, least of all the Prime Minister.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you advise the House on whether there is any way in which the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), one of the Opposition Members who is paid extra out of the public purse, can come to the Chamber to make a statement on whether he will permit the report to be published? The evidence has remained secret. What has Labour got.to hide?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members know full well that the Speaker has no power to demand that any hon. Member makes any statement on any matter.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You, as Chairman of Ways and Means, and, indeed, Madam Speaker herself, have made clear on a number of occasions the preference that the House be told first of any new developments in Government policy. All of us would have seen on our television screens yesterday evening the President of the Board of Trade, and, indeed, the Minister for Industry and Energy, make a series of belligerent statements to the effect that Shell Oil might not be given permission for onshore disposal of the Brent Spar oil rig. Those statements may have been made in a fit of pique, and they were incredible statements to make, but even if the Government are advancing such an incredible argument, do they not have a duty to come before the House and be subjected to questioning about that extraordinary behaviour?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that Ministers must respond as they feel appropriate to what they believe to be their duty.
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a new subject.
Mr. Shaw: We have just heard the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) say that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said something that was untrue yesterday—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I said that I hoped that the hon. Member's point of order would be on a new subject.
Mr. Shaw: It relates to the fact that 100 Labour Members have lied in the House about Monklands—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member might like to rephrase that or withdraw it altogether. What he has said is not acceptable.
Mr. Shaw: I shall say exactly—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, a straight withdrawal.
Mr. Shaw: The fact is that 100 Labour Members—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member deserves to be heard in silence.
Mr. Shaw: I would like to rephrase my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I think that it should be phrased in the way that hon. Member for Hamilton phrased his point about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. One hundred Labour Members made false statements, untrue statements, on the Order Paper about the cover-up by Labour of Monklands district council.
Mr. John McFall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—a new point about the progress of my private Member's Bill, the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, which received more support than any other private Member's Bill. Despite that, hon. Members considering the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Bill are deliberately filibustering. The public cannot understand the difference between the antiquity of the rules and procedures of the House and public opinion. Will you,

351
Mr. Deputy Speaker, do something to repair the dislocation between our procedures and public opinion so that my Bill might go into Committee?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am confident in the Chair of that Committee and confident also that there cannot have been filibustering. In any event, what happens in a Committee has nothing to do with me today.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Today, the audit commissioners warned that patients' lives were being put at risk because of the chaotic state of hospital medical records. As the Government have spent millions of pounds on administrators over the past few years, has the Secretary of State for Health said whether she will come to the House to explain exactly what is going on?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker has made it absolutely clear that that sort of manoeuvre to ascertain whether there will be a statement is unacceptable.
Mr. John Sykes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not normally raise points of order, but I had no idea that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) would raise a point of order about his Bill. May I inform you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that last week the Committee considering the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Bill spent about an hour discussing manuscript amendments that had been tabled by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike)?
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a point of order?
Mr. Banks: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It relates to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). Surely his point about proceedings in Committee is an example of where the will of the House as expressed on the Floor is being frustrated.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We will not go back to points of order on which I have already ruled.

prosecution Privatisation
3.38 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow the police to use private solicitors instead of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute in the magistrates' court.
The aim behind the Bill is simply to make justice for smaller crimes cheaper, faster and hence more easily pursued. Summary cases—those that have to be handled in magistrates courts—are in theory less important matters to be brought before the criminal law. For the victims, however, the theft of a vehicle, criminal damage up to £2,000 or common assault are serious enough offences.
It is interesting to note what has happened since 1985 while the Crown Prosecution Service has had a monopoly of handling summary cases. The latest figures available are for 1993, which was the peak year for crime. It rose sharply in the years until then and has fallen since. We find not only that, up to 1993, crime increased fast and that the police substantially increased the number of crimes that they cleared up, but that a number of cases had been downgraded from indictable offences handled in Crown courts to summary cases handled in magistrates courts. For all those reasons, one would have expected a substantial increase in the number of successful prosecutions in magistrates courts. Far from it. In 1993 the number of successful convictions in magistrates courts was 4 per cent. lower than 10 years before.
Costs too have spiralled. The Comptroller and Auditor-General is one of a number of authorities which have commented on the issue. It is interesting to ask how the system works. I shall furnish my argument with an example from my constituency. Canterbury police station is a few hundred yards from Canterbury magistrates court. Several excellent firms of solicitors operate in the immediate area. Every case—no matter how trivial—that is brought to court must go all the way to Crown Prosecution Service offices in Folkestone, with all the procedures involved in that. Cases that could have been dealt with before on the same day, largely on the strength of verbal briefing, must now be dealt with through that expensive and time-consuming procedure.
That is not a criticism of individual Crown Prosecution Service officials. When I visited them in Folkestone, I was impressed at how hard working and diligent they were. The truth is that the system is a grossly unwieldy one for dealing with minor offences.
I propose that we should allow each police area to appoint, if they choose to do so, one local firm of solicitors to handle a proportion of their magistrates court work. That firm would obviously have to give up any defence activities because, otherwise, there would be a conflict of interest. That proposal should be extended further to allow police officers to be used to prosecute some minor cases themselves, as used to be the case.
354
The new system would have a number of advantages. First, it would obviously be much faster. Secondly, it would be far cheaper. Those two changes would enable us to tackle more cases so there should be an increase, instead of a reduction, in the number of cases successfully brought. Thirdly, it would improve the motivation of the police force. Fourthly, in relation to minor cases, it would give police officers greater experience in court work. We have reached the absurd position where officers are having to be sent on courses to be trained as witnesses.
As far as I know, only two arguments have been advanced against my proposal. One of them involves the argument from uniformity and the other from independence. Uniformity cuts no ice with me and should cut no ice at least with Conservative Members because, as a party, we believe in diversity. Crime, especially petty crime, has a local aspect to it and it is right that, in some regions, people should choose to be more vigilant in relation to a particular type of crime if it is more prevalent in their region.
On independence, we often hear cases cited, such as the Guildford Four or Birmingham Six, but surely no one would maintain to the House that the procedures that are appropriate for a major criminal trial are appropriate for a person damaging someone's front door or for careless driving. However, all such offences must go through the same basic procedure, with the same people, in the prosecution process.
The question is posed immediately: why did we ever nationalise the service? Whereas Conservative Members would believe that it was perhaps a mistake to nationalise something as important as this anyway, hon. Members on both sides of the House would surely agree that the most appropriate way to handle small cases, petty offences—the offences that local magistrates courts exist to deal with—is for local police to deal with local solicitors.
These offences matter to my constituents and, I am certain, to other hon. Members' constituents. My approach would result in faster and cheaper justice and would allow us to handle more cases. I urge the House to support my Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Julian Brazier, Sir Archibald Hamilton, Sir George Gardiner, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Robert Hughes, Mr. Graham Riddick, Mr. John Sykes, Mr. David Shaw, Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Mr. Nigel Waterson and Mr. Stephen Day.

PROSECUTION PRIVATISATION
Mr. Julian Brazier accordingly presented a Bill to allow the police to use private solicitors instead of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute in the magistrates' court. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 June 1995, and to be printed. [Bill 142.]
Orders of the Day

  European Union
  [Relevant documents: The White Paper on Developments in the European Union January-June 1994 (Cm 2675); the White Paper on Developments in the European Union July-December 1994 (Cm 2798); the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 6th June 1995 on the Commission's recommendation for the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and the Community; European Community Documents Nos. COM (95) 333, the Commission's Green Paper on the practical arrangements for the introduction of the single currency, EP: A4-0102/95, a European parliament resolution on the functioning of the European Union with a view to the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference-implementation and development of the Union, and SEC (95) 731, the report of the European Commission on the operation of the Treaty of the European Union; the Report of the Council of the 'European Union on the functioning of the Treaty of the European Union (Cm 2866); the Report by the Court of Auditors to the 'Reflection Group' on the operation of the Treaty on European Union; the Report of the Court of Justice on certain aspects of the Treaty on European Union; and European Community Documents Nos. 7221/95, on the White Paper on the preparation of the associated countries of central and eastern Europe for integration into the internal market of the Union, 12269/94, relating to recognition of qualifications for academic and professional purposes, and 5715/95, relating to the implementation of directives in the social field.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the Foreign Secretary, I must announce that I have imposed a 10-minute limit on speeches by Back Benchers.
  3.45 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): As usual, the debate covers a number of detailed documents, but I shall follow recent custom in looking forward rather than back. I shall try to set out the Government's approach first to the summit at Cannes under the French presidency at the beginning of next week, and secondly to the intergovernmental conference next year. Ideas for that conference are already being exchanged in the reflections group on which my representative is my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), the Minister of State.
  I shall try to set out again the Government's philosophy and policies within the framework already established by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's speech at Leiden last year and his speech in the House on 1 March. That philosophy and those policies may not—indeed, do not—suit either extreme of the argument, and they therefore disappoint those who prefer excitement to reason, particularly in some parts of the press; but I strongly believe that they are the right philosophy and the right policies for the national interests of Britain and, indeed, for the success of the European Union. I also believe that, unless the Governments of Europe are remarkably foolish over the years to come, that is the
  356
  approach that will succeed in the end. I do not believe in either the disintegration of the European Union or its conversion to a centralised state.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hurd: So soon!
  Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend raised the spectre of a centralised European state. One issue that could be involved in that is obviously the single currency. Let us suppose that the next election took place in April 1997. I understand that, before joining a single currency, a country must have been in the exchange rate mechanism for two years. Given that our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that we would not join the ERM during this Parliament, would it be right to assume that the United Kingdom could not, in those circumstances, be a founder member of the single currency?
  Mr. Hurd: It might be sensible if I dealt with the single currency at the point where it arises in my speech, but I do not know that I shall add a great deal to what my hon. Friend heard from the Prime Minister on 1 March, when he dealt with the matter at some length.
  The line set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the speeches that I have mentioned has been consistently advocated and defended by the whole Cabinet, which recently reaffirmed our commitment to it. It is greatly to be preferred to the policies of the Opposition, whose spokesmen hop about from one branch of the European argument to another, uttering first one note and then—a few weeks later—another, and, as far as I can see, being consistent only in their carelessness of the national interest. I believe that our policies are also to be preferred to others based simply on fear and dislike of the European Union to which we belong. If we want a Europe of nations, we need to work positively and persuasively with our partners to achieve it.
  At Cannes and in the intergovernmental conference, we will be talking of the Europe of 1995, looking forward to the next century. Ten or 20 years ago, the mindset in Europe was different. Indeed, the general assumptions in Europe have changed since my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher was Prime Minister. As she reminds us, she challenged the assumptions of the day with great vigour and she now summarises her stance as no, no, no. My recollection is a little bit different. I tend to remember it as no, maybe, yes. That was her approach.
  Mr. Terry Dicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the truth about Baroness Thatcher was that her approach was yes, yes, yes—yes to the Single European Act, yes to giving money when the Community overspent and yes to the exchange rate mechanism?
  Mr. Hurd: I think that my hon. Friend, with the best of motives, is slightly exaggerating. I would prefer to summarise it as no, maybe, yes. That was her approach to the successful negotiation of the British rebate and it was certainly her approach to the decisive extension of majority voting in the Single European Act.
  Mr. John Sykes: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hurd: May I just finish this?

  357
  I think myself that it would have been Baroness Thatcher's approach also to the issues of Maastricht and I do not criticise her for that. What the noble Lady did was to argue hard and when she had the best deal available for Britain, she signed. She argued and she signed. That is the record and, in its time, it was a successful one. The style now is different but, actually, the approach of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is much closer to that of his predecessor than she now supposes.
  Mr. Sykes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I am not really interested in what my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher did in 1986. I am far more interested in, and want to ask about, what will happen in 1997. I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether he remembers 20 years ago, when we had the referendum. I was recently looking in my attic and I found an old leaflet which at the time I busily shoved through people's letter boxes. If I could quote from this document, which I was happy to disseminate in 1975, on the question of sovereignty and ministerial responsibility it says that
  "the real guarantee of Parliamentary control over new EEC legislation is the fact that British Ministers attending the EEC Councils remain responsible to Parliament at Westminster and can, if necessary, veto decisions to introduce new EEC legislation if they believe that it would not be in the national interest."
  It goes on to say, if my right hon. Friend will listen, that
  "as long as Parliament can control its Ministers, it can control all important new laws that are made in Brussels and Luxembourg."
  How can I hold my right hon. Friend to account in the House 20 years later when we have sold so many of our interests to qualified majority voting?
  Mr. Hurd: That is precisely what my hon. Friend is doing now. He is holding me to account. He can do so frequently. It is perfectly true that in 1985 in the Single European Act, in order to gain the advantages of the single market we—and the Prime Minister of the day—accepted a substantial extension of majority voting. I think that she was entirely right.
  I do not think that we could have had a single market and rules and a proper enforcement of those rules if every anti-protectionist measure and every attempt to enforce the single market had had to be done by unanimity. That was the argument that the noble Lady accepted in 1985 and I think that she was entirely right. But we do not believe that that having been accomplished, it is necessary to go further. That is one of the differences, as I shall seek to explain, between our position and that of the Opposition.
  Going back to the mindset of 10 or 20 years ago and illustrating the change that is now occurring, it was assumed in those years that community spending was a good thing in itself and that budget discipline was an eccentricity to which only the British were attached. The prospect of enlargement in those days to include the Scandinavians and Austria was viewed with suspicion. Remember the hostile reception given to Lady Thatcher's speech at Bruges in which this was one of her main themes? It was felt that Britain was interested in enlargement only because Britain was opposed to deepening. Deepening good, widening probably wrong was the general view in those days.
  358
  It was supposed that the more the Community did, the better. It was an absolute. There was a steady move to enlarge the areas in which the Community was competent, that is, to draw more and more power to the centre. There are still people who hold these ideas and preach them, and when they do so their words are happily pounced on here by those who like to believe simply that Britain stands alone against the unanimous continental ambition for a centralised state. However, these voices, which were once dominant and which we still hear, are now defensive because events and opinion are moving against them, as I shall seek to show.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: My right hon. Friend just now, quite rightly, gave the reasons why the Prime Minister is better as a successor to Baroness Thatcher, in respect not only of European matters but of other policies. Does he agree that one of the sad features of Baroness Thatcher is her repeated attacks on friendly member states in the so-called friendly European Union, not least the attack that she made on Germany yesterday? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Prime Minister has very good relations with the other member states?
  Mr. Hurd: I was not seeking to make the point that my hon. Friend suggests. I was not seeking to make a distinction or difference; I was simply saying that the approach of arguing and then, when one feels that one has the best deal available for Britain, signing, is one shared by the present Prime Minister and his predecessor.
  Going back to the difference between the mindset of those days and now, we now have the beginnings of budget discipline, as opposed to the time when it was thought that extra Community spending was essentially a good thing.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hurd: No, I have to get on.
  I say that we have only the beginnings of budget discipline because we are not yet satisfied, but, when my right hon. Friend discusses in Cannes next week how much money the European Union should spend on helping the countries of eastern Europe and the Mediterranean, the whole discussion will be within spending guidelines laid down under his chairmanship in Edinburgh in 1992. There will be plenty of argument—there always is plenty of argument about these matters—but it will be within the financial bounds already set, something that would have been inconceivable in the early years.
  The enlargement of the Union, which was regarded as heretical in the old days, has happened and will happen again. The argument set out in Bruges by Lady Thatcher about including the east is now orthodox. It is also now orthodox to say that the European Union should do less and do it better. That is a phrase of the present President of the Commission, Mr. Santer. It is inconceivable that his predecessor, Jacques Delors, in his heyday would have used such a phrase.
  No one in a position of authority now talks about the "United States of Europe". Indeed, the federal Chancellor of Germany, who used to use the phrase, has explicitly renounced it, saying that we are not aiming for a United States of Europe. The European Commission and the European Parliament have recently set out their ideas of

  359
  how the intergovernmental conference should end up, and there are many things in their papers that we would contest.
  It is notable that in neither the Commission's paper nor in the Parliament's paper is it suggested that further matters should be transferred from the competence of nations to the competence of the European Union. That, in itself, shows the change of mindset in recent years. As the chairman of the reflections group told me in Madrid this week, the dreaded F-word is nowhere to be seen.
  Mr. Peter Shore: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Hurd: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a minute.
  No one is proposing an increase in competences. There is plenty of room for debate about what remains and about how Europe should act in the area already allocated for European action within the existing treaties, but there is no proposal on the table at the moment for an increase in that area. The accent is—
  Mr. Shore rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I shall give way in a moment if the right hon. Gentleman will let me finish the point.
  The accent is on subsidiarity and deregulation within those spheres where the Union has a role under the existing treaties, and we shall want to find ways to entrench subsidiarity and deregulation during the IGC.
  Mr. Shore: Before the Secretary of State escapes entirely into cloud cuckoo land, may I put to him one obvious point? All the European institutions—the Parliament, the Commission and the European Court of Justice—are making proposals, which are now before the reflections group and will be before the IGC, to dismantle the two pillars of foreign and security policy and home affairs and justice, which were the right hon. Gentleman's greatest claim to success in the previous negotiations. Surely he cannot overlook this major assault, which will not be confined to those three institutions but which will be backed by virtually all the Governments of the nation states.
  Mr. Hurd: There is certainly a tentative attempt by those institutions to enlarge their scope within the area covered by the treaties. The point that I was making was that, I think for the first time in the history of the European Community, or Union, there is now to be a conference at which no one will seriously suggest that areas now within the competence of the nation state should be put within the competence of the European Union.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I shall give way to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and then get on.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: What does my right hon. Friend say about the current demand that we could only have Europol as an instrument for controlling organised crime and drugs if we were prepared to accept that Europol must be judicable by the European Court of Justice, which is within the competence of the European Union, however strongly we have asserted that justice and home affairs should be the third pillar of Maastricht outside the competence of the European Union?
  Mr. Hurd: We shall resist that. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is resisting it at the moment. I hope that it will be possible to reach agreement on Europol—a very important and valuable proposal—at Cannes, without accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ in what should be an intergovernmental pillar.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I shall give way once more and then I really must get on.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: May I press my right hon. Friend on the point about competence? Surely the real factor is not so much that extra competence is granted under the aegis of the IGC, but that the European Court of Justice, in the way that it is constructed, does not need extra competence to be granted because it will, through teleological interpretation and other devices, grant itself greater scope by reinterpreting the treaties. Is not the reality that federalism may not be spelt out literally, but is in action the whole time through the European Court of Justice?
  Mr. Hurd: If my hon. Friend looks at the recent judgments of the court, for example, on competence, and on the question of the World Trade Organisation, where the court found in favour of the member states against the Commission, he will find that the pattern is not as uniform as he and sometimes others seek to lay down. But of course one of the things that we shall need to look at during the IGC is the role of the ECJ and whether it fits our idea of how the institutions of the Community should work.
  The Opposition do not seem to have noticed the change in mindset, which I have been—I hope—proving. In the 1980s, the Labour party was wholly opposed to British membership of the European Union. It now embraces the European ideas of the 1980s, just when the debate in Europe is moving away from them, as I hope that I have proved. It seems determined to stay about 10 years behind the gang. For example, it clings obstinately to the social chapter, and it clings obstinately to the national minimum wage—presumably as the price which the unions exacted for their support on clause IV.
  The social chapter and the national minimum wage may suit the Leader of the Opposition's internal policies, but we believe that there would be a heavy price for Britain. The accent now in the European debate, which will be sounded quite clearly at Cannes, is on restoring Europe's competitiveness, not on undermining it further. The accent is on creating new jobs, not on destroying those which already exist.
  Mr. Mike Gapes rose—
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I shall just finish this part of my speech and then give way to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes).
  President Chirac has rightly put the creation of jobs at the top of the agenda in Cannes next week. Our Prime Minister, representing the country with the fastest falling unemployment in the European Union, is well placed to take the lead.
  Mr. Gapes: How many member states of the enlarged European Union are in favour of ditching the social chapter?
  Mr. Hurd: With regard to the member states at Maastricht, before this concern with competitiveness really took hold, people signed up to the social chapter who would have been much wiser to follow our example and stay well away from it. They are now repenting that. On that day, I remember very clearly, the European employers were not awake to what was happening. A recent report from the European Employers Federation puts deregulation and subsidiarity at the top of its list and realises that the loss of competitors in Europe is connected with the inflexibility of the labour market. It is now moving away from the ideas which the Labour party would have this country embrace. That is what I mean by saying that the Labour party appears to be, in the most damaging way, about 10 years behind the debate.
  Mr. Wareing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hurd: No, I am going to move on.
  In his speech in Chatham house and again in Bonn recently, the Leader of the Opposition offered up four whole areas of policy for qualified majority voting: industrial, regional, environmental and social. Last month many of his Members of the European Parliament, presumably taking their cue from him, voted for much wider extension, to collapse the intergovernmental pillars and to move to full co-decision between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.
  Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hurd: May I finish this passage? Then I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
  To those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who want to establish clear blue water between the views of the Opposition and those of the Government on Europe I simply say this: "You have it. Read the speeches by the Leader of the Opposition and read the speeches by the Prime Minister, especially the two that I have mentioned." We do not need to retreat into a stream of negatives or a mood of sourness to establish a difference between the parties. The difference exists; it is there in the texts; the Leader of the Opposition created it. He thought that he was being fashionable about Europe, but the fashion has changed. Our policy is based not on fashion but on an analysis of the national interests of Britain. His policy is based on a set of ideas that, in our view and in the view of an increasing number of Europeans, have had their day.
  Mr. Cash: Of course Conservative Members acknowledge that the Opposition are absolutely hopeless on majority voting, but will my right hon. Friend comment on the Foreign Ministers' report adopted in April, to which he and the Government subscribed? It is now contained in a Command Paper before the House, and it says clearly:
  "On the question of efficiency the continued extension of qualified majority voting is a positive factor".
  How does my right hon. Friend square that with what he has just said about majority voting and governmental competence?
  Mr. Hurd: As I shall say in a minute, for the single market, to keep the protectionists at bay and for the sake
  362
  of any future reform of the common agricultural policy, qualified majority voting will be needed. But I do not believe—in fact, I strongly disbelieve, if that is the right word—that qualified majority voting should be extended into the area in which I have most experience, that of foreign policy. I shall say more about that in a minute.
  Mr. Wareing rose—
  Mr. Hurd: No, I shall get on.
  As regards the summit at Cannes, I have already mentioned the debate on employment. Everybody hopes that it will be possible to reach agreement on setting up Europol, because agreement is needed. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) asked me about that. Europol will not be a Community institution but will be established under the third pillar of intergovernmental co-operation. We hope that on the same intergovernmental basis it will be possible to reach agreement on conventions dealing with fraud and the exchange of information between customs departments.
  The summit will be asked to take some financial decisions. For example, it will be asked to settle the size of the European development fund for the countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific under the Lomé convention. It will also be asked to strike a balance between spending in central and east European countries as they prepare for membership of the Community and spending in the Mediterranean, in whose stability all of us in Europe have a clear interest.
  As the House would expect, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been on the cautious side in those discussions. No one suggests that we should breach the Edinburgh ceiling. We British are keen that there should be a sizeable reserve for external spending on which we may need to call in an emergency, but which may remain happily unspent.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: May I ask my right hon. Friend an important and topical question about spending? Why was it necessary for Her Majesty's Government yesterday to approve with the Spanish Government the assignment of £2.8 billion of European taxpayers' money to the countries of the Mediterranean? Was that done to buy off the Spanish over Gibraltar? How will it benefit living standards in this country?
  Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend may be referring to a report in The Times, but there has been no agreement between us and the Spaniards. I have referred to the balance between eastern Europe and the Mediterranean. The Commission put forward proposals for a rapid expansion in expenditure in the Mediterranean which ourselves and others, including the Germans, thought to be excessive. We contested that and we now have a presidency proposal which does not deal with the maximum proposal, but with a baseline minimum proposal which leaves scope for reserves for emergencies which might be happily unspent. We have not yet agreed on the matter, which will have to be agreed just before Cannes. The discussion is moving in a sensible way from our point of view, and the figures lie entirely within the ceilings embodied in the legislation that the House has approved.
  There are some discussions taking place about stage III of economic and monetary union and, in particular, a single currency. There is no proposal at Cannes or anywhere else either to change the timetable in the treaty

  363
  or to relax the criteria which countries must meet before they can join the single currency. To return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), the Prime Minister set out the Government's attitude on the single currency at some length in his speech on 1 March. There is really nothing that I can add to that today, and it remains the Government's policy. The House will recall that the Prime Minister explained at length and with care the reasons for his own wariness—the word he used—about the proposition so far as Britain was concerned.
  My right hon. Friend also explained why he felt it right that we should hold on to the freedom that he obtained for us at Maastricht to take a decision on this matter at the time, if and when a choice comes before us. I note the strong endorsement of his stance in the report issued by the CBI yesterday. The Prime Minister has not excluded the possibility of holding a referendum on the single currency if the Government ever felt that such a test was in the British interest.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what the money to be spent in the Mediterranean will be used for? Is there not a slight tendency for some of the Euro-money spent in the Mediterranean to be frittered away by fraud? I am sure that my right hon. Friend would wish to reassure the House on that subject.
  Mr. Hurd: We must be able to reassure the House on that matter, and that is why—as I have mentioned—we have been particularly energetic in trying to promote measures against fraud which would give even my hon. Friend reassurance on the matter. I hope that member states will agree at Cannes on new measures against fraud and also regulations which will enable the Commission to be more active and effective against fraud.
  One of the ways in which the European Parliament can attract attention and respect is by being more energetic in using the Court of Auditors in this action against fraud. While my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South (Mr. Budgen) is right in what he says about fraud, it does not occur only in the Mediterranean. That subject concerns every member state, and it is crucial for confidence in the Union that fraud is stamped out.
  Mr. Budgen: What will the money be spent on?
  Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend asked for guarantees against fraud. A slice of the money will be spent on Gibraltar, for example. The stability of the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean is a matter of huge importance to this country. I am often questioned by my hon. Friends about the middle east peace process and what help we are giving to the Palestinians in their efforts to maintain the agreement which they have signed with Israel. One answer to my hon. Friend is that part of the money for the Mediterranean will go in that direction.
  The European Union is making an entirely justified effort to do its best to create and preserve stability along the eastern and southern shores of the Mediterranean. That is something that we in Britain have always spent a certain amount of money on.
  Mr. Salmond: The Foreign Secretary has spoken about a divergence of opinion on Europe, but is not the most obvious divergence of opinion that between the one that he is putting forward at the Dispatch Box and the basic
  364
  anti-European Union stance which now seems to be predominant among his Back Benchers? Earlier today I inadvertently found some Conservative Members handing out question papers for the next Foreign Office Question Time in a couple of weeks' time, no doubt designed to ambush the Foreign Secretary. Does he not increasingly resemble a waggon train surrounded by indians?
  Mr. Hurd: What I am setting out is the policy that has been set out by the Prime Minister in a number of speeches and which was endorsed, unanimously, of course, by the Cabinet about a fortnight ago. It is now being worked up into detailed proposals in Whitehall, the details of which are gradually being made available to the House. That is the Government's policy. We believe that is right, in line with popular feeling in the country and in the interests of the country and of Europe.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: On the important subject of the single currency, my right hon. Friend said that there were no proposals at Cannes either to ease the economic criteria conditions or to change the timetable laid down for that. Those two statements are incompatible. Everyone now knows—it is universally recognised—that the economic criteria cannot be satisfied by a sufficient number of European Union countries in order to establish a single currency according to the Maastricht timetable. Surely that is a fact.
  Mr. Hurd: What is acknowledged and what the Finance Ministers explicitly acknowledged on Monday is that the earlier timetable as envisaged in the Maastricht treaty—1996-97—is unreal. That is something that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been saying here for a long time, but there were people on the continent, particularly in the Commission, who clutched at the dream that it might be possible to realise the earlier timetable envisaged in the treaty. My hon. Friend certainly knows that there is also provision in the treaty for a timetable based on 1999. People have not yet come to the conclusion that that is unreal, although they may have to do so eventually. I am not disputing my hon. Friend's basic thesis, but, so far, the earlier timetable has been abandoned as unreal.
  Mr. Barry Legg: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hurd: No. I must get on and deal with the issues before the intergovernmental conference.
  The House is being kept fully informed of the work of the reflections group, and it will have ample opportunities to cross-examine Ministers about our negotiating stance. For example, I spent two hours with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs this morning, to a large extent discussing that point.
  As the Prime Minister has stressed, and as the House, I think, understands, Ministers cannot be expected to give every detail of a negotiating position in advance, but he and we have already set out the principles on which we will operate. There is no massive idea dominating the discussion in the run-up to the conference in the same way as the single market and majority voting dominated the discussion before the Single European Act and the way in which economic and monetary union dominated the discussion before Maastricht.

  365
  There will be discussions, however, of a number of difficult items. Qualified majority voting has already been mentioned. We shall argue, as the House knows, for a fairer system of weighting which gives a greater say to the larger countries. As I have said, QMV is necessary in certain spheres. We must face that. It is needed to keep the protectionists at hay and to prevent them from undermining the single market. It will certainly be essential when the time comes for further reform of the common agricultural policy, but we do not accept the case for its further extension into areas now covered by unanimity.
  I feel particularly strongly about the sector which I know best, foreign policy. To spare the House a long explanation, I will put in the Library a copy of an article that I have just written for a German newspaper setting out my reasons. It is right that the countries of Europe should act together when they agree and the common foreign and security policy can be built, and is being built brick by brick in that way. I cannot think of any case, however, during my time as Foreign Secretary when we would have been more effective if it had been possible to override a member state on a foreign policy matter. There is a gap there between theoretical and practical thinking. The notion, for example, that somehow there would be peace in Bosnia, and in Croatia, today if we were able to use qualified majority voting in Brussels appears wholly unreal.
  We do want to make foreign policy work better in Europe. Where does the remedy lie? Among other things, we believe in strengthening the presidency, so that when there is action agreed by everyone it can be more visible and effective. We need to consider the idea of shared presidencies so that the assets of the bigger member states in that sphere can be used better. We need better back-up for the Council: proper analysis, planning, and discussion of policy options.
  My opinion is that the basic structure of the European Union is now about right, whether it be a Union of 15 or 20 or more members. We are on the right track as regards that. It is right that the single market should have rules and institutions which work out those rules and enforce them evenly.
  Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hurd: May I finish this bit? Then I will give way to my hon. Friend again.
  We need a Commission and a Court to ensure, for example, that British planes are allowed to fly into Orly, as they can today—as they could not a couple of years ago—that the Italians and Spaniards are heavily fined if their milk quota figures are wrong and that the Italians have to repeal a tax on luxury cars. Since that tax was repealed, under pressure from the Commission and the Court, there has been a massive increase in the sales of Jaguar cars in Italy.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing rose—
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I promised one Opposition Member that I would give way to him, but he is no longer in the Chamber. I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Marlow: I am exceedingly grateful for the generosity of my right hon. Friend. Will he tell the House in what aspects of policy Her Majesty's Government will seek to regain competence to the United Kingdom from European institutions? Is it none?
  Mr. Hurd: It is not none. We are still considering whether there are ways in which we could make clearer the definitions of competence. No one suggests, as I have said, an enlargement of competence. There may well he aspects in which it would be right and we could reach agreement. It should remain absolutely clear, where there is doubt at the moment, that matters about which there is doubt remain within national jurisdiction. We have that in the existing treaty as regards school institutions, education policy and as regards harmonisation of health care. Those are excluded. Perhaps that can be carried further in the next treaty. That is the type of detailed sub-policy work that we are still carrying through in Whitehall, and no doubt other countries are doing the same.
  Mr. Spearing rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I think I will come to the end.
  I am going through some of the specific ideas that we intend to propose. We shall seek changes as regards the Commission—a leaner Commission. As the Union expands, the infinite expansion of the college of Commissioners makes, in our opinion, no sense. We are considering a further control on unnecessary legislation. We believe that it is possible—not certain, but possible—that what is called a sunset clause should be considered. If an idea has got stuck and has not advanced in three years, why not allow it to lapse, to avoid cluttering the negotiating table with unwanted paper?
  We need a European Parliament that can monitor the work of the Commission in ways that are beyond the reach of the House or national Parliaments. Fraud has been mentioned; the improvement of financial control is another example. We also seek—I mentioned that in my evidence this morning to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee—stronger ways in which national Parliaments and the European Parliament can work together, although that is something where we need co-operation with the House. It is not something that Governments themselves can decide.
  Governments need to work together, outside the institutions of the Community, on an intergovernmental basis, as the treaty provides.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hurd: I will give way to my hon. Friend for the last time.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. May I read him a short paragraph?
  "It would be idle to pretend that"
  the United Kingdom Parliament
  "has any influence over the institutions of the European Community. It is equally unrealistic to believe that it could ever have effective control, or that other national parliaments, singly or acting together, could create an effective control mechanism."
  Those are the words written by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade when he was on the Back Benches.

  367
  Should not we recognise that the only effective way to strengthen the role of national Parliaments is to repatriate competencies from the European Parliament to the national Parliaments—not, as my right hon. Friend advocates, to strengthen the European Parliament?
  Mr. Hurd: I do not agree with that at all. The energy that my hon. Friend and other right hon. and hon. Members spend on European matters in the House refutes my hon. Friend's thesis. The essential decisions—changes in the treaty, anything to do with foreign policy, defence, home and justice matters—are taken by unanimity. My hon. Friend can hold me to ransom; I am responsible to him and my voice, or that of the Prime Minister, is crucial. On other matters, for reasons that I have now explained twice in my speech, there is majority voting. We in Britain agreed that there should be majority voting in order to gain our objective, which is a single market.
  Mr. Budgen: Some of us did not.
  Mr. Hurd: Some did not, but most did.
  That deal was in our interests. I do not accept that national Parliaments do not have a role—they do. Many national Parliaments, including most people in this one, would like it to be a stronger role. It is difficult to work out the practical ways of achieving that, but we have to try to do it. Some of the ideas that I set out to the Select Committee this morning—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) will study the reports—are ideas which I hope that Committees and Members of the House will take up and run with.
  Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hurd: No, I have given way to my hon. Friend already.
  The institutions that I have talked about are better suited to a Europe of nations than a united states of Europe. Yet we must acknowledge that neither in this country nor elsewhere do those institutions have a firm hold on the loyalties or even sometimes the respect of the peoples whom they exist to serve. That is not because people have suddenly developed a dislike of foreigners or suddenly turned against the idea of Europeans working together. On the contrary, market research, certainly in this country and, I think, in all the countries of Europe, shows that people want Europe to succeed. They want the Europeans to work successfully together, but they are ill at ease with the way in which things are done today.
  That unease will not be cured by speeches or declarations or tinkering with the treaties. People will have greater confidence in the institutions of Europe when they see them working clearly for the objectives which they themselves—the people—think important: the building of prosperity through the opening of markets, through free trade, through deregulation and through strong action against fraud; the extension eastward of the stability and prosperity which, with all the arguments among ourselves, we take for granted in the west of Europe; and flexibility, so that national differences can be accepted, not regarded as heretical, and national identity is preserved.
  As I hope that I have established, the record of the past few years shows much greater progress in those healthy directions than people yet perceive. Britain is well placed—better placed than others—to press for further
  368
  progress on all those points. The Prime Minister has set our course. It may not be dramatic enough for all tastes—it just happens to be right, and we shall follow it.
  Sir Edward Heath: In his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend—and former assistant—praised my successor for her repeated technique of saying no, no, no and then saying yes and signing up. My right hon. Friend also emphasised that both he and the present Prime Minister closely follow that technique. That has given me immense reassurance and I now have every confidence in the future of the meeting at Cannes, of the intergovernmental conference, of the Union and of this country because if that excellent example is followed, we shall achieve all the aims that my right hon. Friend has been describing in his speech. Those who have been niggling away on the Benches behind us will be defeated and we shall all benefit. I thank him very much.
  Mr. Hurd: That was not quite what I expected from my right hon. Friend. I learnt a great deal from him 20 years ago. I have forgotten some of it—whether to my benefit or not, I am not sure. I am grateful—or I think that I am grateful; it will need a little further study later—for what my right hon. Friend has said.
  In conclusion, I believe that the record of the last few years and the change in the mindset that I have tried to document because it is often disputed shows that there has been greater progress in a healthy direction than people yet perceive. I also believe that this country is well placed to press for further progress on those points because, in many cases, we originated the argument which is beginning to prevail. The Prime Minister has set our course in the speeches that I have mentioned. I entirely accept that it may not be dramatic enough for all tastes; it just happens to be right. We shall follow that course steadily, firmly and in the national interest.
  4.29 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: For the convenience of the Foreign Secretary, I make it clear at the outset that I do not intend to utter any word of criticism of him in my speech. Having listened to his speech and watched the Back Benchers behind him, I fear that he will receive enough criticism in the course of the debate without any contribution from me.
  I found the least convincing passage in the right hon. Gentleman's speech that moment when he attempted to explain that there was clear blue water between his position and that of the Labour Front Bench. I do not suggest that the Foreign Secretary should intervene at this moment, but the reality is that he knows in his heart that, if he had the freedom of speaking from the Back Benches, he would make speeches very similar to those from which he quoted by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Would you?"] Indeed, I have not the slightest hesitation in answering yes to that question. My right hon. Friend and I share each other's speeches.
  If one looks for clear blue water, one will find it within the Conservative party. That has been demonstrated and measured in the past few months by the war of the pamphlets. In February, we received an interesting pamphlet from the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) arguing the cause of Euro-scepticism.

  369
  In March, we received a pamphlet from the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) arguing the case for a more positive approach to Europe.
  It is interesting that both pamphlets contained forewords by the Prime Minister. He welcomed the pamphlet on Euro-scepticism as a "thought-provoking contribution", and a month later he welcomed the pamphlet that was positive to Europe as a "constructive contribution". I advise right hon. and hon. Members opposite to hold on to their Prime Minister. He seems to be the only person in the Conservative party who can possibly span the gulf that is opening up between its members over Europe.
  I was sorry to read in the past week that some doubt has been cast on the Prime Minister's continued survival because of a meeting with a number of Conservatives, some of whom I presume are in the Chamber now—although there is no published minute of that meeting. We understand that 60 Conservatives attended a meeting of the Conservative party's Fresh Start group, at which the Prime Minister was strongly urged to be tough on Europe and tough on the causes of Europe.
  I tried to warn the Prime Minister about the views of the Fresh Start group. Three weeks ago, I released the agenda of its previous meeting.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: You used to be a member.
  Mr. Cook: I do not think that I was ever a member of a Tory party group in this place; I must set the hon. Member straight on that point.
  The agenda stated:
  "Britain should veto all further discussion at the intergovernmental conference unless the points stated above were agreed, which was unlikely"—
  having read the above points, I concur with that view. It continued:
  "That overall veto would create a crisis with the other members."
  I cannot think of any more irresponsible strategy to adopt in relation to our immediate neighbours and the rest of the European Union than one that deliberately sets out to create a crisis by vetoing the proposals of everyone else.
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: Of course. I presume that the hon. Member was present at the meeting last week, and perhaps he will tell us some more about it now.
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that, although many of us are in favour of the idea of a referendum, when the referendum was proposed in 1975 after we had signed the original treaty, it would obviously have created a crisis if the Labour party's policy with regard to a referendum had been seen in its true light?
  Mr. Cook: The Labour party gave the people of Britain the opportunity to make a choice. We understood that they were promised such an opportunity in 1970, when we were told that the country would enter the European Community only with the full-hearted consent of the British people. It was left to a subsequent Labour Government to provide the opportunity for the people to give that full-hearted consent. The hon. Gentleman keeps ignoring the fact that they gave that full-hearted consent in a referendum.
  370
  I am disappointed that the Foreign Secretary gave us no insight into how the Prime Minister responded when he was invited to create a crisis with the other members of the European Union. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues with what organisation they will be seeking to cause that crisis. It is the continent that receives the majority of our visible exports. When I referred to that at Question Time last week, I was howled down by certain Conservative Members, who said, "No!" In case they were correct, and in a spirit of humility, as I might have been wrong, I took the opportunity of checking the figures.
  In 1994, 57.1 per cent. of Britain's industrial exports and visible exports went to the other member states of the European Union. It was fractionally more than in 1993. Those are the countries with which Conservative members want to create a crisis. What possible rationale is there in seeking to create a crisis with the people who buy the majority of our exports?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. He will therefore want to correct his statement, as he has been carefully selective. He should be discussing the totality of British exports, including invisibles. He should therefore admit that we do no more than 43.6 per cent. of our total trade with Europe, including invisibles. Will he comment on the fact that he has been selective, and should not invisibles— which are highly profitable and employs many people—also be included?
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has raised a genuine issue. I would have more respect for what he said had he responded to that problem by saying that we should be seeking to open up the single market in financial services and insurance services to address the under-performance of the invisibles. To return to the hon. Gentleman's point, first, he is wrong. The figures from the Library say that the figure is 48.3 per cent., including invisibles. Secondly, what an extraordinarily cavalier attitude it is to say, "Does it matter, because it is only 48.3 per cent. of total exports?"
  There is another reason why Europe is so important to us. Conservative Members are fond of quoting inward investment to Britain as a triumph for the Government. If they really want to take any credit for inward investment in Britain, or any real interest in that investment, it is about time they recognised why it comes to Britain.
  I am fortunate in representing a constituency that is still a very large manufacturing area: 40 per cent. of the work force—double the national average—work in manufacturing. My constituency has attracted major investment. Most Japanese electronic firms are represented in my constituency.
  Mr. David Martin: Under which Government?
  Mr. Cook: Under both Governments. The hon. Gentleman should think through the logic of his intervention.
  Many American companies are also there. Those companies did not come to Scotland for the Scottish or even the British market. They did not come to Livingston because of the intrinsic beauty of new town architecture or the quality of our weather. They came to Livingston

  371
  and to Britain because they wanted access to the market of Europe, and nothing would put in doubt that investment more than any doubt over our future in Europe.
  There was a time when the Conservative party claimed to be the party of industry. The divisions among Conservative Members and the voices being expressed from within their party are causing dismay to industrialists. The Foreign Secretary referred to this week's statement from the CBI, which urges the Government to re-establish their credibility as a negotiating partner in the European Union. This week, the author of that report says:
  "I know, through my dealings with colleagues in other member states, that the UK is losing credibility as a negotiating partner in the European Union. Political divisions over Europe and the hyperbolic statements which result have often been misguided and are deeply damaging. The splits make it harder to do business and harm our economic interests."
  If Conservative Members take a different view, they should perhaps ask themselves why four other countries have, within the period that we are debating, signed up to the EU. Those four countries understood perfectly well that their market was inside the European Union, and that, if they want to influence the terms under which they trade in the EU, they have to play a full part in it. None of them imagined that they were surrendering sovereignty when they signed up; nor do we.
  Mr. Jenkin: Is it not important to keep this in proportion? May I point out that Switzerland has increased its trade with the EU faster than Britain has during its period of membership? Switzerland has also maintained a stable currency. It is an efficient country, and it provides a good standard of living for its people. Life outside the EU need not necessarily mean death. In any case, few Conservative Members are advocating leaving the European Union. We advocate redefining our relationship with it so that it is more in our interests.
  Mr. Robin Cook: I understand from press reports that the hon. Gentleman was present at the meeting in question when creating a crisis with other EU members was discussed. Certainly that is one way of redefining a relationship.
  Of course, there will always be a place—in Europe and the world—for a small nation with a modest manufacturing base, such as Switzerland, looking for niche markets. Anyone who wants to go out to the public and say that Britain can survive on the basis of Switzerland's economy will get a loud raspberry in return from anybody who understands the facts of industry.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: The hon. Gentleman is putting up a number of amusing Aunt Sallies, only to knock them down. Having been present at the meeting, may I tell the hon. Gentleman that no one suggested to the Prime Minister that we should provoke a crisis with Europe; and that no one, to my knowledge, in the Fresh Start group wants to do anything of the kind. What we want to do, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) has just said, is to maintain our access to the single European market without getting mixed up in a lot of socialist bureaucracy of the central European kind.
  Mr. Cook: I ought to let more Conservative Members intervene. The hon. Gentleman has clearly demonstrated that what they want, simply and solely, is an agenda for those at the top of business, with no agenda to help the
  372
  people who work in business. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the Fresh Start group may not yet have created a crisis in Europe, but they have most certainly created one in the Conservative party.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As one who was not at that meeting, may I tell the hon. Gentleman that it is no good standing at the Dispatch Box smugly pretending that all is sweetness and light in the Labour party? If he thinks it is, he has only to look at some of his right hon. and hon. Friends behind him and ask them what their views on Europe are.
  Mr. Cook rose—
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Speak for England!
  Mr. Cook: I should be in deep difficulties with my constituents if I spoke for England. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it would greatly enhance the quality of these debates if we could look at our hon. Friends behind us instead of at Conservative Members opposite us—
  Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Cook: I have not yet answered the previous point.
  I speak for Labour party policy—particularly, for the Labour party policy document that went through conference in 1993 without a single nem. con.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: In the course of his Library researches, did the hon. Gentleman find out—many of us would like to know—why, before we joined the EU, we had a positive balance of trade, whereas since we joined we have built up a total accumulated deficit of £100,000 million—the equivalent of £2,000 per head of the British population? Moreover, did the hon. Gentleman's researches explain to him what has happened to Sweden and Norway since their respective referendums?
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman really should do more research into the trade figures. If he did, he would discover that, until 1980, we had a surplus in manufacturing exports with the whole of the world, that we did not have a deficit with the rest of the world before then, and that, since 1980, as a result of the collapse of manufacturing industry, and this Government, there was no surplus in any year until 1994. If he would like to go up and down the country and draw that to the attention of the electorate, I would be thoroughly pleased, and so would every Labour candidate in Britain.
  I shall now address our real position.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Answer the question.
  Mr. Cook: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question.
  Our position is that we do not, as Conservative Members like to fantasise, support a federal Europe or any super-state in Europe. We are not in favour of joining a European Union in which we have to surrender sovereignty. We favour a European Union that is a free association of independent member states, not surrendering sovereignty but sharing our common interests.
  I must say to the Foreign Secretary that his idea—that the position that he was outlining is more central to the Europe of the 1990s—is totally at variance with the experience of

  373
  his own negotiator at the previous meeting, who found that he was outnumbered by 14 to 1. Some of his hon. Friends seem to prefer that isolation. The problem is that isolation is a poor place from which to negotiate the best deal for Britain. Hon. Members would know that if they read the document produced by the Department of Trade and Industry only last year, which spelt out that officials of Britain feel marginalised in negotiations within Brussels, precisely because of the negative attitude taken by Ministers.
  There is, of course, a wider issue in this debate—the world is shrinking. Trade is expanding at double the rate of output. Financial flows across the exchange markets every day now clock up 20 times the amount required to finance any one day's trade. What makes that movement irreversible is the change in the telecommunications industry, which has meant that industries around the world are interlocked. It is now possible to transmit the entire "Encyclopedia Britannica" around the world in three seconds—and the Tory manifesto in a nanosecond.
  That creates a real challenge for politicians. We have to grapple with two separate realities. On the one hand, there is a powerful, rich sense of identity with the nation of our people. It is a sense of identity that is deeply creative, which Labour Members totally respect, because that sense of national identity is one of the strong bases of the social solidarity that we hold dear. We will take no lectures on the importance of national identity from people who have done more to break up social solidarity in Britain than any previous Government this century.
  The challenge for responsible politicians is how one reconciles that powerful sense of national identity with the requirement to create international structures that regulate economic relations and resolve the opportunity for friction between nations. That is the central challenge facing us.
  Conservative Members refuse to face that challenge. They are retreating into the rhetoric and mind-set of an 18th-century nation state. I do not say the 19th century, as the 19th century would be too modern. At least in the 19th century Britain understood that it could not be isolated from the world.
  Conservative Members are failing to grasp the logic of their own position. As I understand it, Conservative Members on the Front Bench and the Back Benches are united on one item for the intergovernmental conference: enlarge the European Union and bring in other countries of central and eastern Europe. We are entirely at one with them on that. I believe that western Europe at present has a very important mission: to embrace the new democratic countries of Europe and bring them into the family of democratic nations. We would then be able to underwrite those democratic structures and firmly anchor them into a structure of human rights, so that we never again see them slip back into totalitarianism.
  If Conservative Members are sincere and genuinely want to see the European Union expanded to bring in all the countries of central and eastern Europe, they cannot continue to say that there must be no change to the EU's institutions. Those institutions were designed when there were six member states. We cannot expect those same institutions to work without change when we have a European Union with over 20 members.
  Mr. Dykes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, especially at such an interesting part of his speech.
  Does he agree that the Government are definitely sincere about the proposals to which he has referred, given all the evidence, but are facing increasingly dotty xenophobia and a manic dislike of socialism in Christian Democratic Germany, for instance, by some Conservative Back-Bench Members? I fear that that will become worse.
  Therefore, rather like other principal countries of the Union where there are no significant differences over European policy between the major parties, why is it not possible for the Opposition to respond more positively to the idea of free votes in future in the House, where there is a large built-in majority for European development? That would, of course, need co-operation from the Opposition. Why cannot they be more constructive in that way, especially if the Government were, interestingly, able in future to offer some abandonment of controversial legislation such as British Rail privatisation?
  Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) might like to retire at this stage with the hon. Gentleman to tie down the deal that he was offering. If the offer were on the table—that we can halt the privatisation of British Rail in exchange for a free vote on Europe—it would be one that we would happily entertain.
  A free vote would, of course, have to cut both ways. Conservative Members would have to recognise the importance of such a free vote. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that, in certain circumstances, he and his colleagues might be tempted into the Opposition Lobby, we shall happily take away the suggestion and reflect upon it. We could happily do so when I and some of my hon. Friends leave the Chamber to attend a meeting in nine minutes' time.
  I shall finish the point that I was making about enlargement. The Foreign Secretary knows the truth of what I have just said. In any event, we can test him on it. The demand from the Government Back Benches, including the Fresh Start group, is that he should veto any extension of qualified majority voting. Would he do that? Would he give us an undertaking that he would veto—
  Sir Teddy Taylor: No.
  Mr. Robin Cook: I know that the hon. Gentleman aspires to be Foreign Secretary, but it is perhaps unfair for him to answer for the Foreign Secretary. However, he voices the thought that is in all our minds. The answer is no, because the Foreign Secretary is far too sensible to take such a course. He knows that it was the Conservative Government under the previous Prime Minister, who agreed to the last major expansion of QMV when she signed up to the single market.
  I watched the former Prime Minister with interest when she was being interviewed about these matters. She appeared to give the impression that she felt that she had been cheated when she signed the agreement. She thought it was an agreement with Singapore. No one had told her that the end user would be the European Commission.
  Let us turn to another area where the Foreign Secretary is under pressure. The right hon. Gentleman is being pressed to veto an extension of the European Parliament's role. I can understand why Conservative Members are anxious to avoid any extension of its role. After all, they

  375
  have great difficulty in getting elected to the European Parliament. I shall not ask the Foreign Secretary if he will veto any extension of that Parliament.
  I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman another question. What conceivable British interest would be served by stopping the European Parliament scrutinising the agriculture budget? At present, the European Parliament can have powers of scrutiny only over the non-compulsory section of the budget. That excludes the agriculture budget. What possible purpose is served in Britain's interests by stopping the European Parliament from being able to ask questions and to vote on that budget?
  Reference has been made to fraud. Fraud stems from the common agricultural policy. Despite the promises given before Christmas, fraud is increasing. More cases of fraud were recorded in the first nine months of last year than in the whole of 1993. Why not also make that something that is open to scrutiny, vote and judgment in the European Parliament?
  May I offer one word of warning to those on both sides of the debate? Looking ahead to the next 12 months, I can see that our debates on Europe will be dominated by the issues before the intergovernmental conference. Those issues are, of course, highly technical. They take us into orbit among remote and lonely planets of the institutions of the European Union. If we, on either side of the debate, really want to connect the debate about Europe with the public, we must debate Europe in terms that relate to the lives of the public.
  I would entirely accept the challenge that the Foreign Secretary threw down to us. One of the ways in which Europe can affect the public's lives is the way in which it can provide them with working rights at the place of work—and yes, I confirm entirely, as the Foreign Secretary said, that the Labour party is fully committed to the social chapter, and that one of our first steps will be to sign up to it. To suggest that that position makes Labour isolated in Europe is extraordinary, given that the Government are the only one who have not signed it, and that four new countries have joined it within the past six months.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: I shall give way for the last time.
  Mr. Carlisle: In the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, he proudly boasted that American companies were coming into his constituency of Livingston because they wanted access to Europe. May I remind him that an American company came into my constituency because it wanted access to Europe, and that it came to Britain rather than to another European country because we had not signed up to the social chapter? Had it gone to another European country, it would have suffered the iniquities that the chapter has brought. It came to Britain for that very reason. Should the hon. Gentleman get into power, that company may desert us, and his American investment would go away from these shores for ever.
  Mr. Cook: On that point, I shall be guided by the Labour Member of Parliament who will replace the hon. Gentleman as the representative of his constituency by the time we come to power. I regularly meet American and
  376
  Japanese companies in my constituency. Not one of them would have the slightest problem with living within any minimum wage that this party may propose; nor do the companies that trade internationally have the same difficulty over the social chapter that Conservative Members appear to have, which is why three companies have signed up to a works council, and all of them, at the same time, withdrew their donations to the Tory party.
  Sir Richard Body: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: No. I have given way for the last time. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have been generous in giving way, and I said before that that would be the last time that I gave way.
  The fundamental difference between the Front-Bench teams of both parties is that we fully reject the idea that one can achieve competitiveness in the new global economy by lowering wages and lowering conditions. People in China will work for 10p an hour. Not even Conservative Members would advocate that we pay 10p an hour in Britain. [HoN. MEMBERS: "They would."] I say to my hon. Friends that Conservative Members would never agree to work for 10p an hour themselves. We will never successfully compete by doing the job cheaper. We will compete only by doing it better, and that means higher skills and higher technology.
  The reality is that Conservative Members are limbering up to fight the next election as the nationalist party of Britain. Indeed, some of them see that as the solution to their difficulties. It would be not a solution to their difficulties but the start of their problem, because a nationalist party would have difficulty relating to the new world.
  What the electorate out there want is a Government who can relate to the real world, who can build alliances in the real world, who can find common ground with their trading partners, who can give people opportunity in the global economy and the full opportunity to take the benefit of the globalisation of the economy, not a Government who will isolate Britain behind the new great wall of opt-outs and vetoes.
  If Conservative Members really want to conspire to offer that choice to the people of Britain at the next election, I warn them that I shall be happy to accept it. We shall offer them a Government prepared to face a new century, because they understand that new century and will work with it; we shall be happy to fight an election against a party that would prefer to retreat into the 18th century. I have no doubt which century the electorate will choose.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I remind hon. Members that Back-Bench speeches are limited to 10 minutes.
  4.59 pm
  Mr. David Howell: With his usual courage and integrity, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary struggled to draw from the sea of documents listed on the Order Paper—the vast output of bumf that seems to have flowed from every European institution—an awareness of positive developments in the European Union. I agree with him that some of those developments are very

  377
  positive, and that we are unwise to see everything in black, negative terms: we should not conclude that all that happens in Europe is against our interests.
  I shall deal in a moment with the matters that do worry me. First, however, let us consider the European scene today, just before the Cannes summit. The French Government are changing some of their views. Their position is contradictory, of course, in that they remain deeply committed to merging their currency with the deutschmark and regaining control of their monetary destiny—or so they say; I do not think that they will—while also remaining healthily sceptical about the centralising tendency of some Community institutions.
  Like us, the French are arguing for positive measures that reassert the strength and power of the Council of Ministers over the Commission—which, notwithstanding denials, seems to be bursting with unseemly ambitions in diverse areas where its competencies do not lie, and moving in directions in which, according to treaty, it should not move. The French want the assertion of national Parliaments over the European Parliament. I assume that every good Member of this Parliament would support their aim to enable national Parliaments to call the European Union to account in regard to decisions taken in our name.
  It would be stupid of us to reject those positive developments, and to say that nothing is going our way. Of course France and Germany want to remain close; of course President Chirac went first to Bonn, because the oldest and fiercest memory in the breasts of the French tells them that never again must they be overrun by their colossal neighbour. We understand that; no British man or woman could want France and Germany to be other than friends. The French attitude is changing, however, and I think that it is changing in a healthy way—in line with some of the ideas that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, and others, have struggled to put across in recent years.
  I do not know whether it was fair of me to detect in the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) definite signs that the Labour party, too, is moving—although I do not want to raise the hopes of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). I detect a change in certain pronouncements.
  It was less noticeable today: although the hon. Member for Livingston always makes an enjoyable speech, his speeches are rather like a Chinese meal in that, when we read them later, nothing much can be extracted from them. The Labour leader, however, seems to be striking a far more cautious note than was struck by the mad centralism of the past, and the dotty commitment to everything coming out of Brussels.
  Who knows? It is better that one should be saved. Labour has moved in so many other areas; indeed, listening to Labour leaders describe their policies nowadays is like reading the labels on bottles of homeopathic drugs. We note all the ingredients that the Labour party no longer contains. It is no longer in favour of nationalisation, for instance; it is no longer going to sting the rich.
  Perhaps, even, the Labour party is no longer committed to dotty centralisation in social policy, and the vast redistribution of funds proposed, with excessive zeal and
  378
  enthusiasm, by the Brussels Commission. We live in hope: there have been positive developments which should be built on. My right hon. Friend has done marvels, and will continue to do so; I have complete confidence in him.
  Nevertheless, when I look at some of the documents listed on the Order Paper, I feel far less confident. As we have reduced our debates to mere soundbites—I know that that is nothing to do with the Chair, but the ruling has resulted in all the action going upstairs to the Committee Rooms, so that we cannot have a proper debate in the Chamber—I shall concentrate on one issue: the Commission's Green Paper on the practical arrangements for the introduction of a single currency.
  I do not know whether hon. Members have had a chance to read that vast, verbose and almost unintelligible document. When it was published, a big press conference was held in Brussels, led by the Commissioner concerned—a Frenchman, Mr. Yves-Thibault de Silguy—and the Belgian Finance Minister, Mr. Maystadt. They had some remarkable things to say, which filled me with apprehension. I speak as much as someone who has worked for European unity as someone who wants this country's interests to be upheld and protected.
  The conference was told that a core number of countries would be committed to a single currency, and that some countries outside that number either would not be able to join because their convergence criteria were all over the place—Spain, for instance, and poor old Italy, with its vast debt-to-GNP ratio—or would refuse to join, like the impudent British, who insist on good convergence criteria and a good performing economy. Those countries would have the cheek to have competitive currencies, which would be very challenging to the core countries that had signed up for the single currency—whether they consisted only of Germany, Benelux and Austria, or included France.
  Those eminent Commissioners concluded that the answer was to raise tariffs or trade barriers against members of the European Union that were not part of the core currency. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to ponder that proposition. It goes like this: "We believe"— I do not believe it myself—"that a single market needs a single currency." I consider that a fallacy in itself. The argument continues: "Therefore, to create a single currency, we will destroy the single market. We will cut it up; we will divide it." That strikes me as not merely a divisive but an anti-European move. It is certainly anti the Europe for which, along with many of my hon. Friends, I have worked for two or three decades.
  I know that some Conservative Members think that a single currency must be all right, because Europe is for it and everyone says that it is necessary for a single market; but I beg them to examine the technicalities of proposals that will divide that market, and to consider the advice of skilled people in the currency markets who know that the single currency is a recipe for colossal instability, vast arbitrage and huge volatility. Above all, as learned bankers are now saying every day, it is not even necessary: it is possible to run a very good single market without a single currency.
  We are left with a feeling of slight despair. Many people in the country—and, I suspect, many members of my party—are pro-Europe. We have always wanted to part of a good single market. We want it to be enlarged

  379
  to bring the new democracies—and we note that that is not going too well: a good deal of rhetoric is in favour, but numerous obstacles are being put in the way.
  We want a great single market, and to trade in that market. Instead, we see Europe either being dragged in the wrong direction, towards the "great leap forward"—the lunatic ideas of centralisation and uniformity that are technologically and constitutionally out of date—or being told that the alternative is to unravel the whole thing and walk away.
  We are presented with a miserable choice. It is time, dare I say, that the—I hope—not too muddled middle had a say. Most people in the country and, I suspect, most hon. Members on both sides of the House want us to be part of a good, strong single market involving some political authority at the centre, carefully delegated and circumscribed, and underpinning a highly effective Europe of nations—or, as President Chirac says, a Europe of united nations.
  That is what we want. It is time that that was articulated and that people had the right to get away from the mad extremes with which we are being presented. I know that my right hon. Friend will continue to fight for that aim, because that is the Europe with which Britain not only can live but of which we can be at the heart.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: Those of us from the Celtic fringes like to choose a text on which to hang our speeches. The trouble with debates on the common market, as it used to be called, is that there are so many documents. There are more texts than in the Old Testament. I have found two texts. I do not know whether 10 minutes is enough for a sermon on two texts, but I shall try.
  The first text is in a communication dated 13 March 1995 from the Commission to the Council following the Essen council on employment. It says:
  "Fighting unemployment is a paramount task of the Community."
  The next text comes from paragraph 6.9 of the development document of July to December 1994, which points out that 10 out of the 12 member states still have excess deficits on their Government budgets.
  There could not be a starker contrast—a contradiction of Hegelian proportions. On the one hand, we are told that fighting unemployment is paramount but on the other we are told that all the countries, or 10 at least, are engaged in a massive deflationary exercise to reduce public expenditure and public debt to the 60 per cent. and 3 per cent. targets in the Maastricht treaty because they have to eliminate their excess deficits by 1999.
  The drive to meet those criteria is one of the major reasons for the high unemployment in western Europe today and I fear that it is going get worse. Even a committee of the European Parliament—I do not usually use its documents—has apparently concluded that perhaps 11 million jobs will be lost in western Europe as a result of the drive to reduce Government expenditure and debt to meet the Maastricht criteria. That is before member states start to lock their currencies together irrevocably in the run-up to a single currency.
  The unemployed, the poor and those on welfare will have to pay the highest price for this mad exercise to get a single currency and a centralised European state. As far
  380
  as I can see, the political and bureaucratic elite in Europe does not care about that and believes, as Lenin would have said, that the end justifies the means.
  The main purpose of a single currency is constitutional; obviously, there have been economic arguments one way or another but the main purpose is constitutional. It is a major plank in the creation of a centralised European state. Joining the single currency, which we have debated before so there is no need go over it again, would be a major constitutional change for Britain. We would hand power over monetary and exchange rate policy and, in effect, over public expenditure and fiscal policy from a democratically elected Government to undemocratic European institutions.
  A single currency could involve a major constitutional change within the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister was in Wales a few weeks ago. I am sure that he is very sincere about this but he apparently believes that a rather modest Welsh assembly would, with the Scottish Parliament, lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom.
  If we sign up to a single currency, many people in Wales—I can speak only for Wales but it will be even more true in Scotland—will ask why they should belong to the smaller Union when they can belong directly to a larger Union. They look across the sea to Ireland. I read in a development document that the Irish do not have an excess deficit; they have negotiated it away. They do not have to reduce their debt and Government expenditure to the Maastricht criteria, whereas we in Wales, if I can be parochial, will have to strive to cut our welfare benefits and accept higher unemployment to meet the 3 per cent. target. That is not necessary across the Irish sea because Ireland has a direct seat in the Council of Ministers and can get away with it.
  I do not share that view, but many people would. If the Prime Minister and the Conservative party are concerned about the United Kingdom, as I am sure they are, they should realise that the issue of a single currency could lead to major constitutional changes within this Union.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) did not deal with the economic aspects of a single currency. I do not criticise him for that. Some of my right hon. and hon Friends have said that we are not really going to join. They accept the Maastricht criteria and a European bank but say that we will not join until there is real convergence. When I hear the word "real", I reach for a child's guide to metaphysics because I am never sure what the purpose of the use of that word is. Let us say that it does not mean inflation, unemployment or growth rates but GDP per head.
  In parts of the south Wales valleys, GDP per head is about 60 per cent. of the European average. In Wales, it is about 70 per cent; in Northern Ireland, I suspect, about 70 per cent; in Scotland, a little higher. Is the Labour party, when it talks about real economic convergence, saying that we will not sign up to a single currency until the Rhondda and the other valleys have an average GDP per head of 100 per cent. of the European average? If that is what we are saying, fine. Let us put it in the Labour party manifesto so that we know exactly what we mean by real convergence. I suspect that the word "real" is being used in the same sense as the late Lord Joseph used it in talking about real jobs in 1979 and 1980. If we believe in real convergence, let us spell it out.

  381
  The final escape is saying that it will not happen anyway. All those countries are striving with might and main and have signed a treaty to reduce deficits and set up an embryo European bank but it will not happen because the Germans do not want it. The German people may not want it, but who cares about them? The business and political leadership in Germany do not care about the German people. The leadership will want it because it will be an opportunity to keep down the value of the mark.
  The hidden emphasis of German monetary policy has always been to ensure that the mark, as far as possible, was undervalued. Increasingly, the mark is becoming a sort of reserve currency. It will be in the interest of German business and industry to have a European single currency to ensure that it is undervalued and that their exports do not suffer. They will try to lock in other countries to prevent them from exercising economic sovereignty by devaluing their currencies. A clash will come between the hard core that wants go outside the treaty and impose restrictions and those who do not want to join the currency.
  The vogue word in this debate has been mind-set. Frankly, it seems to me that the mind-set of most of the pro-marketeers is still that of the world of Monnet and Schuman. Some go back to the Congress of Vienna. When I read reports of the Council of Ministers, I think that if they had powdered wigs, they would not be very different from Ministers at the Congress of Vienna.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston talked of a global economy. Yes, we have a global economy with free trade, although the World Trade Organisation is having some difficulties. GATT has been around a long time. A regional economic pact is not necessary in a world with a global economy. The economic prizes will go not to large economic blocs but to the country that is able to change its economic policies quickly and has the flexibility, democratic credibility and legitimacy to change its policies quickly.
  The centralised European state is a dinosaur. The best thing for Britain is not to go down the route of a single currency but to keep well away from it.
  5.18 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie: I should like to offer some thoughts on the current position before the Cannes summit, based on the regular, almost weekly, contacts that I have with other centre-right parties throughout Europe in my capacity as international vice-chairman of the Conservative party.
  When the Berlin wall came down in November 1989, few people expected it. Few people anticipated what the wave of challenges to authority in eastern Europe would produce. Equally, very few people realised that it would have a similar effect in western Europe. By the time the Maastricht treaty came to be signed, much of it was, in practical terms, dead in the water. We then witnessed the holding of two Danish referendums and a wafer-thin French majority and, as the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) pointed out, even the Germans discovered that European monetary union meant the end of the deutschmark, which was a great shock to them. Suddenly,
  382
  there was a great deal of rethinking to be done. 1 believe that there is much greater uncertainty in the European Union than appears on the surface.
  The European Community—to use its previous title—was founded to make war impossible between France and Germany, an excellent aim that has been splendidly achieved. However, we have to ask what does the Community now do for an encore, especially for the younger generation for whom the idea of war between France and Germany is unthinkable? Where is the new philosophy? I do not see it, and that is especially sad when we have the opportunity to create a Union of nation states and can for the first time be genuinely European. We are not just western European but have the possibility to include in the Union countries from central and eastern Europe.
  When Lord Tugendhat recently gave his valedictory address from Chatham house, he said:
  "In most countries, however, there has been a minimum of public debate or accountability on the details and implications of what was being constructed and planned. There has been high flown rhetoric in abundance and many grand schemes put forward by politicians anxious to demonstrate statesmanship and far-sightedness. But, for the most part the impact of what these schemes would involve for the ordinary citizen was not spelt out nor subjected to detailed scrutiny. Indeed, President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl, in particular, both appeared anxious to avoid in-depth public discussion."
  It had been widely accepted in Europe that the single market was fundamental—a concept that, incidentally, was very much a British one activated by British Members of the European Parliament and a British commissioner. However, Lord Tugendhat also said:
  "Yet, I believe, a major component of the wide spread disillusion stems from the legislation needed to bring the Single Market into being. That legislation has proved to be unprecedentedly intrusive. Partly, there is the question of sheer scale—282 individual items of European legislation required to bring it into effect. Partly too it is a result of so many existing national rules and regulations on technical standards, health, safety, environment and other matters being so detailed that in order to create a level playing field EU regulations had to follow suit. As a result it has been brought into what"
  my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—
  "has described as 'the nooks and crannies' of national life all over the European Union."
  There is a genuine debate throughout Europe, not only between Governments but between parties and certainly not only in this country. In my view, which stems from numerous discussions, opinions on the continent are changing and there is, for example, a debate within the Christian Democrat party in Germany. The original paper by Mr. Schauble and Mr. Lammers has been much modified following internal debate in their country. I have not found a German Christian Democrat Member of Parliament who wants a united states of Europe or anything remotely resembling a united states of Europe.
  Interestingly, in a meeting that I attended in Vienna three weeks ago, the chairman of the Christian Democrat delegation—when were in the mode to commission new study work—asked for a paper to be written on "The Adverse Impact of the Workings of Brussels Bureaucracy on Germany". That is not the sort of thing that we think about in this country because we tend to identify the Germans as being in favour of everything that comes out of Brussels, but they are not.

  383
  In many spheres, it is the British who are setting the agenda. The Conservative party has produced its paper for debate in the European Democrat Union and it has been extremely well received. The paper states:
  "We support the enlargement of the European Union to the East. There are three fundamental reasons why enlargement of the EU is essential for its future development—security, prosperity and shared values The EDU believes that the further enlargement of the European Union also requires a fundamental examination of the EU, its policies and its institutional structures … The framework best suited to meeting the aspirations of EU applicants is a flexible, decentralised one, not a monolithic or centralised one … Our goal should be a Europe of nation states working more effectively with each other in pursuit of shared interests and common solutions to common problems, but not a Europe which attempts to supersede the nation state."
  Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend accept that until now all the eastern European countries without exception have, by way of pronouncements by senior leaders in the Government and in the Opposition, fully accepted the acquis communautaire and, indeed, the move towards a single currency if convergence is achieved?
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie: Yes, but they need to consider to what extent they will be able to meet the key criteria. It is one thing to talk about signing up to the generalities but the reality will be harder to achieve.
  The document goes on to say that we need a Europe that will push ahead with jobs and deal with various aspects of job creation. There is too much of a tendency in Brussels to come up with programmes and proposals that impede job creation. In my three years on the Council of Ministers, I frequently found that it was our continental friends who came up with the visionary "blue sky" ideas. They were strong on rhetoric or—as we English like to call it—guff, but it was down to the United Kingdom to examine proposals in a cautious and pragmatic but entirely practical way, which was not very popular especially when others had been so enthusiastic. In the process, however, we injected the vital ingredient of practicality into many proposals.
  I believe that, by the same token, the Government's approach to the IGC 1996 process is very close to the instincts of the British people in bringing to bear our pragmatism and experience. In this we are very different from the two Opposition parties—from the Liberal Democrats who have been over the hills and far away on this issue for a long time, and from the new Labour party which, of course, is that most dangerous of things, a party of converts on this issue.
  I find it hard to understand why some elements in this country—and, I have to say, in my own party—seem to be so lacking in confidence that they are not prepared to accept the power and strength of our arguments or the fact that they are succeeding and setting the agenda. As we embark on the IGC 1996 process, we should be confident that the healthy pragmatism that so characterises the Government's approach is the best way and the best foundation for our proposals.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: On behalf of those who are over the hills and far away—I suppose that Ross, Cromarty and Skye is over the hills and far away in a geographical sense—I have to say to the right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) that it strikes me that, given the rather febrile state
  384
  of his party on these matters these days, being the international vice-chairman of the Conservative party is perhaps not too onerous a task. I am not sure how many foreigners would want to talk to him in that capacity, given the propensities of some of his colleagues and what they have said.
  The focus of the debate so far, and the matter on which I shall dwell, is the Government's position in the run-up not only to Cannes, but, in the longer term, the intergovernmental conference itself. We heard what the Foreign Secretary had to say this afternoon, but I do not think that we heard what he believes. That is the central difficulty.
  This is an Administration caught in the headlights of their own Back Benchers. Whether the Foreign Secretary went emphatically pro-European or Euro-sceptical this afternoon, he was going to distance himself from and cause difficulties within his own party. He is, therefore, left immobilised somewhere in the middle, and it is pathetic to behold. One only needed to look at the faces of his Back Benchers as he proceeded to see that he was satisfying no one. The Conservative Euro-enthusiasts, whom I applaud, did not look entirely pleased with what he was saying, and the Conservative Euro-sceptics did not look at all persuaded by his efforts either. So long as what has become the war of John's ear goes on vis-à-vis the IGC, it will severely damage British national interests.
  I speak, after all, as one who has experience of having being a member of a party that split in a rather acrimonious fashion a number of years ago—the then Social Democratic party. Frankly, it would be better to get on and have an honest and open divorce now than to persist with this farce between mainstream continental Christian Democrats and what are essentially nationalistic English Conservatives. Both have perfectly respectable views—I tend to lean more towards one than the other—but they both cannot continue to cohabit in the existing United Kingdom Conservative party. It would be better for them and for the interests of this country if they were to go their separate ways now.
  In an earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) made a powerful point—perhaps slightly tongue in cheek, but none the less placing his finger on a very important point—when he referred to proceeding on European matters on the basis of free votes in the House. We would have fun if there were a free vote, for example, on the social chapter, given how many Conservative Members would quite happily go through the Lobby in favour of it because they would recognise it for what it is: much more a set of aspirations than the laying down of a whole set of legal requirements. But leaving aside that fun, the hon. Gentleman made an important point that there is an in-built cross-party majority in this House for sensible European progress and for Britain to be very much a part of it.
  There is also a perfectly honourable tradition in the House among hon. Members who do not like the fact that we went into Europe in the first place but who now argue—so they say, although the logic of their position would none the less lead us to exit from Europe—that we could have some kind of competitive single market and economic benefits without the single currency and the social and political dimensions attached to it. That is an honest set of opinions with which I do not agree. Those hon. Members are in a minority in the House. Even if there were a change of Government, which there would be

  385
  based on the present opinion polls if there were a general election tomorrow, that attitude would still be in the minority in the House. We need to keep that consideration very much to the fore.
  We have seen abject political leadership from the Prime Minister on matters European, especially since the last general election. There has also been third-rate party management from his point of view. That has led us to a fantasy world where the likes of Jacques Chirac and Helmut Kohl are being held up as hob-goblin, socialist figures who are seeking to impose all kinds of terms and conditions of employment in this country, which otherwise we would not want.
  The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), intervened during the Foreign Secretary's speech, referring, as it were, to his right hon. Friend as the sorcerer's apprentice. The Father of the House made a telling point the previous time that we visited some of these European issues. He said that the Government had said nothing positive about Europe since 1979. That is entirely true as one can see by looking at all the debates on the Maastricht treaty.
  If I wanted to sell any commercial idea to anybody in this House or outside, I would play up the benefits, the positive aspects and why I wanted them to take the idea on board. Maastricht was sold to the Conservative party, to the House and to the country on the basis that we had opted out of the social chapter and that we had a derogation from the next stage. That is a hopelessly negative basis on which to try to provide political leadership on an issue that goes beyond the party and that is as broadly based as Europe itself.
  The characteristically penetrating analysis in The Times today by Mr. Peter Riddell says it all. I appeal to the pro-Europeans in the Conservative party. In speaking about them, Mr. Riddell said:
  "They have deployed a strong case, but they are losing the political battle. The main question now is how much ground they will have to surrender, and whether any of their generals will be pushed out in the process."
  He is correct. He concludes:
  "These questions—
  the ones that he has discussed—
  "are central to Mr. Major's future. Either way, the sceptics are continuing to gain at the expense of the pro-Europeans."
  That is a very worrying state of affairs.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: Watch.
  Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Lady says "watch". With her, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and others, I am involved in an exercise on behalf of the European Movement. We are approaching all three UK party leaders, with a view to having a discussion and trying to heighten the profile of positive European arguments. The situation in the Conservative party has now got so serious—it would not matter if it were in opposition although the problem for all of us is that it is in government—and the division among their ranks so deep that it is having a positively damaging effect on Britain's capacity to contribute to the European Union and, in the run-up to the next intergovernmental conference, to win the deal for which we should be aiming.
  386
  That is why I say that the efforts now being made in the European Movement and elsewhere to try to build an all-party pro-European movement are so important and why it certainly has Liberal Democrat support.
  Mr. Dykes: Does the hon. Gentleman further agree that in recent months the negative situation has even had an adverse effect on sterling?
  Mr. Kennedy: Yes, the evidence has shown that. There is no doubt that the position of the Chancellor in particular, which has been open to some question given the politics of the Conservative party on the single currency and so forth, has weakened his credibility, which of course has had a knock-on effect in the currency market. That is indisputable.
  The hon. Member for Harrow, East and I had lunch with the American ambassador to the European Union only yesterday. The ambassador was pointing out the United States' general sense of agnosticism over a single currency. The most telling point that he made—when he could get a word in edgeways because his colleagues were putting their rather robust construction on things—was that a single currency without sterling is of much less concern to the United States than a single currency with sterling. That was an important signal for us.
  There is clearly a need, which goes beyond sectional party interest in this House, to build a broader pro-European movement. I am glad that hon. Members of all parties are involved in that effort. My colleagues and I will certainly be contributing to it. Such an effort is needed because of what we heard in the Foreign Secretary's speech this afternoon. If that was his swansong at the Dispatch Box, it was a very sad one. The man is reduced to the position, because of the state of his own party and the division in his Cabinet, of not being able to say anything. That is a pathetic state of affairs in which the country and the rest of the European Union has no confidence and which gains no respect whatever.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Tim Renton: To say that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said nothing, as the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) has done, is very odd indeed. My right hon. Friend's speech clearly said a great deal, and much of it was somewhat unsatisfactory to those on the Conservative Benches who call themselves Euro sceptics. The Foreign Secretary sticks clearly and firmly to his line, just as the Prime Minister rightly sticks clearly and firmly to the line that he enunciated in his speech of 1 March.
  I shall, however, take up the encouragement that the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye gave to those hon. Members who are pro-European. I include myself in that number, although I always think of myself as a Euro realist rather than a pro-European fanatic. The hon. Gentleman will have read in the Financial Times yesterday the comments of Howard Davies, the Director General of the Confederation of British Industry, on the report that it has just produced, "A Europe that Works". Mr. Davies talked about CBI membership having a
  "bias in favour in the long-term"
  of the United Kingdom joining European economic and monetary union. He said, however, that companies remained cautious about the circumstances and supported, therefore, the "wait and see" position of Her Majesty's Government.

  387
  That is not unlike the conclusion in the report from Andersen Consulting, part of the very large Arthur Andersen group, which will have fallen on many of our desks in the past few days. That, too, concludes that in general the contributors to the survey, who were by and large manufacturing companies in this country, felt the advantages of participation outweighed the disadvantages and said that they were concerned about the effect on British industry of the United Kingdom choosing to stay outside an economic and monetary union bloc.
  That view happens to be very close to the conclusion of the working group on the implications of monetary union for Britain, which was produced under the title of the Kingsdown inquiry, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) and I sat. I was delighted to be asked to join the working group and I came to a personal conclusion after attending most of the detailed sessions. I say this to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), although he is no longer present: we were addressed by bankers, economists, those used to dealing in very large quantities of foreign exchange, and representatives of British, German and Japanese industry in this country. I reached the conclusion that if a single currency comes into being, on balance it will be in Britain's interests to join.
  I must admit that, pro-European as I am, when I started on the group I had some doubts about that. What finally convinced me was hearing the consistent majority opinion put before us that if there were an economic and monetary union and a successful and viable single currency, we were likely to have lower inflation, lower interest rates and more positive inward investment—a continuing flow, in fact—if we joined it than we would be if we stayed outside.
  Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Renton: No, I shall not give way. I have only a few minutes and I am sure that my hon. Friend will make his point when he makes his own speech. I do not expect him to agree with me, but he will have his chance to speak soon. Having listened carefully and reached the opinion that I have described, so I decided that the conclusions of the Kingsdown report and those of the Andersen report, like those of the CBI, pointed in the right direction.
  As I said at the beginning, there is obviously a big "if" here. If the single currency comes into being, we would do better to join. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford touched on that question, and many of us must wonder whether the single currency will in fact ever happen. That is perfectly fair. The Finance Ministers of the European Union countries now say that the date will certainly be postponed from 1997 to 1999, and clearly substantial difficulties will have to be overcome if a majority are to meet the convergence criteria.
  From working on the Kingsdown report I also learnt that the transitional period—the moments between the decision to go into a single currency and the event itself—would be extremely difficult. The technicians have studied the possibilities—in the Maas committee, for example—to discover what the best approach would be. However, I am sure that if the single currency were to happen and if it looked like being successful, we ought to be in it. Indeed, we should get into it quickly rather than being, as we so often have been in other European Community developments, a Johnny-come-lately who plays no part in forming the rules and lives greatly to regret that fact.
  388
  Whatever the economists and the bankers say, in the end the decision will be a political one for all of us. Moreover, it will have to have public support; it cannot possibly be a purely automatic decision.
  The concern that emerges most clearly from my hon. Friends and from Opposition Members who are worried about such developments is the fear of loss of sovereignty by the House. "Loss of sovereignty" is a difficult phrase to define, and it is easy to say that in many respects we have already lost sovereignty in financial and monetary matters. The decisions taken by qualified majority vote following 1986 further reduced the influence of the House. The European Court of Justice, which was set up in 1972 by the original accession to the treaty, has also removed sovereignty from the House.
  Will we lose more sovereignty if we move into an economic and monetary union? Clearly, over monetary control and money supply, we shall. A European central bank would mean that there was only one monetary authority. Against that it must be said that the House already has little real influence and little say in controlling money supply figures. It is told what is happening; it is told the decisions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Money supply is not debated and decided in the House. The other day, in his Mansion House speech, my right hon. and learned Friend reaffirmed his inflation targets; subsequently he told Back Benchers about them. Such matters are not regularly decided on the Floor of the Chamber.
  To me, the big question is to what degree the authority to tax and to spend—in order words, the fiscal powers—would leave the House if we joined a single currency and an economic and monetary union. That problem is well reflected in the Kingsdown report. The experts are divided, but in the course of the inquiry it was said that monetary union would not remove the fiscal powers of individual national parliaments. For instance, it would still be possible for any national parliament to have either a high-spend, high-tax posture or a low-spend, low-tax posture within the Maastricht restraints. If one had to stay within the convergence criteria, however, it would not be possible to have a high-spend, low-tax posture, but within those restraints Parliament would retain as much fiscal authority as it had before. To me, therefore, the fiscal question is still an open one and I should like it to be further examined in the debate on this key issue in the months and years ahead.
  Against that background of general approval, but a great deal of understandable worry about the detail, it seems to me that the Prime Minister is absolutely right to defend the Maastricht option—an option either to go in or to stay out. Equally, there is no need for the Government to make a decision yet. No other European leader is making a decision on the issue at this stage, so why on earth should the British Government do so, however often they are pressed by those who criticise them on European matters? "Wait and see" is not a heroic posture on such a complex issue, but there is no doubt that on this issue it is the right posture.
  There is also the difficult question of how many more decisions should he taken by qualified majority voting rather than by unanimity. Clearly, as the number of countries in the Community enlarges—the next countries likely to accede are Malta and Cyprus, whose membership will be considered immediately after the intergovernmental conference, and then the Baltic states—it is difficult to

  389
  continue to give a right of total veto to each country. A small state such as Malta might, for example, block the accession of Lithuania until it received some particular agricultural concession.
  I know that my time is up, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I say to the House—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. James Molyneaux: In this season of commemoration of the end of the second world war it has been claimed by several people that the achievement of the European Economic Community, as it originally was, has been to keep the peace and to preserve us from a repetition of that war. The right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) said something about that, and in view of his long experience in the Ministry of Defence and the Northern Ireland Office we should pay close attention to his opinions. If time permits I may later be able to quote something for the benefit of the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton).
  It is now suggested that the European Union should assume the role of NATO—complete with a European army, if you please. We need say no more than that the European Union's dry run in Yugoslavia has illustrated the folly of any such ideas, including the notion that the EU could ever in any circumstances be an effective peacemaker. Equally flawed is the absurd notion that the European Union could work magic on social issues. I do not have time to quote the leader in today's edition of The Times, but it is well worth reading in that regard.
  My party has consistently supported free trade in the widest sense of the term, but we can never understand the logic of those who in 1970 and much earlier advocated membership of a free trading bloc in Europe but then proceeded to erect tariff barriers all round it. We support the concept of GATT and its removal of barriers, but we must ask whether the signatories—particularly in Europe—will honour their obligations to remove all the irksome restrictions on, for example, British companies in the service sector.
  As we move into the pre-IGC discussions, we must take account of the enormous shift in global trade in the quarter of a century since we joined the Common Market, which all of us knew very well in 1972 was only the cover name for what is now the European Union. Capital investment is flowing at an ever-increasing rate from high-cost economies in America and Europe to Asia and the Pacific rim, and the coming IGC cannot ignore that global flow. The UK in particular must accept that the assumptions of 25 years ago that British trade would be focused within the European Community are now greatly out of date—so out of date that by the end of the century the related notions of monetary and political union will also be obsolete.
  Only last week, we saw how some of the leading advocates of a common currency were lowering their targets and extending their expectations from 1997 to 1999. My party's fixed position on exchange rates has been based on something more solid than arguments about Europe. Since 1974—when we were forced by an authority not now
  390
  in the House to become a separate parliamentary party—we have counselled against experiments in fixing the rate. That has remained our consistent position.
  It strikes us as very odd that every time the Government—of whatever party—get a bloody nose, they eventually come back for more punishment. Plain common sense supported by experience proves that once an exchange rate is fixed, the burden of support falls on the Treasury—the taxpayer's agent.
  The younger and enlightened generation of industrialists and business men—I come here to the tradition referred to by the right hon. Member for Mid—Sussex—are now well aware of the fatal consequences of a single currency. Today we have read a contribution from the chairman of the Institute of Directors in Northern Ireland, Mr. Howard Hastings, a young man making his way in the world and particularly in the world of business and industry. He says:
  "The main cost to the UK of a single currency would be relinquishing control over monetary policies…If it is too tight, there are the costs of lost output and employment.too lax, and there would be the costs of inflation…A single currency is forever…We were able to leave the ERM, albeit in a far from dignified fashion, because we had our national currency.
  Adopt a single currency and that option is removed. Not only is the case for a single currency not proven—it doesn't have a leg to stand on."
  I need add only a few other considerations. To maintain a single currency, there has to be a single Government. If there is a single Government, it follows that there has to be a single nation. In such a single nation, democracy itself becomes impotent and obsolete. Some forget or ignore that a single currency in Europe would still have to float on the world markets, and I am afraid to leave that out of my calculations.
  5.53 pm
  Sir Peter Hordern: I wish to say a few words about the single currency. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) said, it is true that a number of commissions and business leaders such as the CBI have found in favour of closer European co-operation and, on balance—so far as I can tell—of a single currency. But it will be a matter for intense debate within this House, both in the rest of this Parliament and, I am sure, in the next Parliament.
  In an excellent speech, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) seemed to suggest that he had the total support of his Labour colleagues, but I believe that the Labour party is far more split on this issue than my party is—difficult though that is to believe.
  When we reach 1999, it is certain that those countries within the European Union which meet the economic criteria set out in the Maastricht treaty will join the single currency. I shall leave aside for the moment the transitional arrangements, which will be extremely difficult. The House will agree that there is a real political will in Germany, France and the Benelux countries to form that single currency. The House must also consider where we, and our business and industry, would stand if there were to be a core currency—that is what I think it would be—in 1999 and thereafter. That currency would certainly be widely traded in this country, as we do 40 per cent. of our physical trade with Germany, France and the Netherlands. That being so, it is certain that

  391
  transactions would be settled in that currency—whatever it was called—and, increasingly, private transactions would also be settled in that currency.
  We would have at least a common currency operating within this country, and I do not believe that there is any way in which that could be prevented, even if anyone wanted to do so. A common currency would operate with sterling and because of its considerable strength due to the economic criteria the common currency would be inclined to have somewhat lower interest rates than sterling, and would consequently become over time a rather more attractive currency. One must take into account the pressure on sterling in those circumstances, as it would be in competition with a very powerful common currency in which business would increasingly be transacted.
  A future Parliament will have to consider those issues, and the right way to settle the matter is to see how the initial process goes and then decide what the impact on our economy will be as a result. That is why I am so glad that we have the opt-out. The best way to settle the arguments about sovereignty would be by a free vote in this House. I do not think that a common currency operating strongly in this country is a good subject on which to have a referendum and, because of the enormous constitutional implications of a referendum, I do not go along with my right hon. and hon. Friends who believe in a referendum.
  I wonder what will happen when the core countries form a single currency. There will be considerable pressure, because of our opt-out, either to conform or to create within the European Union some kind of mechanism which will be adverse to our trading interests. I hope that we shall resist any such suggestions.
  I am glad that we have an opt-out from the social charter, as it is bad enough to hear suggestions that we should go along with that. Labour Members today have repeated their adherence to that charter. A report in today's edition of the Financial Times referred to the impact of the OECD report on pensions within the European Union. I believe that it will be profound. One thing that it shows is rather comforting: we are by far the best provided for by pensions of any of the European Union countries. It will unquestioningly be the case—
  Mr. Salmond: What?
  Sir Peter Hordern: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand. I refer him to the OECD report. I am talking about total pensions, which of course include occupational ones.
  The idea that we should have to contribute to a shortfall in other countries' pension funds must be anathema to us. I am quite certain that we should remain as we are and maintain an opt-out from the social contract in that respect.
  Mrs. Currie: I remind my right hon. Friend that the United Kingdom has the largest proportion of elderly people in Europe, with the exception of Sweden. Would he feel the same way if Sweden were to contribute to our funds?
  Sir Peter Hordern: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the OECD report, which she will find interesting and illuminating. We should not be party to making large extra contributions to countries which have not made proper provision for their elderly people.
  392
  I have a clear idea of how we should proceed within the European Union. We are in favour of an ever-widening single market to include the eastern European countries and to provide maximum competition. I am sure that that is the case.
  There is a costly downside to maintaining an independent currency. The Government cannot finance themselves through the bond market without having to pay a full 2 per cent. more than the Germans now pay. We even have to pay 1 per cent. more than the Belgians; despite the fact that Belgium has a huge debt compared with its gross domestic product and our own, it is clearly determined to go along with the deutschmark. There is therefore a cost attached to maintaining our currency which must be borne in mind.
  I do not think that a single currency necessarily leads to a federal state. There is no question of our losing control of the power to raise income tax. In that respect, it is important that we should always retain that power within the House. We should not yield it to a European Parliament because national parliaments most nearly represent the people—much more so, at any rate so far, than the European Parliament does or is ever likely to do. We should not promote the European institutions too far, but we should promote unity among the European peoples through free trade, competition and the removal of national barriers.
  I should like to offer one suggestion to my hon. Friend the Minister. Europe will be a matter of supreme importance in the next Parliament. Although I am not in favour of a referendum, I wonder whether it would be a good idea to appoint a commission to look at every aspect of the matter, both from our monetary and economic point of view and from our constitutional point of view. People should be invited to give evidence so that if there is to be a free vote it can be taken after a proper assessment of all the important matters involved.
  6.2 pm
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in the debate, especially when I know that a number of other hon. Members are in the queue waiting to speak.
  I wanted to speak in this debate because the subject is of enormous importance to the Scottish National party and Scotland. Our party has a policy of independence within Europe, so we are firmly on the side of the pro-Europeans in the Chamber. My predecessor, Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, might also have wished to take part in the debate, but perhaps not for the same side of the argument.
  I had occasion, in a number of different capacities, to meet Sir Nicholas, because as well as being involved in politics, I am a member of the Scottish Bar. I recall that he contributed to a book in 1992 in which he described the creation of the city of Edinburgh as being done in a "creative, roistering spirit". I believe that that quotation, rather than describing Edinburgh, is probably a more apt description of Sir Nicholas, because his impact was such that, once one met him, one never forgot him.
  Sir Nicholas made an impact not only in politics but through his work at the Bar. As a Member of Parliament, however, he had an enormous impact. In my travels around Perth and Kinross, I have met many people who have a little story to tell about him. They spoke of some cause that he had taken up or some particular intervention

  393
  that he had made on their behalf, which they remembered clearly, particularly because of the way in which he made his interventions.
  Other hon. Members who are also members of the Scottish Bar—not all of them are in the Chamber—would agree that when one first arrives at the Scottish Bar, it is noticeable that one of the people about whom one hears the most stories is Sir Nicholas. I regret to say that those stories are generally not suitable for inclusion in a speech, particularly in a maiden speech. The one thing that characterised every one of them was the enormous affection with which they were told. The political views of the individual did not matter, because the affection in which Sir Nicholas was held at the Bar in Scotland and on both sides of the House came through strongly. That also came through in the constituency, because wherever I went, from Kinross to Comrie, and from Milnathort to Muthill, the affection in which Sir Nicholas was held was evident.
  That affection is also tempered with amusement, because after many years of being in total political disagreement with Sir Nicholas, I found myself in total agreement with him at the very end of his life, when he gave his opinion on the likely result of the by-election that he knew was about to be called in Scotland. The result of that subsequent by-election bore out the prophetic abilities of Sir Nicholas. It at least highlighted the fact that, in the people of Perth and Kinross, one has an electorate who prefer a Member of Parliament who is just perhaps a little different from the norm. Although I cannot promise to go on in precisely the same way as Sir Nicholas, I shall provide the people of Perth and Kinross with the same distinctive voice.
  That by-election was of enormous importance for Scotland. We in the SNP had the opportunity to put forward our entirely positive vision—an independent Scotland within Europe. I could contrast that with the vision of the Conservative party, if I could ascertain what it is. I am afraid that I cannot. Such is the Tories' disarray, their only response to Europe is to delay. We could characterise their approach as "back to Baldwin" rather than "back to basics". I am afraid that at the moment our Conservative colleagues appear to be both anti-European and anti-Scottish at the same time. I hope that they will not try to save themselves in the coming general election by displaying insularity, xenophobia and parochialism, because that would be a great shame.
  An attempt is being made to press emotional buttons harking back to an empire that no longer exists in order to combat Brussels and to deal with the awkward squad on the Celtic fringe. That approach can be contrasted with the openness and inclusive nature of my party, which we demonstrate so vigorously in our campaigns. That contrast is bound to benefit my party, as it will benefit Scotland, because Tory strategy will not work in Scotland. The by-election made that clear.
  Our policy also contrasts just a little with that pursued by our colleagues on the Labour Benches. They may not be quite as anti-European or as anti-Scottish as Conservative Members, but their rhetoric is directed to what I would describe as the soggy centre. They still want to whistle "Land of hope and glory", but they want to do it quietly and in the dark. They are equally irrelevant to Scotland's political debate.
  394
  Scotland is lucky because it has a real alternative, which we laid out at the by-election. We fought a hard campaign in one of the most beautiful constituencies of Scotland, where, everywhere one walks, history is all around. It is a Scottish history, not a British nor an English history. There is certainly prosperity in my constituency, but there is also poverty, in spite of the way in which it is frequently portrayed.
  There is also an enormous thirst for change and a fresh start, which my constituents have discovered that only the Scottish National party can provide. Our by-election campaign laid out detailed policies directed towards economic and social decency. They are the type of policies that ordinary, decent Scots, not only in Perth and Kinross but throughout Scotland, find energising, because Scotland does not regard proper social provision and a culture of care as in any way extreme. The real extremists and the real separatists are those who wish to separate us in Scotland from the rights and benefits that should be part of a normal working life.
  In the context of the debate, I am speaking especially about those who wish to separate Scotland from the benefits to be accrued from the social chapter. I believe that it is the Government's intransigence in continually opposing the social chapter that has led or is leading directly to a low-skill, low-wage, low working standard culture.
  We are on the verge of becoming a sweatshop in Europe. There are private fortunes for some, but for the majority there is low job security, low commitment to employers and low standards of service and of production.
  Scotland does not believe that Government policies are providing a sound future for that country. Security and prosperity can come only from full and willing participation in a Europe-wide social chapter and a commitment to the people.
  The most successful European economies are those in which the work force is motivated and supported. It is short-sighted to neglect that work force and to neglect the people. An example of that short-sightedness, if I may digress slightly, is intransigence towards a minimum wage. The Government show total resistance to that, and it was one of the principal arguments in the by-election. I found that strange because the agricultural minimum wage exists, which protects rather than destroys jobs.
  That is also the case elsewhere. Study after study has shown that the 60 years of a minimum wage in the United States have not destroyed jobs. I also find it amusing that the right-wing platform of President Chirac included a commitment to increasing the French minimum wage. Indeed, Sir Winston Churchill, I believe in this very Chamber, in 1909 called it "a serious national evil" for anyone to receive less than a living wage.
  Those are the benefits that we can accrue from the European Union—tangible benefits. The concept of a people's Europe and the social chapter helps to bring us those benefits, and it can and should be coupled with a minimum wage, set by Government. It can be introduced during a transitional period to help small businesses, and I believe that, in 1995, it should be set at not less than £4 per hour—a pity that my friends on the Labour Benches will not also fix a figure.

  395
  An opinion poll early this year showed that Scots were more enthusiastic about Europe than were people in any other part of the United Kingdom. The message of that by-election is that it is time for Britain to pull over, get out of the slow lane and let Scotland past.
  6.12 pm
  Sir Richard Body: I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) wholeheartedly on a notable speech. I do not know whether Sir Nicholas was up there, but I believe that, if he were, he would have been grinning amiably at those reminiscences. The hon. Lady spoke with great generosity towards him and with wit, both of which the House always much appreciates.
  The hon. Lady spoke of her constituency in glowing terms, which was only right, because we all envy her that constituency and she is lucky to be there. I do not know whether her constituents are lucky to have her. So far, no doubt they are, but the hon. Lady will strive hard to hold that seat and, if she continues to make speeches like that, she may he there longer than some of us would wish.
  I am tempted to tread on the controversial element of the hon. Lady's speech, but that would be to depart from the traditions of the House. Instead I shall allude, if I may, to one industry in which morale is now very low, an industry that was once the greatest of its kind in the world—our fishing industry.
  Our fishing industry is becoming smaller day by day. That is literally so, as fishermen are becoming fewer by the day and as one boat after another is being decommissioned. The industry has two parts—inshore and deep sea.
  I shall refer to the inshore sector first. We have a leasehold on what were once our British waters, but that leasehold expires in 2002. That is seven years ahead. It is an eternity away to politicians—all of us—as we never like to think of seven years ahead, but it is tomorrow to the fishermen who are contemplating whether it will be worth their while to renew the boats that they have—and many need to be renewed now—or to advise their sons to join them in an industry that has traditionally gone from generation to generation.
  In my constituency, we now have only 40 boats—40 boats, I should say, from Boston. We have none from Fosdyke and Sutton Bridge now. There are only 40 boats left going out from Boston, when not so many years ago we had more than 100. We have only 80 fishermen left, when not so many years ago we had about 500, earning a living out of the fishing industry.
  That figure can be repeated all round the coast of the United Kingdom. That is the scale on which the industry is diminishing. We really must decide very soon whether we intend to have a fishing industry. Unless we make that decision soon, morale is so low that we shall not have the investment coming in to enable boats to be rebuilt and to recruit the younger men to come in, to enable the industry to carry on in the next century.
  I beg the Government to have regard to that, even at this stage, for the intergovernmental conference. Unless we make a decision soon, we shall simply not have more people willing to enter the fishing industry to replace those who are retiring and the others—and there are quite a number of them—who see little hope for their industry and are leaving.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a campaign for the reform of the ramshackle common fisheries policy that we have now must call for regional management and regional preferences in terms of the indigenous fishermen and communities?
  Sir Richard Body: I would go a little way along that road, but my conclusion would be more radical, as the hon. Gentleman may understand.
  May I now refer to the deep sea sector. What has happened in the past 24 hours will not be lost on deep-sea fishermen—that a little militancy on the high seas can bring its reward. Having visited many deep-sea fishermen in the past few months, I must report to the House that there is rising anger, because they feel deeply let down. They feel that their industry is being treated as expendable and that they, and those who depend on them, have little future in an industry that could be great.
  It has been calculated that our fishing industry might be worth £6,000 million a year. That could make it a major industry, as indeed it used to be. We must ask ourselves seriously whether we wish to see that go—and go it will, unless the House resolves very soon that it should not go, and that requires the repatriation of fishing policy.
  One of the arguments for the common fisheries policy is that it conserves fish. I shall give one statistic that the House will not believe. Fishermen whom I have spoken to in the past few months have calculated how many fish round our shores are tipped back, dead, into the sea once they have been caught. Nobody will believe me when I say that those fishermen tell me—it is not just one view, but the view of many, including marine biologists and others who have kept an eye on what is happening—that about 1,000 million fish are tipped back in the course of a year. I do not know how many fish one could get into the Chamber—perhaps 1 million or 2 million.
  When our fishermen go out to fish, they have to keep to a quota. If they exceed it, they know that they will almost certainly be caught and fined up to £50,000. As a result, they dare not take the risk. In my constituency, it is seldom that as many as 16 boats go out in one day, but no fewer than 16 fishery officers police the Wash ports. The chances of exceeding the quota and getting away with it are nil.
  If one is fishing in the midst of a shoal of fish such as herring, one can easily, so I am told, bring on board 20 tonnes of herring. One cannot limit the amount as the nets come in; all the fish will come on board, although the quota may perhaps be only 10 tonnes—it may be anything from 8 to 12 tonnes. One will probably have to tip back half the herring. They will be fed to seagulls, but there is no other advantage in tipping them back. That process, which is far from conservation, is happening with one species after another.
  The common fisheries policy has failed to meet its objective. It is a disgraceful and wicked waste that so many millions of tonnes of food are being thrown back into the sea. The amount of waste is far worse than anything that has so far been recorded due to the common agricultural policy—and enough food has certainly been wasted as a result of that policy.
  I hope that the House—particularly my hon. Friend the Minister, who I know is sympathetic to, and understands, the problem—will urgently consider the issue. We need some resolve to ensure that the industry does not perish.

  397
  It is slowly dying and it will die unless the House has the resolve to ensure that we have effective control over our waters. That will not be achieved by reform—reform is Euro-speak for more bureaucracy.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Ken Livingstone: I should certainly like to echo the kind words of the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) on the maiden speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham). I particularly welcomed her speech as I thought that it had a decidedly socialist tinge to it and I suspect that we are not getting as many socialists in the House as we did in the past. I hope that being generous to the hon. Lady in that way will do her no more damage in her party than it is likely to do me in mine.
  I was struck in the debate on two or three occasions by Tory Members grasping at straws and expressing the hope that the Labour party is as deeply split on Europe as the Government. They were misguided because there has been a tendency not to examine the detail of the speeches that were made by many of us in the Maastricht debate. I consistently voted against the Maastricht treaty, largely because the Government were stupid enough to make it an issue of confidence. Therefore, irrespective of what was in it, I would have voted against it.
  I also voted against the Maastricht treaty largely because I am opposed to an independent central bank—a strong motivating force for many Labour Members who opposed it. I have not the slightest doubt that, whether we are in or out of Europe, that issue will return in the next Parliament and will have to be fought over. I did not spend so much of my life trying to get elected to this place, then to conspire to give bankers vast powers over the British people.
  The recent conflict between Eddie George and the Chancellor shows that, ultimately, one person has to be responsible to the House for interest rates. It is nonsense to have dual responsibility carried between an unelected official and an elected official. Interest rates are central to the lives of British people and accountability for those interest rates should lie in the Chamber, not with an unelected official or an independent central bank. I have no problem in voting against it.
  Mr. MacShane: I shall ask a quick question as we are limited to 10-minute speeches. Who is more powerful in determining our interest rates—Eddie George, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or Mr. George Soros?
  Mr. Livingstone: George Soros and his like around the world, who, with their ability to manipulate currency flows, largely determine such issues when one is dealing with a currency that is not as large or important as it used to be.
  I want to deal with the subject of the splits in the Labour party. Shortly before the election in 1991, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) came to the Campaign group as the Maastricht debate was building up and presented a paper of total opposition to the European project. He was surprised to discover that two thirds of the members of the Campaign group were in favour of the federal project. It should not be a surprise
  398
  to the Tory party to discover that those of us with roots in internationalism, Marxism or even Methodism are open to the idea of supranational, international and global methods of organisation and government. In a world that is becoming more and more crowded with people and in which there is more competition for resources, international organisations will become more important.
  When I was on the national executive committee of the Labour party, I attended a party conference in, I think, 1988, at which there was a vote on whether to withdraw from Europe. I noticed that the constituency Labour party delegates voted overwhelmingly against it. I do not think that Conservative Members should think that the Labour party's change of attitude on Europe is a manoeuvre or a device. That change of approach has come up through the party from the grass roots, so it is irreversible.
  The Labour party contains people, on both the left and right wings, who are genuinely opposed to the European project, but they form a small minority. I do not think that we shall face the same problems in government as the Prime Minister is having with the Conservative party. We must find a way of getting Europe right, not whinge about whether to stay in it.
  One has only to examine the aspects that the intergovernmental conference will be discussing over the next couple of years as we move towards the next stage of the European project to see that there is no role for a major nation outside Europe. We know full well that Britain has a major impact on foreign affairs only when it agrees with another major power or bloc of powers. We learnt in Suez that we can no longer strut the stage. Instead, we must co-operate with our European neighbours so that there is a European dimension to global affairs, which we can pose against the policies that often emerge from the White House or the far east. We must ensure that we have that interest. It is nonsense that we are still armed to the teeth in western Europe, as if we might one day fight a war. There are major savings to be made for European peoples if we co-ordinate and co-operate on defence issues.
  Clearly, the most important question for most hon. Members is that of a currency. I was struck by the Bruges group's 19th occasional paper, which I was kindly sent by Bill Jamieson of The Daily Telegraph. It made the case that we should not be constrained by Europe but, with our vast capital holdings around the world, we should be genuinely international. I read through the paper and it decided me in favour of the European project. The Bruges document is a restatement of Britain's traditional financial perspective: to invest abroad and to neglect home investment. It convinced me more than ever to favour a single currency. We should concentrate on investing in Britain and in our European neighbours in order to build a strong industrial base, which has been neglected so badly and to which the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) drew attention with regard to the collapse in our exporting ability.
  I have no doubt that there will be a European currency. The European project has been clear: since Messina 40 years ago the Europeans have not had the slightest doubt that they were talking about a united states of Europe. The British people have been ill served by politicians constantly trying to emphasise the economic issues. It was a much wider project. It is absolute nonsense for anyone to say that a single European currency can be created

  399
  without recognising that that is another step towards creating a wider European union, and eventually a united states of Europe.
  I welcome that. I remember when Harold Macmillan first applied to take Britain into Europe in 1961. I was about 17 at the time and I was excited by the project. The debate then was that, although we would not necessarily enjoy tremendous economic benefits, there were wider political and military issues to consider. We wanted to create a genuine European dimension. When Kennedy in the White House gave the Union his support, it was seen as creating twin pillars either side of the Atlantic. It was viewed not simply in economic terms, but in political and military terms.
  We should now be honest to the British people. I do not believe that we were honest in the referendum, which purported to be only about the economy and so on. There is a political dimension, and we are deceiving the British people if we try to deny that. I am proud of it and I am happy to tell the British people that Europe is moving gradually—it may take a generation—towards the creation of a federal structure. Our role, as socialists, is to ensure that it is the correct structure and that Europe is devolved, decentralised, open and democratic. It must not be centralised and undemocratic and it must not turn its back on the rest of the world. That will be the subject of future debates.
  There is no way that Britain can stand apart because the rest of Europe will go with that project. The issue is whether it will be a small core based around Germany, or whether the whole of Europe will be brought together. I do not want to see a small German core with the rest of us stuck on the periphery where we have little influence; I want to see the wider European project open out as rapidly as possible, to draw in the nations of eastern Europe.
  If the rest of Europe creates a single currency and Britain opts out of it, every minute of every day the George Soros's and the international markets will test the strength of the pound against the next European currency. Every minute of every day, British citizens will have to pay more in terms of interest rates in order to fend off those attacks. The exchange rate mechanism failed because we were stupid enough to go in at an unsustainable rate. [Interruption.] I remind those hon. Members who are dissenting that I said that in the speech that I made when they voted to go in at an unsustainable rate. I said at the time that if we entered at that rate, another million people would be thrown on to the dole. I was right. The fact that the ERM failed us is irrelevant because the Government were stupid about the rate at which they entered.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time has expired.
  6.32 pm
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: I add my words of congratulation to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham). It is particularly nice to hear that sort of speech from a new woman Member. She may know that her predecessor, Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, very kindly described some women Members in the House as "old slags". I am sure that he would be amused by the irony of his being replaced by one who is not only so capable but also so attractive—and I am allowed to say that.
  400
  On Monday I had the honour to be elected as the new chairman of the Conservative Group for Europe. The group came into existence 20 years ago to fight for the yes side in the referendum. It has supporters all over the country, including in both Houses of Parliament.
  For those of us who are pro-European, it has always been a great reassurance to be members of the Conservative party. The original idea for modern Europe came from Churchill in Zurich in September 1946, when he spoke of creating a
  "structure under which the European family can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom".
  He talked about giving
  "a sense of enlarged patriotism and common citizenship to the distracted peoples of this mighty and turbulent continent".
  It was the efforts more than 30 years ago of the then Tory Prime Minister, Harold MacMillan, to take us into Europe that inspired me and many like me to join the Conservative party. Since then, Tory Prime Ministers have brought about our entry into Europe; pushed through the single market; developed the notion of subsidiarity, which is now widely accepted; and pressed for the accession of other countries, especially those which once suffered under communism. I think that Tories can be very proud of those achievements.
  Most of that was done in the teeth of bitter hostility from Labour. From Attlee onwards, through the leadership of Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock, Labour's natural tendency to trudge backwards with its head down has led the party in the wrong direction. The new Labour leader, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), says that he is pro-European now. In 1983—the year that we were both elected to this place—he wanted to pull out and leave the European Community entirely. In his 1983 election address he said:
  "We'll negotiate a withdrawal from the EEC which has drained our natural resources and destroyed jobs".
  He now says in radio interviews that, privately, he was all in favour of Europe. That is very strange. In public he is now in favour of Europe, but perhaps he is against it in private. One wonders at a commitment that is so superficial. I will take some convincing before I believe that the modern Labour party is in favour of the European Union.
  The Opposition's current conversion to the cause is very welcome, but what does it signify? It signifies only their realisation that an anti-European stance, along with their other batty policies, has made them repeatedly unelectable. There's the rub and there is the lesson for Conservatives as well. No anti-European party has ever been elected to office in this country. The voters, for all their grumbles, know on which side their bread is buttered.
  The European Union is a living creature; it is like a teenager. We can no more tell it to stop and say that we shall go no further with it than we can tell a teenager to stop growing. The tight little knot of six countries 40 years ago has grown until the Union's population is now as big as that of the United States of America and Japan put together. Our combined gross domestic product is 20 per cent. larger than that of the United States. The European Union is a world player and we should be thrilled to play our part.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: What is their unemployment?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Injury time will be given. That sort of barracking from the Back Benches is not acceptable.
  Mrs. Currie: In trading terms, we should make no mistake: Europe's strength is vital to us as a trading nation. We account for a quarter of total European Union trade. When there is a recession on the continent, we suffer; when continental economies grow, we benefit. Last year's figures show that we exported more to Germany than to the USA, more to Italy than to the whole of the middle east, and more to the small Dutch economy than to all the tiger economies of Asia put together. As far as our exports are concerned, the Australian market is roughly the same size as that of Denmark.
  Of course, we should not ignore the rest of the world, but why go halfway around the world when the richest and most discerning buyers are on our doorstep and we are triumphant in their markets? That is now our home market. The belief that we would find life easier somewhere outside the European Union is simply crazy and it does not accord with the facts.
  Churchill spoke of an "enlarged patriotism". Edith Cavell told us that "patriotism is not enough". I think that that is correct. I do not believe that we can improve our nation's position by taking a narrow view. Nor is it patriots who do so: it is those unpatriotic weak willies who are terrified of the challenge of other nations and who believe that we cannot meet that challenge.
  As to the single currency, I must tell my right hon and hon Friends on the Front Bench that if patriotism is not enough, nor is pragmatism. It is always necessary to ask the shrewd question: will it work? It is unwise to wait until others have designed the whole caboodle before putting the question. To insist upon "wait and see" is not a policy; it is a postponement of a policy. Worse still, it carries with it the serious danger that we will not like what we see eventually simply because we lacked the nerve or the taste to get involved at the start.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) Horsham called for free votes on the issue and he was right. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is correct to say that we cannot take a decision on a single currency until we see what is on offer, and to insist that it must be workable before we consider joining. However, true patriotism would assume that of course we will be capable of joining when the time comes and that we are capable now of active engagement in the massive amount of detailed planning that is required. That is the view of the CBI in its paper, "A Europe that works", which was launched yesterday.
  If we stand back and let other countries take the initiative, the result will be a creation from which our experience and knowledge will be excluded. It will be worse without us. We must be involved and engaged.
  I have one or two old-fashioned views. I believe that it is the job of Government not only to govern as widely as possible, but to inspire. I should like to see the Conservative Government expound the principles on which modern Europe is founded, as Churchill and Macmillan did. I should like them vigorously to promote radical change and growth in Europe, including a flexible labour market, instead of appearing to oppose it at every step.
  402
  The Government have an obligation to inform the public of how we benefit from our membership of the European Union. The ignorance of ordinary voters is a major stumbling block to our playing a full role. It is up to the Government to tackle it and not leave it to others.
  I should like to hear words of hope and enthusiasm from the Government about Europe, not the nit-picking and criticisms which have become so many Ministers' stock in trade. Otherwise, we may find that the voters in some future referendum have absorbed the lukewarm attitudes of some of our leaders and Back Benchers and will vote no, whatever the question is. That would be a disaster for Britain, for our partners and, in my judgment, for the free world.
  I pray that a principled, long-sighted and positive view will prevail over policy in Europe as it has in the Conservative party up to now. We must at all times seek what is good for the nation and for our constituents. Only in that direction lie the targets we desire: the wealth and security of our country and success in the next election.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. Mike Gapes: This morning, the Foreign Secretary made it clear to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that the Government have made no formal submission of their position to the inter-governmental conference and study group. So far, they published a paper on defence policy in March and a document on the common foreign and security policy. Both those documents would be broadly welcomed in the House as they contain what most people in Britain would consider eminently sensible proposals that take us towards greater European co-operation. However, some of us wish that the Government had provided a more explicit, clearer statement of the need for a common European approach to stand up to the stupidities from the other side of the Atlantic.
  It is significant that this morning the Foreign Secretary was not prepared to promise a White Paper before the IGC. The reason is clearly demonstrated on the Conservative Benches. The Foreign Secretary is unable to produce such a White Paper because of the divisions within the Cabinet and the Conservative party. It is clear that the Government are suffering from immobility.
  Mr. Duncan-Smith: Not Mobil, what about Shell?
  Mr. Gapes: I shall come to Shell in a moment.
  The sceptics are on the rampage and the lunatics are taking over the asylum. The Inter-Governmental Conference Study Group will be an important test of whether the Government can survive into 1997, but the outcome in 1997 will not necessarily be what is envisaged at the moment.
  The German representative on the reflections group, Werner Hoyer, said a few weeks ago that from the German viewpoint it would be preferable for discussions to continue into 1997 because of the political uncertainties in Britain. He went on:
  "but the schedule could be kept only if elections in Britain have by then strengthened the decisiveness of London."
  That can be read in two ways, but I suspect that what he had in mind was his hope that there will be a Government with a clear majority led by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition before the conclusion of the negotiations. That has consequences not just for Britain

  403
  and the other members of the European Union but for other potential members with the enlargement to the Visegrad countries and other central and eastern European states as well as Malta and Cyprus.
  The Select Committee recently visited Finland and Poland as part of our work in reporting to the House on the issue. We had detailed discussions with representatives of the Polish Government. There are concerns in Poland that the process of enlargement will drag on and be delayed because of the ratification process after the IGC.
  I therefore welcome what the Foreign Secretary told us this morning. His view was that within six months of the IGC, discussions with potential new members should then start and that we should not have to wait for the ratification of the new treaty, which could delay matters perhaps a year or more and make it more difficult for that enlargement to take place before the end of the century, causing growing uncertainty in Poland, Hungary and elsewhere for several years.
  It is also clear that applicant countries will join the European Union when the debate on the single currency is becoming central. If the discussions of the last few days lead to the single currency being introduced in 1999, and if the Commission's proposal for a four-year, three-phase process to bring it in is met, by about 2003 there will be a fully fledged single European currency. That will have big ramifications even for countries which have decided to opt out.
  The Commission's document envisages the single currency operating throughout the single market. That has serious implications. Hon. Members have already referred to the potential costs of staying out of such a single currency, if it were introduced.
  My constituents who travel to work in the financial institutions in central London—in banking, insurance and associated industries. The single currency will have significant consequences for a part of the country with higher than average unemployment and massive job losses in those sectors in recent years. It will be worrying if we stay out of the process and the focus of European banking, finance, insurance and information technology shifts away from London towards other European cities. It would be appear to me that, in the German sense, the matter is being driven by politics. That is clear from what Chancellor Kohl has said and from what everyone else in the Social Democratic party is saying. Indeed, I met a member of the SDP this week, and he confirmed the fact that a majority in the German Parliament is committed to establishing a single currency. German public opinion may he registering some suspicion and hostility, as expressed in the polls; but I agreed—if only on this—with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) that there will be a single currency, and the Germans will be at the core of it.
  The choice that we in this country face is: should we sit on the sidelines, believing that we can operate from outside, with all the attendant risks of speculation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) referred earlier? That would pose great dangers to our economy, our interest rates and our stability. We have been here before, in the 1960s and at other times. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past.
  404
  I believe that the Labour Government who will be in power between 1999 and 2003— and beyond— will have to confront these issues positively. I am confident that they will do so, in the interests of the long-term future of employment, stability and living standards in this country.
  6.50 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: These debates are usually dull and boring; it must be even more boring for the Speaker to have to sit and listen to the same old people hurling abuse at each other and at each other's opinions.
  Today we heard a considerable speech by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who rightly pointed out why the Labour party has changed from the grass roots up. It was not a case of some clever leader deciding to stand on his head. What has happened—it should have happened years ago—is that the average socialist has realised that the EC is about things he cares about—subsidy, intervention, social conscience, market management, protectionism, artificial prices, and boards, councils and commissions running everything. Certainly, if I were a socialist that is the kind of society that I would support. If an industry was collapsing, we would not let it go down. We would call someone to come in, sort it out and keep it going. And there would be calls for subsidies here, there, and everywhere.
  It would seem that, for perfectly good reasons—certainly not out of nastiness—people do crazy things which always end up in mass unemployment and bankruptcy. But the Labour party has certainly changed. As for the Conservative party, we have heard today how it and the rest of society have changed dramatically. When I was coming in here this afternoon I met an hon. Member who abused me when I voted against the Maastricht Bill. He called me stupid and mad. Now he tells me that he has written an article for a newspaper called The Sun, Saturday's edition, in which he intends to argue for total withdrawal from the European Union. That is quite a big change.
  Some of my colleagues have referred to that ridiculous, highly subsidised body known as the CBI. I realised when I read the CBI report that I had never seen anything like it in my life. I do wish that the CBI would state at the front of its documents how much cash it gets from the EU. Many organisations basically do no more than a PR job for the EU—but they should say how much they get in return.
  Anyway, the CBI document is quite astonishing. It says that the CBI is very concerned about the distorted competition in the EU. It goes on to say that the European agricultural policy needs to be replaced with a completely new one. Further, it says that business shares the general concern about the huge sums being spent on fraud and financial irregularity. All this represents a dramatic change from the usual rubbish which amounts to no more than PR for the European Union.
  The European Parliament is also changing. I hope that the small minority of Euro-fanatics that we still have in the Conservative party will read the massive report due to be published by the European Parliament's employment committee next week. Based on costly and detailed advice, the committee states that convergence—the first of the three stages—will cost another 10 million unemployed people. The committee is right. Forcing all the currencies together will create unemployment, just as another 500,000 people were made unemployed while we were in the ERM. This view represents a massive change too.

  405
  People's attitudes to legislation from Europe are also changing. My colleagues and I get cascades of letters from industry and commerce saying that they are fed up to the teeth with the costly and nonsensical legislation from Europe. Some of it is truly unbelievable. In the past few days, we have had the infant formula regulations, bringing in for the first time official censorship, with fines to be imposed on anyone who argues that a product that does not involve breast feeding can be good—crazy but true.
  Next comes the new chocolate directive; it has almost gone through even though the Government oppose it. It will go through on majority voting, and it will change our chocolate. On 1 October the crazy regulations governing the use of the metric system will come into play. People selling products in British shops without metric labelling will be subject to fines of up to £5,000. This proposal went through a Committee of this House in 21 minutes, because there was nothing that anyone could do about it.
  Of course, a tiny minority in our party still shout about the EU. Earlier, we heard the hon. Member for Derby, South delightfully saying that we should be telling the people of Britain what the EU is doing to them. I wish to goodness that she would do that—
  Mrs. Currie rose—
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I shall certainly not give way. She should tell the people of Britain the truth instead of talking all the rubbish that we heard from her today. She should tell them the cost of VAT to poor families. VAT is a filthy tax on the poor, and there is nothing that she nor 1 can do about it. Will she tell her constituents, many of whom are poor, that we spend £1 billion on growing high tar tobacco and dumping it on the third world? There is nothing that we can do about that scandal. What about telling families about the £28 extra a week that they are paying in higher food prices and taxation because of the absurd common agricultural policy? There is nothing that she or I can do about that either.
  Mrs. Currie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rise merely to point out that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) sits on the other side of the House. I am the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South—and I continue to be proud of my membership of the pro-European faction.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Ridiculous. Everyone knew who I was talking about. What about the £5 a week that families in Derbyshire have to pay as their net contribution to the EU? What good is coming from money going to waste and fraud?
  Conservatives are beginning to wake up, and the Government must take that into account. But what the blazes are we to do? First, I ask the Government not to try to resolve the matter with silly reassurances—all that stuff about moving away from federalism and about things going our way—"No one is talking about a United States of Europe", and so on. It is all nonsense and the Government know it. We are slipping ever further into Europe and, because of the courts, we cannot stop it—unless something new happens.
  406
  Secondly, I must ask the Government to abandon their pretences over issues such as border controls. The Government say that they will go to the brink over them, but those of us who live near the sea and the ports of entry know that we have already agreed to uniform visas, to the principle of mutual recognition and so on. More than half our illegal immigration now comes from Europe. I could give more details from the unions about this—the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) knows exactly what is happening.
  We cannot hold back this advance so, if we are to achieve change, we must give authority to the Prime Minister, be he Conservative or Labour. We must not try to change the leadership; we must face up to the issue. The only way in which the Prime Minister can get the necessary authority is by sorting out that small band of dissidents who are trying to pull us away from our new Conservative policy of giving the people their say. But the idea of a referendum on a single currency is the biggest joke ever. By the time we come to that, everything will have gone except the Scottish pound note. If we are to ask for people's views, it must be done before we get involved in the two years of fixed exchange rates—anything else would be a fraud. If I were to try to talk to people in a referendum about whether they are for or against keeping the Euro equivalent of a Scottish pound note they would think it an absolute irrelevance. What should we look to for the future? Europe, we should appreciate, is going down the plug hole economically and politically.
  Mrs. Currie: Rubbish.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: There is mass unemployment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South should know—20 million unemployed, and more to come. It is a disastrous situation. The economic situation of European countries is appalling. As we see in France at the present time, extra seats are being provided for the fascist parties. That is worrying and appalling. We should be avoiding Euro-xenophobia. We should be looking out to the world, for relations with countries like those in the North American Free Trade Agreement, which believe in free trade and nothing else.
  I would appeal to my colleagues to appreciate that we are in danger of going down the plug hole. Britain should be seeking to disengage so that we can pursue Conservative policies once again. While a small minority of my colleagues are still here laughing and chortling at what we say, they should realise that, unless something happens soon, Britain is destined, unfortunately, to the miseries of the European Union, to the disappearance of democracy and to a future that will deprive the House of bringing in Conservatism—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
  7 pm
  Mr. Roy Hughes: It is rather interesting to follow the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), because I have always admired the principled stand that he has taken on this issue over many years.
  I welcome the debate on the European Union. It is accompanied by the usual shoal of documents, which I have tried to browse through. I confess that I have not participated much in European debates in recent years, although I did play a fair part in the 1960s, when all the

  407
  agonising took place about joining, and in the 1970s, including the referendum campaign, when, with Neil Kinnock, who is now the Transport Commissioner for the European Union, I campaigned for a "no" vote. After that, I rather felt that I was knocking my head against the wall a bit. That view was reinforced for me at the time by Viscount Tonypandy, or George Thomas as he was then. He said to me, "Drop it, Roy. There are other issues."
  For me, today is something of a look back. The first thing to note are the name changes over the years. It started off as the Coal and Steel Community, the amalgamation between Germany and France, the traditional enemies. Then Britain joined what was known as the Common Market, without, incidentally, the full-hearted consent of the people of Britain, which was promised us by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). Then there was the European Economic Community, the EEC. Now, of course, we have the European Union. I may have missed one or two changes in the meantime.
  There are, of course, those to whom I shall refer as the Euro-fanatics, for want of a better term, and they, it seems, will not be satisfied until it becomes federal Europe. I was therefore glad to be reassured by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—who, incidentally, I hold in the highest possible regard. He indicated today and on 30 January that Europe must be a community of free member states. Labour, he said, rejects the concept of a European super-state. I hope that I am not misquoting my hon. Friend in any way.
  Mr. Robin Cook indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hughes: I recall that our delegation to Europe was once nominated. Now it is elected. I note, too, that the name has changed from a European Assembly to a European Parliament. There is, I suppose, nothing constant but change.
  In the 1960s and 1970s, when arguments were raging about membership, one of the main bones of contention was undoubtedly the common agricultural policy, so I was rather interested to receive a few days ago, from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), the shadow Minister of Agriculture, a communication that pointed out:
  "The recently released CAP fraud statistics show how badly we are being ripped off by CAP fraudsters".
  The figures, he said, are a scandal, and no fair-minded person could disagree, for the figures, far from getting better, are actually getting worse.
  In 1993, 1,284 cases were recorded, amounting to £235 million. Yet for the first nine months of 1994, the number of recorded cases had risen to 1,597, amounting to £340 million. Those figures are from official European Union sources. As my hon. Friend points out, they are merely the tip of the iceberg.
  I shall quote some of the cases involved in 1994. Italian companies claiming to be exporting tobacco were in fact shipping containers full of waste paper, plastic and mouldy tobacco waste. They received £2 million in subsidies. Criminal organisations were collecting butter export subsidies—and not exporting butter. Subsidies were paid out to export beef to Egypt, even though the beef had such high levels of bacteria that it was rejected by Egypt. Fourteen million pounds was spent in subsidies for grape must because it was going to Sweden. It was in
  408
  fact going to the USA and Canada, where these subsidies do not apply. Those are examples of fraud in the European Union.
  My hon. Friend said that only radical CAP reform can stop the scandal of CAP fraud. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be saying that to President Chirac and Chancellor Kohl, but perhaps he is too busy defending himself over the Scott allegations.
  The fact is that the CAP swallows half the European budget. It pushes up food prices in this country for every family. The cost for the average family in Britain is currently close to £20 per week.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Twenty-eight pounds.
  Mr. Hughes: I stand corrected.
  In addition, it is doing endless damage to the British countryside. We need to switch spending to support farmers' incomes, and stop subsidising endless production.
  The Government have been in office for 16 years. They have certainly had little success in reforming the CAP. In fact, they seem to have given up the fight, and claiming it as their own policy. The Library has provided me with figures that show that the average number of unemployed in the European Union in 1995 is some 18.5 million—11.3 per cent. of the total labour force. What figures these are. They are for ever rising.
  Twelve months ago, Sir Michael Perry, the chairman of Unilever UK, pointed out that Europe, judged by its ability to provide jobs for its people, was a palpable failure. In the 1960s, only 2.5 per cent. of Europe's work force was unemployed. Unemployment increased to 4 per cent. in the 1970s. It was nearly 10 per cent. in the 1980s. It is likely to be 11.3 per cent. in 1995. Is it any wonder that the Trades Union Congress has put unemployment back at the top of the agenda, and rightly so? We need a Britain at work, not one on benefits.
  The issue of a common currency looms on the horizon. Such a currency could turn out to be a huge disaster. Within the European Union, there are large differences in prosperity and levels of employment. Some areas have high unemployment, while others fare much better. A degree of flexibility in wages and social costs obtains. A single currency could close off the avenues of regional devaluation and run the risk of locking in—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I cannot agree with what the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) said and was saying, but it is a pleasure to be able to take up his remarks. I say that sincerely, as the Conservative candidate who opposed him before he first became a Member of this place. As it was Newport on the one hand and the 1966 general election on the other, he will not be surprised, as the House will be, that I firmly lost.
  I come to the debate as a vigorous European. I think that my views are pretty well known. They have been expressed in the House from time to time. I have clashed, I hope honourably and never personally, with my hon. Friends of the more sceptical element. We have always respected one another's views.

  409
  I have been a pro-European all my political life. I see the Union now, as I always have, as both political and economic. I put those words in that order deliberately. I accept the notion of shared—I am tempted to use the word of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—interest, but I prefer to take terminology by the scruff of the neck and declare that I support the notion of shared sovereignty within the institutions of Europe. I take that view because that is exactly what we are sharing now. The debate will focus increasingly on the amount of that sharing and the areas in which it takes place.
  I want Britain to play a world role. We have much to contribute. The only way in which we can make our contribution now is within Europe. We waste far too much time clashing with one another about whether we shall be actively within Europe when we should actively be leading Europe. The tragedy of the entire debate, which transcends the adversarial nature of the Chamber, is that we are losing the opportunity to lead. Our position within Europe with our potential allies is diminishing almost as I speak.
  I want a single currency. Some of my hon. Friends have already said that that is what they want. They think, with various degrees of balance, that we should get into it. In a difficult world and a difficult Europe, it would mean increasing security for our country. It would mean also security for individuals, in everything from their private finance to mortgages and everything else. A feature of a strong currency is not having to worry about every international breeze, let alone wind, that might cause the pound to rock. That is something that has been going on for most of my adult life.
  I very much agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) said about the development of a core currency. I think that it is coming, as surely as night follows day. If we are not part of it, we shall have to conform with it. Increasingly, our trade will be done within it in any event. If the pound is away from it, it will most certainly have to follow it.
  When we argue about a single currency and everything else, Europe tends to go into cores, tiers or concentric circles. There are so many buzz words. I want Britain in the top tier. We do not belong lower down. I was amazed when my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) mentioned Switzerland. I like to think that I am in a country that likes Switzerland. Indeed, I enjoy Switzerland. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) talked about niche markets. I do not think that we are a nation of chocolate or watch makers, and we are certainly not neutral. We like to be in there, as it were, pursuing our policy and influencing others.
  That leads me to investment and the City. It is my firm belief—I know that there are disagreements about this—that in the longer term the future of the City will increasingly come under challenge if we are not actively part of a financial and economic Europe, and that means most certainly a single currency. At present, the City is pre-eminent. It is one of the finest things that we have to contribute to the rest of Europe and the wider world.
  It is all very well for many in the City to say, "If we are outside developments, it will not make any difference. We are just like Hong Kong or Switzerland, for example. We shall manage." With that attitude, I believe that City
  410
  business will move away from us. 'That will happen in the medium to longer term, unless, as I have said, we are in there.
  I move on to foreign and defence policies, and, I hope, the increasingly common nature of them. I welcome co-operation in procurement—for example, the closer relationship that the Government are seeking and securing with France. We need, however, to develop efficient decision making. I do not mind how we proceed in that direction, whether it is nation to nation, intergovernmental or within the EU. There must, however, be increasingly an efficient decision-making process. That brings me to the United States.
  There has been only one reference to the United States before mine thus far in the debate. We cannot rely indefinitely on Uncle Sam to dig us out of trouble and to pay the bill. He is becoming increasingly unpredictable. The imbalance of power between the United States and the other elements of the world is becoming positively frightening, given the burdens on the US. It is the only nation that is executing foreign policy by means of measures that require a strong defence policy—in other words, military capability. It is the only nation that can act as a world power. Europe must rapidly provide some balance, for the sake of a strong twin pillar and a more equal alliance with the US.
  We are in an international world. It stares us in the face that the powers of the nation state are increasingly being challenged. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly a dated concept. We must co-operate, whether we are in or out, financially, commercially, militarily and environmentally. The European Union is a reality. The Franco-German axis will remain. There is no point in conning and kidding ourselves that, because of a change here or there, the fundamental nature of that axis will change meaningfully for us.
  A single currency will become a reality, as will enlargement. Enlargement equals institutional reform. That must be faced. We are inextricably tied by geographical and trading interests. If we are not part of the rest of Europe, we shall have to follow it.
  I regret the internal disputes that we insist on having. They are damaging, and confusing to the British people. Our people are receiving inadequate leadership and guidance. They have been in that position for many years, under, dare I say it, successive Governments. If it ever comes to it, I shall welcome a referendum. I would accept it and fight it, on the basis of a single currency or anything else.
  I believe that the pro-Europeans would win the debate and the referendum. It is all very well talking about there being only a few pro-Europeans left. There are many of them outside the House. The concept of a free vote, which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), proves that. It is almost embarrassing that I have been able to agree with some Opposition Members' speeches. Equally embarrassing is the fact that I have disagreed with some of my hon. Friends' speeches.
  I support Government policy wholeheartedly. I recognise reality, however, and when it is a matter of wait and see, we encourage a continuing argument and debate about what we are waiting to see and the course that

  411
  should be taken at the end of the day. I think that my Euro-sceptical hon. Friends would agree with that. It is vital that there is no further slippage. It is vital that the United Kingdom preserves, protects and furthers its options within Europe. There must be no slippage, only preservation of options.
  7.20 pm
  Dr. Tony Wright: It would be easy for us Labour Members simply to sit back and take pleasure in watching the antics of Conservative Members. Watching the visceral hatreds that have appeared even in the debate today could simply cause us pleasure, but we would be most misguided if we were to settle for that. The tragedy is that the debate on Europe that takes place here on occasions such as this bears ever less resemblance to the feelings about Europe outside.
  We may like to pretend that it is simply a Conservative problem, that the issue about Europe interests us only because it divides the Conservative party, and therefore makes it easier for us to get elected, but that is not so. It is a Conservative problem, but it is wider than that.
  The way in which the issue is discussed and reported suggests always that there are simply two sides. That has been replayed in the arguments today: there are pros and antis, there are Euro-fans and Europhobes, and there shall be nothing in between. The reality is that most British people and most of the House are precisely in between. The tragedy of the way in which the argument is conducted is that the majority position—the critical, friendly European position, if I may put it like that—is never heard.
  We are approaching a moment of truth, not only for Europe, but absolutely for this country in its relationship with Europe. This is the moment that will test us. It will decide what sort of society we will be, certainly what sort of England we will be.
  It is interesting that Europe comes as a solution to all sorts of other people's problems. As we have heard, it comes as a solution to the Scottish problem. In a way, it comes as a solution to the French problem, the Belgium problem and the German problem, but it does not come as a solution to our problem. It compounds our problem, or so we believe. Unless we can resolve that, we shall make no progress.
  Mr. Wilkinson: What did the hon. Gentleman mean by the German problem? Germany's problems were essentially solved with reunification. I recognise that the reconstruction of the east's economy has proved difficult, but what is the German problem? To what is he alluding?
  Dr. Wright: Would that I had more than 10 minutes. That is a most extraordinarily interesting intervention. Here we are at the end of the 20th century, and a Europhobe says, "By the way, what is the German problem?" The German problem is the history of Europe in the 20th century; it is the foundation of the European Union; and it is at the heart of every discussion that we should be having about the European Union. Any hon. Member who suggests, knowing all that, that we can detach ourselves from the European project and leave a unified Germany at the heart of that project simply has not understood the history of this century.
  412
  Options are opening up. One option, which the hon. Gentleman's intervention reminds me of, is the "out" option—the disengagement option. Let us hear it clearly. We are beginning to do so, but people must accept the answer that I have tried to give to the question. That option means accepting the Europe that I have described, of which we shall not be part. That disengagement carries with it the most momentous and dangerous implications for us, but let us at least be clear and honest about it.
  A second option would be the "old European project, business as usual" option. One might even call it the pure integrationist model. Problems are also associated with it. Given everything that has happened, including enlargement and the end of the cold war, to think that that project is on course in the old way is profoundly misguided.
  The "out" model and the old, pure integrationist model do not work. What else are we being offered? The Government offer the "let's muddle through as best we can" model, whereby we try to avoid taking any strategic view on these matters and live day to day, week to week. Labour Members watch the agonies of that policy. It is not a pleasant sight. We may take some perverse pleasure in it, but it does not help this country or the cause of Europe. None of those positions is adequate.
  We are at a moment when Europe needs a new foundation that takes on board the environment in which we live. Real issues exist in relation to the balance between regulation and deregulation, social costs and social solidarity, and the virtues and the stability that a single currency would give and the worries about its deflationary consequences.
  There are big questions, which have surfaced once or twice in the debate, about whether the old route, and political integration proceeding by means of economic integration, were right. The time may be coming when we must return finally to the original project—the political one, involving the German and European problems—and go for it directly, but we should not do so in ever more circuitous and different ways.
  In that process, we may finish up with a project that is more confederal than federal, or certainly with a softer rather than harder federalism. All manner of questions are being discussed about the shape of a possible European constitution: is it possible to define competences in a new way, to involve the judges of national states in defining competences in a new way—which we can do—and to involve national Parliaments in European institutions in a new way? Again, around Europe interesting ideas are emerging on those questions. We shall divorce ourselves from the argument if we simply go for disengagement or make it up as we go along.
  A Europe is opening up that enables us to do things at a European level that we cannot do at a national level. To achieve a Europe of many tiers, we want more power to go not only upwards, but downwards. I say to people who are most ferocious in their defence of national sovereignty that they were not ferocious in defending the rights of the House and of Parliament against an overweening Executive; nor have they been alert and attentive as power has departed from the House to all manner of unelected bodies.
  If we accept that the world is not divided between those who are for and those who are against, but that people are somewhere in between, we need a new vision for Europe. Those arguments are being heard throughout Europe, not

  413
  just here. The question is: will we be part of those arguments? We need a new sort of politics to enable us to contribute to the shaping of that new vision.
  In Denmark, where many of the arguments in which we are currently engaging also feature, the parties—in preparation for the IGC—are preparing what they call a consensus position to articulate and defend Danish national interests in the context of Europe. That approach to the IGC is a million miles away from its antithesis—the unreasoning and unsensible approach adopted here.
  We must conclude by asking what Europe is for, and providing an intelligent answer. The Government seem to think that dressing up in union jack boxer shorts will somehow get them through the next general election; but I am afraid that it will fall to new Labour to provide a new vision for a new Europe.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. William Cash: We have heard the articulated claptrap of Labour at its best: a new Labour, and a new vision for a new Europe. What the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) does not understand, and what the Labour party—including its leader—does not understand, is that the prescription at which the party has connived will produce massive unemployment among the very people whom it purports to represent. Worse, if a single currency were ever introduced it would be just as vulnerable to one simple solution as the dollar or the yen.
  Labour wants the borders removed. It wants a single currency and—like Germany—it wants a single state. We can tell that from the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood for the German position; I shall return to that shortly. The combination of those factors, and the movement of other currencies against a single currency, with the highest unemployment that we have seen for 30 years, would inevitably produce bad results. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) pointed out, the European Parliament has just considered unemployment. It will know that further movement towards currency links will lead to a further increase in unemployment—an increase of as much as 10 million.
  That is Labour's prescription. It is about time that Labour voters knew that it is Labour Members who will create havoc followed by disorder. In the welter of chaos that will accompany the absence of national Parliaments that is advocated by Labour, we may well face a new form of incipient fascism owing to the removal of the safety valves provided by such Parliaments. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I do not expect to hear seated conversations between members of different parties, or even between members of the same party.
  Mr. Cash: I am grateful for your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, but when Opposition Members try to interfere by chuntering among themselves I always know that it is because they do not want to hear what is being said. They are guilty men: they have connived in this project. The evidence is there for all to see. We need only look back to the exchange rate mechanism. We know perfectly well that that caused a massive loss of
  414
  businesses, produced a public sector borrowing requirement of £50 billion and, regrettably, led to an increase in social security and other domestic costs that then had to be repaid by the breaking of our own tax promises. That is why we are electorally unpopular. Not for one minute can Opposition Members be seen as other than guilty of having agreed to the arrangement—and. furthermore, of not having repudiated that agreement subsequently.
  Mr. MacShane: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the biggest surge in unemployment over the past 16 years occurred early in the 1980s, when we were not in the exchange rate mechanism, thanks to this national Government's policies?
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman is not really considering what is actually happening under the current European project. He is trying to look into the distant past without focusing on the high interest rates incurred by the ERM.
  Only today, Mr. Theo Waigel made it clear that the Germans are fed up with paying money into the cohesion and structural funds. Indeed, a leaked internal paper from the Dutch Finance Ministry that came into my hands the other day suggested the same. The net contributors are fed up with making the payments, and all the promises made to countries in the south Mediterranean and elsewhere will come home to roost. People will discover that all the promises that they were given will disintegrate; a web of deceit and dishonesty is being woven on a scale that has not been seen for generations.
  The plain fact is that, if I know that such things are going on, other hon. Members must as well. None of us has that amount of knowledge; we all have access to the same information. Why are we not told openly what is really happening, and what the consequences of monetary union would actually be?
  Furthermore, under article 10 of the own resources decision, the Fontainebleau rebate, to which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred, is on the table for consideration, having being put there by our Government. It is intended that the Fontainebleau question, as well as proposals for a fixed uniform rate of VAT and for a new own resources decision, should be discussed and decided by 1999.
  Some of my hon. Friends are looking at me with a certain amount of interest, because they know that what I am saying is true. I beg them to take account of this: I am not trying to be difficult, but merely trying to bring some of the information into the public arena. Why should the people of this country not be told the truth about what is happening? We sold the pass at Maastricht, and Labour and the Liberal Democrats were party to that.
  During the debate on the Maastricht confidence motion, I told the Prime Minister, "You have presented the British people with the unnecessary question of whether, in 1996 and 1999, we may have to leave the European Community." That has not been said only in the past week or so; I said it to the Prime Minister when he entered the Chamber during my speech on that motion. The analysis leads us inexorably in that direction. As one who voted yes in 1975 and—with some criticism—voted in favour of the Single European Act in 1986, and would do so again, I think it deplorable that we should be put in this position.

  415
  Time after time, we are presented with the covert passing of more and more powers to the European Union. A German paper published only a few days ago specifically states that, over the next decade, the development of integration in "constitutional" matters must progress, within the Union, "step by step" from the state of community of law to that of what is described as "constitutional community". What the Germans are actually saying is that they want a written constitution for Europe. We are up against it. With the tremendous power that Germany is acquiring as a result of the economic dependency of other member states upon her, the majority voting that goes with it is going get worse and worse.
  I challenged my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on majority voting this afternoon. I did so not only with good reason but accurately because I quoted from a paper to which he is a signatory on behalf of the British Government. The paper was adopted by Foreign Ministers and by the British Government. It includes a proposal that increased majority voting is to be regarded as a positive factor in terms of efficiency.
  We are not talking about efficiency; we are talking about democracy. That is the point. We are selling out. We are not being told enough and only as a result of the tremendous efforts of a number of Conservative Members do we manage to discover things from time to time. We are not being given the full picture—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  7.41 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has certainly discovered things. I pay tribute to him for having made it clear that he voted for the Single European Act treaty, because a treaty is what it was. It further intensified and expanded the treaties that are, in fact, already a written constitution of the European Union. He has been humble and frank enough to make that absolutely clear.
  The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said that he would negotiate, no more and no less. He did not; he went the whole way. He talked of the wholehearted consent of Parliament and people, which he did not get. It is clear that from that time as we have gone down that road, more and more people have begun to understand the fundamental nature of the original common market, the European Community and the European Union. The public are uneasy.
  One of the interesting features of the debate has been the use of the word "Europe". Europe is a geographical continent. If hon. Members meant the European Union, that is another matter but they have not been saying "European Union". If someone asked me, "Nigel, what is the European Union?", I would have to say that it is the treaties.
  The European Union was sold, especially to younger people—my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) has gone—as having being formed to create prosperity and peace for Europe after the war. Let people read the treaty that was made at the start and they will see that it was nothing of the sort. It was first an attempt at a rapprochement on iron and steel between Germany and France and then an economic union. I will return to the constitution that was adopted because it was
  416
  that of the European Coal and Steel Community, which had the high authority and decision-making powers necessary to run such an organisation.
  As one who went through the war as a boy and pupil, I give three cheers for the rapprochement and three cheers for a European view. I am very pro-European but very strongly anti-treaty. Extension and intensification of its authoritarian structure will further disintegrate not only Parliament but societies and the Union that has so far been established.
  It has been a failure of hon. Members on both Front Benches that they try to pretend that that is not so. Perhaps they do not read the treaties. They should come and listen to the Select Committee on European Legislation and try to understand the stuff that is thrown at us and the powers that already exist.
  The Foreign Secretary said that it was a good thing when we can all agree—we will do things better if we can. However article J.I of the treaty states:
  "The Union…shall define and implement a common foreign and security policy".
  It does not say that we should agree where we can and act together where possible. No, there must be an authority. It may be done in future, some say, by qualified majority voting.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) tried to take it as logical that because there is enlargement, there must be a change in the institutions. I do not follow that logic at all, if the European Union is that free association of free member states in an international sphere to which we all looked.
  Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), talked about internationalism. It is because there should be internationalism that the treaties are no good. Why change the institutions just because of enlargement? There is no logic in that principle.
  People have often said that it is a bankers' Europe and it is. For those who regard a single currency as the culmination of European Union, it must be. Some people do not appear to be concerned about keeping the bankers' criteria under public control. What is good for bankers is not necessarily good for us or for industry and the leaders of industry. It is not necessarily good for people at all and nor is competition good for people all the time. Economically, competition is imprinted into that treaty.
  I shall close quickly with two points. The first concerns federalism. There is no separation of powers in this Union and talk about subsidiarity is a mirage. It operates in the treaty only where the exclusive powers of the Union do not run and those powers run pretty well everywhere. Where it does operate, I would claim that, as article 3(b) of the treaty says, we should judge subsidiarity on the basis of a complex of multiple balances, probabilities, predictions, hypotheses and value judgments incapable of resolution by judicial procedure. I think therefore that we misunderstand the nature of the EC.
  I close on this point. I mentioned iron and steel earlier. If we consider the history of the Community, we see that at the meeting after Messina, a group in Rome was asked to produce a constitution. That group adopted almost without question the constitutional structures of the European Coal and Steel Community for the coming common market. That has been expanded treaty by treaty.

  417
  It may have been good—and I would have probably agreed, as I said at the start of the my speech—to create a common market for iron and steel. The treaty is not for the people and, in the end, the treaty will break itself if it is enlarged. Even if it stays as it is, it is unworkable.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Ray Whitney: Those of us who participate regularly in these Euro-debates seem to have adopted set-piece roles for ourselves. Certainly, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) adopted the role of the voice of old Labour and he reminded us that the differences on the vital issue of Europe go across the party Benches. By doing that, if in no other matter, he does the House a service.
  We in Britain take a pride in a propensity to ask questions and challenge everything. We think it right and honourable to adopt an attitude of healthy scepticism. However, there are occasions when scepticism can be carried too far and is no longer healthy, but negative, destructive and corrosive. I believe that, sadly, those who adopt what they choose to call a Euro-sceptic attitude—many of my hon. Friends and, as I have observed, many Labour Members and all too many in the media—have got to the point where their scepticism, far from being healthy, is destructive and damaging to Britain's national interest. It is useful to analyse the divisions within their ranks, such as they are. They are greatly exaggerated by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
  The thinned ranks of Euro-sceptics contain several categories of animal, if I may use that word. First, many are not sceptical at all. Their mind is completely made up. They have decided that Britain's future is not in Europe and that they cannot find a modus vivendi with the 14 other nations and the 10, 11 or 12 others that may join later. They want us out. Most of them do not have the courage to say so, although one or two are approaching it.
  Secondly, those who lack the courage to say what they think tend to set out a number of conditions which, they are quite aware, are completely outdated, unacceptable not only to our European partners but to most people in this country, and incompatible with any policy pursued by the Conservative party for a generation.
  The third category claim that they thought that the Community was a free trade area and that, when we voted in 1975 or whenever it was, we thought that that was what we were entering. That is clearly an untenable position. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) referred to the leaflets that he was distributing at the time of the 1975 referendum. They made it clear that it was not a free trade area but something with a political dimension.
  Indeed, this country tried a free trade area, discovered that it did not suit our national interests and applied to join the Common Market. That discovery has subsequently been made by the other European Free Trade Association countries—our erstwhile partners—and they, too, concluded that membership of the European Union served their interests.
  Lest there should be any doubt about whether the Common Market was simply a free trade area or whether anyone could sensibly have had any illusions, I refer the
  418
  House to a memorandum that Baroness Thatcher, as Prime Minister, addressed to her fellow Heads of Government in August 1984. She called on them for
  "a series of new policies to promote the economic, social and political growth"
  of the then European Community. She went on to say that it must be our objective
  "to aim beyond the Common Commercial Policy through Political Co-operation towards common approaches to external affairs."
  We seem to have forgotten what she said. She also said that the Commission was central to the functioning of the Community and Europe needed to advance its internal development. One of the objectives that she enunciated was to
  "heighten the consciousness among our citizens of what unites us."
  I wish that people would remind themselves that that is crucial in our attitude to Europe.
  The Euro-sceptics genuinely believe that it is they who stand up for Britain and that they are the true patriots but, in reality, it is they who are selling Britain short. They lack confidence in Britain being able to carve out for itself in the European Union a role that is and will continue to be of huge advantage to the people of this country. Underlying that attitude is a complete lack of national self-confidence.
  The Euro-sceptics believe that the British economy can never stand up to or live with the German economy and that the pound can never look the deutschmark in the face. That is why they run away from the idea that they should give up the right to devalue or increase interest rates. Fundamentally and instinctively, they seem to believe that we cannot live with the German economy. I reject that notion.
  Some also seem to believe that the wily continentals will always run rings round British politicians and bureaucrats negotiating at Brussels. The reality is otherwise. For example, the Maastricht negotiations were a triumph for the Prime Minister and recognised as such by all our European partners. However, they were certainly not recognised as such in this country or by the Euro-sceptics.
  The Euro-sceptics should have much more confidence, the sort of confidence that the French have. I do not know any Frenchman who believes that an active and positive membership of the European Union will somehow rob him of his national identity. I am enough of a patriot to believe that the British national identity does not need to be and will not be jeopardised or threatened by a sensible relationship with our European partners.
  At the 1GC and afterwards, we must continue to develop that positive relationship, and we have many allies. As was proved recently, we need the self-confidence to go into the negotiations with the fundamental belief that, as the Prime Minister said, Britain should be at the heart of Europe. It is not fair to expect him, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or any other Minister to go in to bat in what are inevitably very difficult negotiations when, behind their backs, doubt is constantly being expressed about whether we shall be in Europe the next day or the next month.
  The difficulty was highlighted in yesterday's report by the Confederation of British Industry, which said that the United Kingdom is committed to Europe, but that

  419
  "to be fully effective it needs to work from within and participate in full in the EU's political and economic decision-making, creating a positive agenda and support for it amongst all member states. This will be possible only if the UK re-establishes its credibility as a constructive force committed to the European Union."
  We can do that.
  A good example of the possibilities open to us was provided when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met President Chirac the other day. President Chirac said:
  "Europe being what it is, the quality of the Franco-German relationship is essential … We shall not build Europe without England. It is therefore essential to understand England's specific problems and France may play a role in finding the synergy indispensable for European construction between the countries of Europe, and notably between Germany, England and France".
  With the new France and the new entrants from Scandinavia, Britain has a great opportunity to play a constructive role. We must not allow that opportunity to be missed because of negativism or the destructive attitudes of Euro-scepticism.
  7.57 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: In debates on the European Union, two positions are inevitably adopted, which never engage with one another: the position of the Euro-sceptics and that of the Euro-fanatics. They were to some extent reflected in the clash between the hon. Members for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). I think that we should seek a new and superior position.
  The Euro-sceptics' position has weaknesses and strengths. It clearly depends on who is putting the case and from what point of view they are arguing, hut, if it is insular, based on chauvinism and causes us not to mix but to worry excessively about, for example, immigration, it is a cause for concern, as are the values that flow from it. However, when the Euro-sceptics point out the massive shortcomings in the European Union, they do us a great service, for example, when they highlight its economic shortcomings and its inability to tackle unemployment or to develop policies for economic regeneration. When they point to the anti-social nature of the operation of the common agricultural policy and when they point out, as has been said in the debate, that VAT is a regressive form of taxation, which is foisted on us by being a member state, it is of value.
  Fraud in the European Union has been stressed considerably. The work of the Court of Auditors, in illustrating the nature of that fraud, is very important. The Court of Auditors is one of the underfunded institutions in the European Union. It should be doing a fuller job and we should be basing many activities on the work that it produces.
  It is important when the shortcomings of this country in failing to engage in social provisions and our opt-out are pointed out, although the importance of social chapters is sometimes exaggerated. Social chapters provide channels through which we can later introduce regulations and directives. They do not produce an alternative social agenda that comes to the fore automatically. Much work needs to be done to produce that.
  Above all, these debates are valuable when democratic shortcomings are highlighted. It has been pointed out that the Commission is a bureaucratic organisation and that the Council of Ministers is a secretive body, even though
  420
  it is really the parliament of the European Union, making decisions on directives, regulations and legislation, which impact all across Europe.
  The Council of Ministers does not operate according to the norms and values of an official decision-making body such as a parliament, with the openness that goes with it. The final vote taken at meetings of the Council of Ministers and the position of our country have begun to be reported only recently. But there was a very long battle before that minor advance was achieved. We are still not given details on amendments and how debates in the Council of Ministers are developed.
  The Euro-sceptic view is strong when it points out those many shortcomings: the great lack of openness, the problem—often expressed—over qualified majority voting and doubt over who has the say in decisions. We have a weak Parliament, and some have tried to turn the nonsense of a notion of subsidiarity—a philosophical and social doctrine—into a constitutional and legal provision, yet there are no grounds for doing so.
  The question, therefore, that the Euro-sceptics ask us is, with all those weaknesses, what should we do? Should we, as some Euro-sceptics have said, come out in such circumstances if that is necessary just to stop further development, or should we go in to seek democratic change, to overcome those great difficulties?
  The position of the Euro-fanatics has its weaknesses and strengths as well. When they encourage us down a bureaucratic, centralised road, with creeping competences that cannot be clawed back because power is passed to the Commission and to the Council of Ministers, they are seriously wrong. They look for central banks that will not be democratically controlled and they stress subsidiarity as some way of clawing back authority when, as has been suggested, subsidiarity is meaningless. If subsidiarity was to be given meaning at future intergovernmental conferences and if it enabled distinctions to be drawn between European Union and national matters, it would become a form of federalism. Subsidiarity is a type of federalism that is frightened to speak its name. We should be prepared to speak in the name of federalism on occasion.
  The strength of the Euro-fanatic lies in talk about integration, mutual self-dependence and a political framework in which peoples can be drawn together to make decisions and be allowed to extend and mix. In such divided circumstances, we should look for the best in the Euro-sceptic argument and the best in the Euro-fanatic argument and build a different position—not a compromise. I am frightened that my party is assuming some sort of compromise between the two views.
  What would the synthesis be? The strength of the Euro-sceptic argument would overcome the economic, social and democratic shortcomings, but from a Euro-fanatic viewpoint, it could be done in the framework of an economic European Union. I grant that, in doing that, the points that have been made about the treaty—read what is in the treaty—add to the Euro-sceptic argument and must be taken on board. If we talk in that way, we are talking about a new treaty and a new constitution for the European Union. People should be prepared to grasp the high ground and argue for it.
  I am reminded of Britain in the 19th century, when it lacked many democratic controls. Chartism argued for extension of the franchise for social and economic

  421
  reasons, so that betterment would come for working people. In the late 20th century, the argument for developing Europe should be based on arguing for democratic extensions—not by requiring the vote, because it is usually available, but so that the vote does something and it elects parliaments with power in different areas. Parliaments should have all the power in formal decision making. Matters for the European Union should be decided by the European Parliament. National matters—many more matters could be determined nationally—should be decided by national parliaments.
  We could be establishing democratic principles as part of a programme towards full social democratic federalism in the House in the meantime. For instance, the Select Committee on European Legislation, of which I am a member, is attempting to scrutinise what takes place in Europe, but there are problems about the avenues of authority that it has. In deciding and debating European matters, nobody is able to concentrate on Europe and conduct investigations such as those carried out by other Select Committees, because the responsibility is spread between agriculture, transport, foreign affairs and so on. The House should give the European Legislation Select Committee authority to carry out such functions.
  European Standing Committees A and B check material out. The House should learn some of the lessons of those Committees and take some of their work on board, and enable the questioning sessions in those Committee sittings to take place on the Floor of the House before debates such as this.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson: I hope that the House will forgive me and will understand if I do not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). I turn my attention to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham), who is now absent, whose speech added distinction to the debate. The hon. Lady made a maiden speech of rare quality. In particular, I admired her generosity of spirit in paying tribute to the late Sir Nicky Fairbairn. How much we have missed one of his interventions on this occasion in the bland remarks of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
  There were moments of real insight in the comments of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross. She accused the Conservative party of harking back. In matters of European affairs, I fear that may be true of the mainstream of the Conservative party and of our Government. It was well exemplified in the extraordinary speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), whose mind-set—the term repeatedly used by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—was fixed in the era of Churchill, Schuman, Monnet, de Gasperi and Adenauer—the founding fathers of what is now the European Union. The world has moved on since then, and when my hon. Friend went on to criticise patriotism I could only imagine that she must he very remote from the electorate, who are bemused and wonder how a party, our own party, can seem to care more about European matters than about the everyday preoccupations of earning a living, securing and keeping a job, maintaining a house, making mortgage payments and sending a child to
  422
  school—activities totally remote from the abstract themes of high European policy to which we devote so much attention.
  There was another moment of insight in the speech of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross when she emphasised the paradox of a Conservative party whose rhetoric professes unionist credentials but the effect of whose policies in favour of closer European integration inexorably militates against the unity of our own kingdom.
  I was somewhat amused to see the large number of official papers held to be relevant to the debate. Such a plethora of paper is a feature of all matters relating to the European Union. I feel that our people are being bored into submission. There is a feeling that they are powerless against the process of ever closer European union. The sense of powerlessness and frustration is building up and will eventually become a dangerous feature of our democratic politics unless we adapt our policies to accommodate our people's apprehensions.
  It is not as though the issues were complicated; they are perfectly plain. One does not need to be an economic wizard, or even to have the intellectual gifts of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who spoke so well on the subject, to realise that if we were to give up our own pound sterling and through membership of an economic and monetary union participate in a single currency, our country would no longer be an independent sovereign state. We would not set our own interest rates. We would not have our own reserves. Inevitably, we would be forced into much closer integration of indirect taxation, and we would have lost the features that make us a nation and make us distinctive.
  If that is what people wish, if that is the majority will, I will go along with it, but until that will is democratically expressed I shall fight the prospect with all the strength of my being. I do not believe that we have the right to take away our people's birthright: it is for them to decide—that is why my hon. Friends and I have campaigned so vigorously for a referendum. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South was rather scathing about the electorate and their opinions, but our duty is to serve the electorate. It is as simple as that. It is because we appear not to serve them well that we lose by-elections and are so poorly placed in the polls.
  If there were a fundamental choice between liberty and the hypothetical greater prosperity that it is claimed that membership of EMU and participation in a single currency would bring, the risk to our democratic liberties would be such that, even if that prosperity were certain, it would not necessarily be worth gaining. If there were a choice between liberty and prosperity I would always choose freedom—every time—and so would our people, as they have done ever since the Norman conquest.
  There probably will be an inner core of countries which will create a single currency around the deutschmark. They could call it a shilling or whatever they liked, but to me it would be all the more reason for our country to stand aside. Whenever there has been a predominant power on the continent we have sought to create a balance. We have looked to the wider world and tried to create coalitions of power and influence to offset that dominant power. There have been times when it must have been tempting to join the predominant power, and

  423
  when we could have done so—1940 might have been one of those times—but at great cost we have always thought that our liberty was more important.
  I do not think that the issues are complicated—far from it. Our Government should declare now where they stand in principle on the question of a single currency. In my judgment this is not an issue on which there can be equivocation: it is a matter of principle. Our people long for our party to display principle, to demonstrate decision and not to imply that procrastination is a political virtue. I do not believe that by putting off awkward decisions our party will gain electoral credibility and be better placed to win a general election. But if our party said that we would always put Britain first, that we would seek to regain powers and competencies that we ought never to have lost, that we would make British law supreme again rather than being inferior to European law, and that we would regain control over fishing and agriculture, we should again become a party that was authentically Conservative and, I believe, worthy of re-election. Above all, it would become worthy of the aspirations and traditional aims and objectives of the British people.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Denis MacShane: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), and I join in his praise for the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham). In a calm, rational and courteous way, the hon. Gentleman put the Europhobe position without the ranting that we heard earlier. None the less, his argument is pernicious and dangerous and it would be a disaster if this country were to follow him.
  I am pro-European because I want to reclaim sovereignty for our people. In political philosophy, it is the people who are sovereign—not the House of Commons. We have heard much today about the importance of the House of Commons, about the centrality of its representative nature and about its debates. Yet look at us: out of 650 Members of Parliament, fewer than 20 are here to debate the issue. I want to see sovereignty reclaimed for the British people, and I believe that that is best done by working in co-operation with our partners both in Europe and in a wider world.
  I strongly oppose the new and rising tide of isolationism which the Europhobes so perfectly represent. I was horrified at the humiliation suffered by the Prime Minister yesterday. I suppose that I might have taken some political pleasure in that humiliation, but never in the 20th century has a multinational company shown such contempt and disregard for a British Prime Minister. I support the idea of dismantling the Brent Spar on land rather than sinking it, but it is a strange state of affairs when a handful of Trotskyist ecologists in Germany can so frighten Shell that it dictates a change to what a British Prime Minister has decided to do. The Prime Minister defended Shell's original decision here on Monday, and defended it even more strongly at 3.15 yesterday afternoon; yet by 4.30 he was the most humiliated Prime Minister this country has had this century. As a British citizen, I find that deplorable.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Prime Minister was wrong.
  Mr. MacShane: It is not a question of the Prime Minister being wrong, although his decision was wrong. The plain fact is that our Government are so isolated and so wrong in much of their approach to Europe that they have no understanding of the new forces and powers that are sweeping Europe.
  We must look, for example, at France where 20 per cent. of the vote in the recent presidential elections went to the extreme right led by Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front, and to Philippe de Villiers' party. What unites the extreme right is an absolute hatred of and hostility to Europe. And whom do we see as Philippe de Villiers' companion in the recent European parliamentary elections but Sir James Goldsmith, who is bankrolling the Europhobe isolationist right in our country?
  A rising tide of anti-European isolationist filth is poisoning European politics and someone must provide the leadership to lift the debate out of the swamp into which it has sunk. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) talked yesterday about the dogs barking while the caravan moves on; I only wish that it was indeed moving on, but it is stuck still in the sand. To paraphrase Chesterton, the European ideal has not been tried and found wanting—it has been found difficult and left untried.
  In Conservative Members' comments about Switzerland I detected an invitation to make a little specialist contribution, but I resisted it. I have to say that I have no sense at all of Germany, France, Italy or Sweden becoming any less German, French, Italian or Swedish as a result of their membership and active participation in the European Union.
  I would like the debate to be widened and taken into the country. I have said in this House that I am not opposed to a referendum on the basic question of our membership of the European Union. I draw hon. Members' attention to the very interesting survey contained in a report in the Sunday Times last Sunday which showed that if we give people the chance to discuss the issues free from the poisonous filth that we see now in the Murdoch press and in the Daily Mail, for example, they will take a rational—not united, but rational—decision in favour of Europe.
  To the pro-Europeans on the Conservative Benches, I would say that the Government—through the opt-outs obtained at Maastricht—have excluded the working people of this country from any sense of a stake in Europe. The Prime Minister took a fateful turn when he put the interests of his party before the interests of the nation. And not much good it did him, as we have seen from speeches from Conservative Members this evening.
  If we do not put economic and social issues at the forefront of the debate and policy of Europe, we may well be lost, and we shall not claim any more sovereignty back for this country. I am glad to see that business in the shape of the recent CBI report at least is taking the lead. The Prime Minister believes that he obtained an opt-out from the social charter, but every day the Financial Times reports that more British companies are agreeing to European works councils.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made it clear in his speech that the Labour party's position on European monetary union is that it must be based on the economic convergence criteria. The failure of the Kingsdown report and other important contributions to the debate is that they do not mention the central problem of

  425
  unemployment. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) thought that I was alluding to past history in my earlier remarks on this subject, but it is in the history of the Conservative Government since 1979 that our unemployment shot way above European averages before we joined the ERM, and certainly before there was any question of the single European currency.
  The question of the single European currency has now been put back to 1999, and I fear that it may be soon entering the Greek calends because the massive social ill of unemployment is now dominating all policy-making minds in France, Germany and other countries—except, alas, in this country. I was attracted by those who talked about the possibility of free voting on this issue. I put it to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench that when we take power we should look at how we consult Members of Parliament and also the country at large on Europe.
  If we wish to reclaim our sovereignty, we must share power. If we want to be effective again and to rise up in the ranks of world powers instead of declining on every available index, we must do so in partnership and co-operation and through shared sovereignty with our friends and democratic allies in the rest of Europe.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: I share the views of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Macshane) in one respect only—the priority he rightly attached to the importance throughout western Europe of tackling the stubbornly high levels of unemployment. For that reason, I rather regret the fact that so much ministerial and official time and energy is having to be spent in preparing for the IGC in 1996—which I believe is premature—rather than in concentrating on the priorities of tackling unemployment on the one hand and dealing with the urgent necessity of enlarging the European Union into eastern and central Europe in a way that accommodates greater diversity on the other.
  When we look at the patterns of employment in western Europe, we see more than the straightforward results of an economic cycle and a deep world recession. We are seeing much more fundamental shifts in the global economy. I believe that there is a risk that western Europe today is behaving like 18th century Venice—still trading, but trading off a reputation and wealth built up by former generations while ignoring at our own peril developments in economic organisations in other parts of the world. In the case of the serene city, those developments quickly overwhelmed both its wealth and reputation.
  Listening to Opposition Members, I find myself not surprised, but startled by their insistence on the importance of the issue of unemployment in Europe which is contrasted with their stubborn advocacy of measures which seem purpose-built to add to, rather than reduce, those levels of unemployment. Labour spokesmen advocate the sort of labour market regulations through the European social chapter which damaged the British economy in the 1960s and 1970s. Those regulations are damaging western European economies today. I sometimes wish that the Opposition Members who rightly remind us of the misery and degradation that unemployment causes the men and women who
  426
  experience it would also look at the experience of countries such as France and Germany. Their Governments not only advocated but implemented enthusiastically the social and economic policies that Opposition Members now wish to see imposed upon the British people, whether at a national or European level.
  Mr. MacShane: Will the hon. Member give way on that point?
  Mr. Lidington: I will not give way, because time is short and other colleagues wish to speak.
  Opposition Members say that they want the unemployment rate to be reduced, but that is belied by their uncritical acceptance of a European single currency. Whatever the advantages that may be argued by the most ardent advocates of a single currency, it is surely inevitable that acceding to membership of a European currency system would involve giving up national control of both fiscal and monetary policies. That would make it virtually impossible for a British or other national Government in that system to balance economic policy at a time when national economic circumstances diverged from those of other European national economies.
  I would like to see the Governments of the member states, the European Commission and the European Parliament devote the energies that are being expended on the IGC towards the completion of the single market. It is clear from the steel and aviation industries that there are still many gaps in that market. I should like to see them devote time and energy to continuing to resist the dangerous trend towards global protectionism, because in that way Governments and the Commission would offer the best possible service to the peoples whom they exist to represent.
  I have already argued that the second priority for the European Union is to provide for enlargement to the east in such a way as to accommodate the greater diversity which such enlargement would bring. I listened carefully to the attack of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on examples of isolationist political trends in various western European countries. I certainly agreed with some of his analysis and criticisms of those trends, but I fear that the great federal leap forward which he and some of his colleagues have advocated would almost certainly have the reverse effect from that intended. It would tend to heighten the trend towards isolation and extreme nationalism. If Europe is to develop further, it must do so in a way that goes with the grain of national loyalty and national affection. It should not try to pretend that those loyalties and feelings are no longer of any account.
  The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) offered a false antithesis when he implied that the choice for the United Kingdom was either to roll over in the face of whatever was argued by our partners, or else to get out. The purpose of British membership of the European Union is to sustain and advance the national interests of the United Kingdom. That is what our Government have done at meetings of the Council and what they are trying to do in the reflections group, and at the forthcoming IGC.
  We need enlargement to the east. It is vital to strengthen the free markets and democratic institutions of those east European countries in order to ease local political and economic strains, which, otherwise, would have a serious impact on us in western Europe. That enlargement will work only if it is accompanied by a

  427
  reform of the common agricultural policy, the European Community budget and the decision-taking structure of the community.
  Although there is some coherence and logic in the arguments of those who say that the decision-taking arrangements should be set in a more federal direction, that would definitely be harmful. The French and Danish referendum results and German concerns over the deutschmark reveal a widening gap between the vision of the self-styled political elite of the Community and the wishes of the peoples they represent. If we want greater understanding and co-operation, Europe must evolve in a way that respects national political realities.
  My hon. Friend, and neighbour, the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) talked about the political dimension of the European Union. I agree with him about that dimension, but it should be primarily intergovernmental and not supranational in character. It would lose none of its worth if it developed along those lines.
  When we consider the gap between the so-called political elite and European public opinion, we find that Labour Members of the European Parliament, without exception, are voting at Strasbourg to abolish the intergovernmental arrangements governing home affairs and foreign policy. They have instead placed those areas of policy within a supranational legal and institutional framework. I can think of no better recipe for future tension and division.
  Whether we call the Europe that we want a Europe of variable geometry, a Europe á la carte, or a multi-speed Europe, the term is less relevant than the reality of a Europe that develops in line with the diverse wishes of the diverse nations that make it up. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister, through the reflections group, is seeking to shift the European Union towards that end, and in doing so, he will have my support.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I join those other hon. Members who have complimented the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on the quality of her maiden speech, which was outstanding.
  I should now like to turn my attention immediately to the issue of the single currency, because so much of the rest of the argument about Europe invokes history, theology, high idealism or total nonsense—all evident in the debate. We have gone over all those other arguments many times, but the single currency is now the single dominant central issue. It has been the central subject of most of the documents that have been published in the past year, as Europe has been squeezed to meet convergence criteria, which have prolonged deflation in most of the European economies. It is the central issue in all those documents that have flooded in, containing recommendations for the IGC next year. I thought that the IGC would be a kind of 3,000 mile service, but it has turned out to be a total reconstruction of the car. People are sending in huge manuals on how to do just that. The single currency is central to that.
  The single currency is also central to the Maastricht treaty, because it attempts to use the exchange rate—the single currency—as a means of political union. That is the other way round from the way in which everyone else has developed; people have achieved political union first and a single currency has followed. In Europe, we propose
  428
  to build unity through a single currency. The idea is to establish that single currency, then the institutions. That is supposed to build unity, but it will be a disastrous way of doing so.
  The single currency is also the central issue in the outpouring of documents on monetary union. In the past few weeks, we have had the Commission's report and the Kingsdown report on that subject. I am frankly horrified that someone who was Governor of the Bank of England could write a report that reveals so little knowledge of the role of the exchange rate. What do they know of economics who only banking know? People who come to review that report in the future will say that Lord Kingsdown's contribution to monetary union is much the same as his former deputy, Mr. Pennant-Rea's, to banking. Such is the quality of his report. The CBI has also published a report on monetary union.
  The common thread throughout all those reports is the argument that the wonderful people who gave us the ERM and recommended it to us, are now recommending monetary union. The authors of those reports seem to have forgotten the disastrous consequences of the ERM. They seem to believe that if a proposal comes from Europe it must automatically be a good thing. All those reports are characterised by a well-developed lemming mentality—if everyone else rushes over the cliff, we must join them. It is essential that we all go over that cliff together. That is the economics and politics of lemmings.
  There has been no consideration. No one has done any research on, or developed any economic analysis of the effects of a single currency. That is a huge gap in our knowledge because, as far as I can see, the economic consequences will be disastrous.
  First, one obviously cannot put two economies at different levels of productivity, investment, economic growth, training, skills and strength, together in a single currency without ripping the weaker economy apart. That is the inevitable consequence. The introduction of a single currency, in a Europe as diverse as this, will produce disaster for the weaker economies, one of which is ours.
  Secondly, one cannot have monetary union without a massive machinery of redistribution because, if a country cannot take changes on the exchange rate, it must have direct subsidy to condition the consequences in unemployment and industrial distress. No one is proposing a machinery for redistribution to cushion those consequences.
  The McDougall report, in the 1970s, recommended that between 7.5 per cent. and 10 per cent. of Europe's gross national product would have to be used in redistribution if we were going to have a single currency. That was before Spain, Portugal and Greece joined the European Union. It would now have to be much bigger. There would have to be redistribution of a proportion similar to the amount that West Germany redistributed to East Germany to cushion the consequences of their monetary union. One can do that within a nation state, as they did in Germany. In Europe, who will pay for it? The Germans certainly will not. Where will the money come from? So what redistribution is there?
  Thirdly, obviously we must reconstruct the exchange rate mechanism bridge—put our head back into the furnace—to get to monetary union in the first place. There is no other way there. The Commission's document speaks of an approach known as "the immediate big

  429
  bang". Well, merger of currencies immediately would certainly be a big bang, and a horrible, crashing, grinding of gears.
  The only way to do it is to reconstitute the ERM. That means that every country, especially us—it is more crucial for us because we do more trade outside Europe—would have to have its economic policy dominated by the need to keep the exchange rate at an externally determined level. In other words, interest rates and everything else would have to be sacrificed to that, whatever the damage to the economy.
  These are the arguments against a single currency. A single market does not need it—it is not necessary in the North American Free Trade Area, for instance—but, if there is a single currency unit, it follows automatically that those who are outside it would have to be forced into some type of ERM straitjacket to prevent what the others will then call "competitive devaluations". So it will apply to everyone, in or out, and one cannot devise a structure as powerful as that.
  All that springs from the folly of trying to use the exchange rate for political purposes. It cannot be said often enough that the exchange rate is simply a market-clearing mechanism. In an ever-changing world, the exchange rate needs to change too. One cannot fix it in that fashion without damage to the economy.
  It is nonsense to say, as the Commission does, that we cannot control our own destinies. Of course we can. We can control our own destinies by managing the exchange rate through interest rates, by taking shocks on the exchange rate rather than in terms of unemployment and industrial closure.
  The exchange rate is what connects us to the rate of inflation or deflation of other economies. It is therefore a crucial instrument of management. We cannot give it up, and especially the Labour party cannot give it up, if we are going to reduce the level of unemployment and regenerate the economy.
  The exchange rate sets the terms of our competitiveness with other countries. British industry needs a sustained competitive exchange rate, so demand can be channelled to production in this country instead of to exports. It gives industry the prospect of long-term growth in which it will invest, to grow. British industry needs to be profitable. For that, it needs a competitive exchange rate. We shall not achieve expansion without that. We cannot rebuild the British economy without that.
  In conclusion, it is obvious that monetary union "ain't gonna happen"—certainly not Europe-wide. If a single currency does happen, it can only happen in Germany plus a few acolytes such as Austria, and perhaps the Netherlands; a small group of currencies.
  The question is, will France go in? Obviously, President Chirac cannot have it both ways; he cannot have the franc fort and reduce unemployment. The question that the French must confront is, can Chirac continue to maintain the crucifying effect on the economy of the franc fort or will the French electorate rebel, turn to the right and produce the growth of fascism that we have witnessed in the past few years?
  I doubt that France can make it. If France does not make it, the adventure never gets off the ground. If it does get off the ground, our position is obviously to stay
  430
  outside and profit from their disadvantage. We shall benefit from the self-produced, do-it-yourself disaster that those countries will inflict on themselves if the single currency does go ahead, because the consequences will he disastrous. That is the sensible strategy for this country to maintain.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. Nigel Forman: I am glad to have the opportunity to take part in an interesting debate, which has demonstrated, among other things, the way in which both main political parties are now acting on the European issue as though it were more of a straitjacket than a creator of opportunities. That merely emphasises something that I have known for a long time, as someone who has been involved in the European issue at least since the late 1960s—that the two main political parties no longer adequately mobilise or reflect the main currents of argument on these issues, and in the later 1990s that may well have its effect on the cleavages in British politics.
  The main argument that I wish to make tonight, which is more short-term, is to emphasise the growing extent of common ground between this country and our key partners in the European Union. To give a few examples, we agree with the French about the need for an effective common defence and security policy, which is based on an international, not a supranational, method of operation.
  We also join the French in emphasising the paramount importance of the Council of Ministers and a relatively restricted role for the European Parliament, so there is a good deal of common ground with the French in those facts alone.
  We agree with the Germans about the importance of the subsidiarity principle and between us and them we were largely responsible for getting article 3(b) into the Maastricht treaty. One has only to read annex II of the report of the Council of Ministers on the functioning of the treaty on European Union, Cm. 2866, which was mentioned earlier, to be aware of the way in which competences are already rightly being repatriated to the national authorities and away from the supranational level where it is not appropriate, according to the subsidiarity principle that they should he exercised.
  Equally, we agree with the Germans about the importance of observing all the convergence criteria attached to progress towards economic and monetary union, and about the attractions of enlarging the European Union to include the new democracies of central and eastern Europe, whose cultural and historical antecedents qualify them every bit as much as London, Paris or Berlin to belong firmly in the European family.
  Indeed, we have a common interest, with all the other large member states of the European Union, in ensuring that the process of institutional reform, which is hound to accompany the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, gives relatively greater weight to the wishes of the larger member states, with the larger economies and the larger populations, compared with the smaller member states, which have so often formed effective, and to some extent unrepresentative, alliances with the Commission and the European Parliament against the interests of countries such as Britain, France and Germany.

  431
  The same principle applies with regard to the European Court of Justice, which I happen to believe, as a firm European, has got slightly out of hand and now finds itself in a position in which, relatively speaking, it is unchecked, whether by political or popular factors. Unless this issue is tackled as well, we shall find ourselves being taken towards further and deeper integration of a type that our peoples perhaps would not support and without the political consent that is a necessary prerequisite for all these developments.
  I believe that the intergovernmental conference, due to start in spring 1996, should be an occasion for consolidation in the European Union—something closer to the 3,000 mile service than the general overhaul to which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) referred.
  I believe that, in the run-up to that conference, all the member states should concentrate on how best to implement the new hybrid institutional structure, which is what the European Union now is, and what has emerged from the Maastricht treaty. This means that we should urge our partners to redouble their efforts to reform the common agricultural policy so that it can be afforded within an enlarged European Union. We must make no mistake about it: it could not be afforded on the present basis were the European Union to be enlarged to 18 or 20 members.
  It is also important to tackle the issues of Euro-fraud and non-compliance with European legislation because they undermine consent and trust in the arrangements, and, if allowed to continue, breed cynicism. We must also take forward the intergovernmental policies, which form the new pillars of common security policy and common approaches to law and order, migration and terrorism. On those points I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington).
  Above all, we should try to improve our own performance and the policy outcomes in the European Union decision-making process. We must defend the use of the national veto when vital national interests are involved in those areas of European Union policy not covered by qualified majority voting. At the same time, we must learn how to achieve more European solutions in the areas which are covered by qualified majority voting and which also coincide with our own national interests.
  One of the Library research papers, which is relevant background to the debate, shows that over the brief period covered in the paper—October 1993 to March 1994—Britain and Germany were each outvoted on eight occasions on issues of qualified majority voting, whereas France was outvoted on only three occasions and Italy on only two. There is a moral in that tale: we need to work even harder and more effectively to ensure that the European Union interests and outcomes coincide with our national interests and objectives. To do that, we must practise a deliberate policy of placing our best people in European institutions—a point that has not been made this evening. We must also try to have a disproportionate influence on the first draft of vital documents. This is exactly the lesson that the Italians and French—involved in the two examples that I have given—have learnt very effectively.
  When we approach such matters, we must understand the Community method. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, that method involves essentially saying, "Yes,
  432
  but" rather than "No, unless". We would not have to adopt the latter approach—the "No, unless" approach—so often were we more successful in practising the former approach, which is the essence of the Community method.
  The two propositions are linked. We must understand that the successful operators within the Community—I speak with some experience as I went to the College of Europe years ago and have lived with Europe ever since—are those who know almost instinctively how to operate the politics of coalition-building case by case and issue by issue. That is painstaking and necessary, and it is the best way forward.
  One sphere in which the pay-off for greater success in the Community method would soon become apparent would be that of the preparations for European monetary union, which have been at the heart of much of our debate today. Our sensible influence has been diminished by our image in the eyes of our partners as a potential free rider or a semi-detached participant. As a result, our sound reservations and policy principles are too easily dismissed or ignored by our partners. Examples of that attitude include the wisdom of a lengthy stage 3(a)—irrevocably locked exchange rates. Such a policy is completely daft—anyone who has studied it knows that it would be a recipe for disaster. Another such example is the credibility of the no-bail-out rule in article 104(b), which is critical to the success of the venture.
  Another example involves the supervisory implications of monetary union for the financial services sector across Europe—the extent to which we can leave the central bank in charge of supervision as well as the control of inflation. Another such example is the practical improbability of any European central bank being able simultaneously to achieve lower inflation for the European Union as a whole, external stability for the European currency vis-a-vis the dollar and the yen, and monetary conditions appropriate for the whole of the single monetary area.
  All those points are too easily dismissed or ignored by our partners. They are more likely to be dismissed or ignored if we do not build our European credentials in the way that I have suggested.
  Her Majesty's Government's policy in the run-up to the next intergovernmental conference is broadly on the right lines. We want to sustain our pressure for a more globally competitive European economy. We must continue to strive for sensible institutional reform. We must ensure that we understand the value and effectiveness of following a genuine Community method.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), and I was interested to hear what he said in his thoughtful contribution. Before the hon. Member for Wycombe Wanderers leaves the Chamber, I want to refer to something that he said earlier—I shall come to that in a moment.
  An awful lot of claptrap is talked about the European Union in this place. The suggestion that Labour's policy is for federalism is tommy-rot. Nobody in the mainstream of our political parties would suggest that we could move to a federal state of Europe. That needs to be stated, despite what people might say for electioneering purposes.

  433
  The importance of the social chapter is also exaggerated on both sides of the argument. Some of my colleagues in the Labour party, in this place and outside, think that it is the greatest thing since sliced bread and will be a wonderful breakthrough for working people. I think that it is important, but its importance can be exaggerated.
  Some people, including the present Prime Minister, say that we shall not sign up to the social chapter, and that he has secured a cast-iron guarantee that we shall never do so. That is rubbish—as we know, such matters are being pursued through the courts and the European courts and, gradually, much of the social chapter is entering our statute book by stealth. In the long term, the so-called opt-out is not worth the paper it is written on. With these two examples, I wanted to show that things are sometimes grossly exaggerated in this place, and must be put into perspective.
  I hinted that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) should return. I was interested to hear what he had to say about Lady Thatcher—it is amazing how people rewrite history. Madam Thatcher signed the Single European Act, which, in my reckoning, was an important benchmark—a threshold. Once it was signed, much was surrendered.
  I am not too uncomfortable about the Single European Act, but to suggest that it was anything other than a major move in terms of European integration is to deny history. For Lady Thatcher to try to pretend otherwise is disappointing from somebody who held high office. Those who complain about European integration must tell Lady Thatcher that she is to blame. Margaret Thatcher has played a part in European integration.
  I notice that the hon. Member for Wycombe used to be a Minister at the Foreign Office. The problem is that Foreign Office Ministers do not properly acquaint this place or the British people with the ramifications of what is happening. I have recently come to learn that the endemic problem within the Foreign Office is one of appeasement towards British interests. The Foreign Office does not dish out the cards from the top of the pack. That has happened over Europe and over many other policies.
  That is happening now in relation to one part of the European Community that is under the stewardship of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis). I refer to Gibraltar. It is claptrap to suggest that there is total free mobility within the European Union. Freedom of movement does not exist with regard to Gibraltar, and the Minister is not doing anything about that.
  People from Wycombe, Thurrock, Huntingdon, Livingston and elsewhere are being frustrated from travelling through Spain to Gibraltar, and I want to know what is happening about that situation. Those difficulties are symbolic of the nonsense that is put about regarding free movement within the European Union and the suggestion that somehow we have a robust Foreign Minister. We do not. The Government are not protecting and promoting British interests.
  I turn now to our current position within the European Union, and look ahead to 1996 and the intergovernmental conference. I think that the British people are broadly content with where we are in terms of European
  434
  integration. They do not share the nightmare view that somehow we are about to lose our 1,000 years of sovereignty, but they do want to see some consolidation.
  I think that the electorates of western Europe also want to see that consolidation. They have had about as much integration as they can digest: to that extent, I agree with the thrust of the speech by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington).
  The IGC must reassure British and other electorates—many of which agreed, in referendums, to sign the Maastricht treaty only by some very narrow majorities—that there will be a bedding down and a period of consolidation for a decade or 20 years. I agree with the hon. Member for Aylesbury that the IGC should also allow the states of central Europe—particularly the Visegrad countries—the opportunity of early admission into the European Union.
  I had the privilege of visiting Poland recently, and I was profoundly moved by the importance that the Polish people attach to joining the European Union. As an aside, I think it is wicked that, for nearly half a century, the west told the countries of eastern Europe, "Look over the wall and see how wonderful capitalism and democracy is." If one had believed the propaganda, one would have thought that in the west the sun always shone and the rain never fell. What happened? Communism collapsed, the wall came down, and when the central and eastern European countries asked to join the clubs, we said no.
  The other club to which I shall refer quickly is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation—although it is not the subject of this debate. Membership of NATO is vital for Poland and the other Visegrad countries. It is an important symbol, along with EU membership, of their emerging and developing democracies, of which they are justifiably very proud. The IGC must find a way of granting political membership of the European Union to the Visegrad countries as soon as possible. If the price we pay for that is that issues such as monetary union will be kicked into touch, then so be it—in fact, that might be a helpful spin-off; although I do not suggest that that should be the primary intention.
  It is vital that those countries are given the opportunity of political membership of the European Union, even if there is a long transitional period. After all, the United Kingdom and Spain had transitional periods. Given the circumstances of the countries of central Europe, I do not see why they cannot be given a transitional period, albeit of some length—perhaps a decade or more—with built-in stages. When each of those stages was achieved, they could then participate in certain defined areas of decision-making. The shibboleth of membership of the European Union is very important to those countries.
  It is also a moral issue. In this place some 54 years ago, Winston Churchill said:
  "The gratitude of every home in our island, in the empire and indeed throughout the world—except in the abodes of the guilty—goes out to the Airmen who, undaunted by the odds, unwearied in their constant challenge of mortal danger, are changing the tide of the war by their prowess and devotion. Never before in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few".
  Some 17 per cent. of the "few" were Polish pilots and many others were Czechs. It may sound old-fashioned, but I think that is rather important. They fought for their freedom, their democracy and their membership of western Europe, and that is yet to be realised.

  435
  The aggressor state—I mean no disrespect to Germany—is a member of the European Union. The then German Democratic Republic was allowed to enter the European Union because it joined the then Federal Republic of Germany. The fact is that the GDR was allowed to join the Union in special circumstances. Surely the Polish state has at least an equal right to be allowed early admission, as well as some buttressing and funding to assist its integration with western Europe. I think that that is extremely important.
  I make no apologies for appealing to those fairly basic, but I think important, instincts of fairness. I ask the Government to be much more robust in protecting and promoting our interests—particularly in respect of Gibraltar and access to that country, which is being treated abysmally.
  In a few weeks' time, the Island games will be held. It is an international athletic competition that is very important to places such as the Scilly Isles, the Western Isles, the Isle of Man and so on. The Princess Royal is the patron of those games, but it might surprise you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to learn that she will not be attending this year, although she was invited to attend two years ago. That is the fault not of the Princess Royal, but of the craven Foreign Office, which is frightened of causing any consternation in our relations with Spain, and of any knock-on effects in the European Union.
  How pathetic that is. What a weak, shambolic Foreign Ministry we have. It is time we had a change. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) will be much more robust in protecting and promoting British interests.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Barry Legg: We have had an interesting debate and as the evening progressed, the speeches became more interesting. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) made a valuable contribution to the debate, and his comments about the national interest have been well made. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) also made an interesting speech.
  The debate started rather curiously with speeches from two highly intelligent men—one trying to avoid the obvious and the other trying to bury his head in the sand. In respect of the highly intelligent man trying to avoid the obvious, it is unlikely that we can make progress with our European partners unless we accept the European Union and its institutions for what they are. Unless we do that, phrases such as "net retrieval" will mean nothing. First, we have to recognise that currently the institutions have a momentum which is driving the European Union towards further integration.
  We also have to accept that we are not pooling sovereignty through the Council of Ministers, since the ultimate political authority in the European Union is the European Court. We know from previous debates that the European Court is a highly political body with a vested interest in extending its authority.
  Once we accept those basic propositions about the nature of the Community and its institutions, the British Government can put forward an agenda that is credible and advances British interests.
  436
  Some of my hon. Friends want to drive ahead with economic and monetary union regardless. I found the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) quite breathtaking for a Tory. She was totally committed to the concept of the single currency, come what may. She wanted politicians to fix exchange rates irrevocably. That would be a tremendous gamble and I would not expect such reasoning from a Tory, since Tory attitudes are pragmatic and Tories do not believe that politicians have a monopoly on wisdom.
  Many hon. Members do not go as far as the hon. Lady in supporting a single currency come what may. They tend to say, "I like currency stability. I think that it is a good thing.". It is a good thing; it is rather like motherhood and apple pie, but if we make currency stability the focus of our economic policy, if we peg our currency or fix it, that has to be the number one economic priority and all the other economic variables have to adjust around it. Interest rates, unemployment and the level of nominal wages have to adjust around it. Although it is a worthy objective, currency stability cannot be the priority.
  Although currency instability can cause problems for businesses, at least businesses can insure against currency instability. Products are available to provide security. I would be interested if any hon. Member could tell me of one other variable in the real economy for which business men can get a form of insurance. I do not believe that there is one.
  Pursuing currency stability for its own sake is a great mistake: as we learned from our membership of the exchange rate mechanism, it can damage an economy. Neither politicians nor central bankers can guess the right exchange rate for a currency.
  We are also missing a point by failing to realise how diverse the British economy now is. Many medium-sized businesses in my constituency trade with 30 or 40 countries across the world: they are global players. That is what is so good about the British economy; we have businesses going out and selling throughout the world. If we tell these businesses that we want a fixed exchange rate with Germany, or that we want to abolish sterling in favour of a single currency with Germany, trading relationships with Germany may or may not be made easier, but the businesses will have been put at risk vis-à-vis the rest of the world's markets.
  There is no clearer example of this than the dollar-sterling rate. If we could have stayed in the ERM at DM2.95, the sterling-dollar rate would now be $2.12, and the competitiveness of British businesses operating around the world would be badly disadvantaged. That is my message to hon. Members who seek to put currency stability at the forefront of our economic policies.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) referred to his membership of the Kingsdown committee which drafted the report of the same name. I suggest that every hon. Member read it, because it offers an interesting insight into economic and monetary union. The most interesting phrase in the whole report comes on page 30:
  "To start with, very few monetary unions have ever been formed anywhere and there is probably no precedent for a monetary union with a single currency being formed by sovereign states which nevertheless retain independent political, economic and fiscal systems."

  437
  Thus the Kingsdown report spells it out: there are no examples of independent sovereign states joining currency unions and irrevocably fixing their exchange rates. Taking such an action would mean that a state was no longer independent or self-governing. That goes to the heart of the contradictions in the Tory—
  Mr. Whitney: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Legg: I cannot; time is short. My hon. Friend has had ample opportunity to make his points.
  I come next to the core of one of the contradictions in the Government's policy on Europe. The Government tell us that they want a Europe of nation states but that they want to keep open the option of entering into a single currency and abolishing the pound sterling. Those two propositions are contradictory. If we give up our national currency and other states give up theirs, they will no longer be sovereign states. Until the Government wrestle with that contradiction, recognise that it is one and come up with a clear policy on monetary union, they will have difficulty presenting a coherent European policy to the British people.
  The time cannot be far off when we must make a clear statement on monetary union and the British attitude to it. I do not believe that the Tory party can become the advocate of a policy that would abolish the pound sterling and would enter into a single European currency.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I am fully aware that we have limited time, so I shall keep my comments short.
  I am intrigued because, as ever in these European debates, we seem to spend one half of the time abusing each other with a certain amount of name calling, which always strikes me as not getting to the heart of anything, and the other half claiming territory that we think will persuade others that we are somehow better than we are. I am also intrigued by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), who used his speech to claim massive patriotism, as though that was territory that nobody else could claim.
  I say to the House generally that I wish that we would get past all this nonsense about patriotism or massive self-interest, and try to deal with the honest problems that exist, and understand the argument. I feel that, if we dealt with the subject honestly, with a desire to get to the truth of the problems—for example, of the single currency and what exactly the corpus of law that exists in Europe is all about—we would begin to understand it far better.
  I am aware that we have recently been discussing the economics of the single currency. It seems to me that those who are desperate to go to the single currency have now accepted, not only through the Kingsdown report, but through a number of other reports, that the best that can be said for it is that it "might" be okay.
  On the basis of an economic "might be", we are now expected to launch into the great experiment as though we could gamble away all our constituents' livelihoods on the basis that, economically, it might be all right. That really gets to the heart of the problem, because the truth is that it is not really about economics. It is a political matter. It is a political decision. Even the Kingsdown report said
  438
  that. So let us stop the nonsense that, somehow, big business says that it is okay, because the IOD says that it is not. We should accept that the jury is out.
  We must understand the nature of the beast with which we are engaged. Europe. European Union. What is it about? The most important feature of that, surely, is European federal law. I use the word "federal" most definitely, as that is precisely what European law is. Let us not play around and pretend that it is not. It is about a federal concept of law. European federal law, as it currently exists, is precisely that. It is structured in such a way that it will develop of its own will, guided by the European Court of Justice and the other institutions, so that Europe attains an identity that is wholly federal.
  If we can accept that process, at least we know either that we are in favour of it, and the eventual destiny that that takes us to, or that we are not. If we are not, it is no good pretending that things are not changing. If the body of European law has a clear focus and direction, mere words and the odd change in policy here and there will not stop the essential ratchet from moving in that direction, because the nature of the European Court of Justice is always to interpret in that direction. Therefore, the only way in which one should deal with it, if one does not believe that we should eventually have a federal destiny, is to define what it is we want.
  If we want a Europe of nation states, in which I firmly believe—I am very positive and pro-Europe, and that is not something that others can claim for themselves—I say, let us now engage in the argument about what makes a Europe of nation states. We must define what it is about European law that moves against the concept of a nation state; the powers that a nation state should have unto itself; and powers that should be ceded for, perhaps, in this case, the working of a marketplace.
  We must discuss that and arrive at a conclusion. It is important, before we go to the IGC, that we work out a template for the nation state. We then talk to our colleagues in other countries, at the discussions, in the reflections group, and say to them, "There are whole areas here which, frankly, run counter to the concept."
  Let us take the concept briefly, before I conclude, on social policy. The whole principle of the social chapter is, to some degree, nonsense, because the real body of social policy comes through what we already have in the treaty of Rome. It is all there. All the articles will do it for us.
  Therefore, I say to my colleagues and to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, we should not accept that social policy is a general across-the-board policy for all of Europe. Individual states, depending on what their electorates want—if they choose, for example, the Labour party, it is presented to them in the manifesto—must decide whether that is the policy they want. Whether it increases or decreases the productivity of companies is in the balance.
  The marketplace must be about the competitiveness of goods and services. We cannot add to it the concept that everyone must take away one of the areas of competition—social policy—because of the costs it adds. In other words, that is a power and an area that the nation state must hold to itself.
  We must engage in the debate properly. We must say to the other states in Europe that we cannot continue endlessly pretending one thing or another. Acceptance of the present, an ever-present ratchet under European

  439
  federal law, would be to say, "Yes, that is the destiny we want." If we were to say no, we would have to ensure that we had an alternative policy. What we have at present is not, I believe, such a policy.
  9.20 pm
  Ms Joyce Quin: This has been a lively debate and many hon. Members have contributed to it. Despite the varied comments and contributions that have been made, I am sure that we can all agree that the European Union affects many aspects of our lives. The breadth of the issues that so affect us has been raised during the debate and illustrates my point. Such issues include the effects of the EU on our economy, on social matters, on agriculture and on fishing. Other issues concern us for the future of our continent, such as enlargement of the EU. All these matters have been mentioned many times during the debate.
  We were pleased to hear the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham). She entertained us with references to her predecessor and spoke about her political convictions. I shared her feeling of confusion when she tried to analyse the Government's European policies. I shared her views on the social chapter. Many of us in England agree with her comments, which were much in line with official Labour party policy.
  A variety of views have been expressed about and towards the European Union on both sides of the House. We have seen on the Government Benches especially how much internal damage the issue of Europe is doing. It has been described as the San Andreas fault of the Conservative party, and it seemed much that way today. The Foreign Secretary seemed beleaguered during the competition to make hostile interventions on him that was raging on the Government Back Benches. It was made clear during those interventions that both he and the Minister of State will have a bumpy ride in seeking to put the Government's views in the run-up to the intergovernmental conference.
  I had sympathy with the Foreign Secretary during some parts of his speech. He referred to the recent interview of Baroness Thatcher and her description of her Government's policy on Europe as being, "No, no, no", and that of the present Government as being, "Yes, yes". As the right hon. Gentleman said, it was the then Mrs. Thatcher and her Government who were responsible for the large increase in qualified majority voting that took place under the Single European Act. I remember, shortly after becoming a Member, that she was saying, "No, no, no" to the proposition that the European structural funds should be doubled. In the end, the funds were increased by over 90 per cent. The "No, no, no" did not seem to be very effective in practice.
  Conservative divisions have been reinforced by events in recent days and weeks. It seemed sad that, after he returned from Halifax, the Prime Minister had to appeal once again for unity in his own party. Once again, however, he sounded very much like the boy who cried wolf. We have heard it all before and it does not seem to have any effect. Whatever tactic is used—begging, cajoling, threatening—it is ineffective. I know nothing about rugby, but trying to stop Euro-rifts and divisions in the Tory party is like trying to stop the All Black, Jonah Lomu, in a match.
  440
  There has been a balance in Conservative Members' speeches. Those of the hon. Members for Stafford (Mr. Cash), for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) have been balanced by those of the hon. Members for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), among others.
  We have had some analysis of the rifts. The hon. Member for Wycombe spoke of the nature of Euro-scepticism in his party and highlighted its divisions. Among some Conservative Members, there was a hidden agenda, perhaps not so hidden on occasions, of withdrawal from the European Union; among others, that was not on the agenda. Obviously, that is yet a further factor for division in Conservative ranks.
  Understandably, the intergovernmental conference dominated many speeches. Many Conservative Members sought to tie the Government's hands in advance of the negotiations, which will not help British interests. I note that the chairman of the Tory Members of the European Parliament said a couple of days ago that
  "To get a successful negotiation"—
  in the IGC—
  "the government should not be ruling out too many options under pressure from Bill Cash."
  The difficulty for the Government, however, is that it is not that simple. They have to worry not only about the hon. Member for Stafford, but about several members of the Cabinet, who have also sought to tie the Government's hands in advance of the negotiations. Last year, the Secretary of State for Employment stated that he did not want any changes in the veto and in the weighting of qualified majority voting and no new powers to the European Parliament—comments that have not been reinforced by the Foreign Secretary or by the Minister.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) rightly talked about the danger of Britain's isolation because of the Government's attitude. It is hard to see who the Government's allies will be for their views on the intergovernmental conference process. The Minister has already begun to represent Britain in the IGC reflections group, but we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston about the Minister's isolation there and the fact that his proposal, whereby he was hoping to scrap a body of European legislation, had
  "a reaction which was said to be lukewarm amid suspicions that the UK is seeking to roll back Brussels in favour of a looser, more flexible European Union."
  That is not a very convincing start if the Government are really serious about building up allies.
  It does not seem likely that the Government will receive much support from the European Commission—they will certainly not receive it from the head of the Commission, Jacques Santer, whose appointment was a particularly spectacular pyrrhic victory by the Government.
  As for France, although it is true that President Chirac instinctively shares some Conservative ideas on Europe, the reality is that, within 48 hours of taking office, he was taking part in a Franco-German summit. It seems that the logic of the position in France is to reinforce the Franco-German alliance.
  On social issues, which one or two of my hon. Friends have mentioned, it is true that, during the election campaign and after, President Chirac talked in terms a

  441
  strong social policy, a high minimum wage and issues that do not seem to have much in common with Tory views on the social chapter.
  Other important themes have surfaced in the debate. Transparency and democracy, for instance, give rise to a concern that straddles both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), in particular, has campaigned vigorously for a more open European Union, and has frequently drawn attention to the secretive way in which the Council of Ministers operates.
  I urge the Government to do much more than they have so far to encourage debate and give information to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I note that the European scrutiny Committee, for example, has asked many times over the past year for debates on European affairs to be taken on the Floor of the House; certain wide-ranging matters are beyond the remit of either of the European Standing Committees. On most occasions, however, the Government have rejected those representations—presumably because they want to minimise the number of embarrassing European debates on the Floor of the House. Opposition Members are concerned about that.
  I understand that the Minister for the Environment and Countryside had difficulties today with the scrutiny Committee, which feels that it was not adequately consulted in advance about important matters that will be considered by the Environment Council this week. The Government must ensure that we see the proposals in good time, and can scrutinise them effectively.
  In what ways will the Minister promote greater openness in the Council of Ministers? We should like the Government to support the Dutch, Danish and Swedish Governments' efforts to open up proceedings in the Council. Although we want the pillar structure to continue under the Maastricht treaty and want it to apply to the justice and home affairs section, we are concerned about the secrecy and lack of openness in that sector. The Government should give urgent consideration to ways of ensuring that we are involved and informed.
  Not surprisingly, the principle of subsidiarity featured in the debate. There remains a clear distinction between Government and Opposition views. Opposition Members believe that subsidiarity must mean making decisions at the lowest appropriate level, which will have consequences for decision-making within the United Kingdom as well as at European level. It was heartening to learn that, in another place, Lord Cockfield had the courage to criticise the Government's policy on subsidiarity, saying that they ignored decentralisation and subsidiarity within Britain at their peril.
  We want the Government to give much more recognition to the work of the Committee of the Regions. During the Maastricht debates in the House, the Government made it clear that they wanted to nominate members to the committee rather than having any local authority or direct representation from the regions. We still consider that an important issue: we want the committee to play a useful and representational role in the workings of the European Union.
  442
  Many hon. Members mentioned the single currency and general economic issues. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston stressed the importance of trade and the future of inward investment, and I echo all that he said about the motives of inward investors in the United Kingdom. What he said has been very much reflected in my part of the country, the north-east. We have seen inward investment, but as far as I am aware—I have had contact with the firms in question—none of it has involved any concern about the social chapter. Certainly, firms have not come to our part of the country because Britain did not subscribe to the social chapter; they have come for all kinds of other reasons. The English language is one obvious factor in American and Japanese investment; the Japanese are used to working in English.
  One matter that perhaps was not mentioned as much as I would have liked was environmental co-operation in Europe. We feel strongly about such co-operation. We think that Europe can be an environmental trendsetter and we deplore the Government's efforts to try to get out of various environmental commitments that they have made at European level. The environment is a European and international issue and certain decisions about it need to be taken at those levels.
  Mr. Spearing: I endorse entirely the importance of the environment, but can my hon. Friend confirm my impression that most of the articles that relate to the environment are already subject to qualified majority voting and therefore subject to an international dimension?
  Ms Quin: My hon. Friend is right that most of the articles are subject to qualified majority voting, but we are concerned about the fact that, simply to avoid meeting European standards, the Government have been, in their words, trying to repatriate some of the legislation. Many of the directives were agreed a number of years ago. It is important that if we make such commitments we are prepared to fulfil them. Many people in my part of the world and elsewhere are concerned that our environmental standards will drop behind some other European countries. In some cases, they already have.
  Agriculture was mentioned by many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body). I agreed very much with their criticisms. Agricultural reform needs to be a good deal higher up the agenda. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) said, that is imperative if we are serious, as I hope we are, about enlarging to the countries of central and eastern Europe.
  I endorse some of the comments on enlargement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who spoke very much from the heart, especially about the situation in Poland. Of course he is right. It would be quite tragic if, having encouraged changes in such countries, we seemed to turn our backs on them economically, politically or in any other way. That is a very important aspect that we must all understand and on which there is fairly wide agreement across the House.
  I make no apology for saying to the Minister, as he has heard me say in Committee, that it is terribly important for the United Kingdom to get involved economically with the countries of central and eastern Europe. I feel

  443
  that we are lagging way behind Germany, Italy, France and even the Netherlands in the volume of our trade with those countries.
  I was extremely disappointed, having tabled a question about direct investment by Britain and certain other European Union countries into central and eastern Europe, to receive the tired old answer that the information was not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Surely it is extremely important for us to know how much direct investment other countries are making in the countries of central and eastern Europe.
  In a very short space of time, by ringing up the Library, I obtained the information that in the past two years investment by Germany into the countries that I was asking about has been 10 times higher than British direct investment. I urge the Government very strongly to examine the pattern of trade between us and the countries of central and eastern Europe and to direct investment because it is terribly important if we are to make our relationship with those countries a success.
  Various comments were made about Labour policies: most were the usual misrepresentation of them. The comments about the social chapter were certainly wholly unjustified. I was at a meeting the other day that was also attended by a Conservative Member. I was listening to the Prime Minister of Malta, whom the Conservative Member asked about the social chapter—would not it cause Malta all kinds of difficulties if Malta joined the European Union? The answer was that it would not and, in any case, Malta had a good minimum wage system, although almost everyone in Malta earns at least twice as much.
  Mrs. Currie: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Quin: I apologise to the hon. Lady for not giving way but I have only one minute left; I should have been happy to give way otherwise.
  As I said, there were misrepresentations of the Opposition's policy, especially by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) about our position on the veto. He described our policy as a choice between rolling over and agreeing to everything that Europe said or coming out of Europe. That is an absurd distortion, and I hope that it will carry no weight as it is a complete misrepresentation of our position.
  We contend that Government policies have weakened Britain in Europe. They have marginalised and isolated us, which has been bad for the country. It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South accused some of her colleagues of not being patriotic. The British people as individuals have lost out, too, because of the Government's attitude to European social and environmental policies and to economic and employment initiatives in Europe.
  Labour wants to give the British people a good deal from their membership of the European Union by adopting a different approach, with different ideas and policies for co-operation and reform. It is clear that the British people have not won that good deal under the Conservatives; they will do so under Labour.
  9.41 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): Before I deal with the substantive debate, I must congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on an
  444
  impressively confident maiden speech. She was extremely generous about Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, for which his many friends will be grateful. I hope that she will take it in the spirit in which it is intended if I say that, were he here today, he would, with his usual pungent wit, have quoted Winston Churchill and said, "Maiden speech? That was no maiden speech; that was a brazen hussy of a speech." It was exceptional. If she continues to make such speeches, I suggest that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) should look to his position—and we shall support her.
  The preparations and negotiations for the 1996 intergovernmental conference are a major challenge for this country, and the Conservatives had a vigourous debate about them. A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends made powerful and insightful speeches. The shopping list is so long that I am almost bound to miss out someone, but it includes my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie), and my hon. Friends the Members for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) and for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg), who all made excellent speeches. In their very different ways, my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) gave different perspectives on the outcome. Of course, I must also mention my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson).
  The Government's goal is simply stated: to move the European Union in the direction that serves British interests. Some have argued today that we have no choice but to concede the further integration that some of our partners desire. Others have argued, today and previously, that we cannot achieve our goals and should instead prepare to leave the Union altogether. I believe that both groups are profoundly wrong.
  One of the lessons of our involvement with the European Community is that, if we fight hard enough for what we want, we can achieve success. We have done so with the British rebate, enlargement, the single market and many other matters. I understand some of the doubts expressed about the European Union today, but I do not believe that we should throw in the towel.
  We want a Europe that is committed to free trade, a Europe that seeks to bring the countries of eastern and central Europe within its boundaries and a Europe that respects nation states and does not attempt to supersede them. Some have suggested that it is time to leave the European Union and that membership is no longer compatible with our national interests. That approach is a counsel of despair.
  We have never been starry-eyed about the Community. There are costs associated with membership: the waste of the common agricultural policy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East commented, frustration at the continued protectionism of some member states and the tendency of the Commission to expand its reach far beyond its grasp. But the balance of interests weighs heavily in favour of our membership: the peace, prosperity and democracy that the Community has helped so to foster, the progress towards free trade and a single market, with the massive boost that inward investment has brought this country.

  445
  In recent weeks, some have suggested that we could leave the Community and join the European Economic Area instead. I do not believe that that would be in the interests of this country. Members of the EEA are subject to all the rules of the single market, but have no say in their development. What would they say to the aerospace or engineering companies desperate to liberalise public purchasing in the Community? What about the commercial television companies worried that restrictions on advertising will take away their revenues? What about the next time that we have to face down a works council directive, a parental leave directive, or a part-time workers directive that will burden business and cripple companies?
  Those companies want a British Minister at the table fighting for Britain. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends intend to fight that fight and to continue fighting it until we get the Europe that we want, that the British people want and that the peoples of all Europe want.
  The challenges facing Europe do not require a rush to further political union. That is what we should be saying at the IGC over and over and over again. As the Prime Minister has explained many times, it is time for Europe's leaders to put away the utopian dreams about a united states of Europe and to concentrate on Europe that works. We should look at the countries of Europe today. There is sluggish growth, high unemployment and instability in the east following the break-up of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact.
  Those are the principal problems facing Europe. They will not be solved by blueprints for a federal Europe. Indeed, nothing can be more damaging to the peace and security of Europe or more harmful to the health and welfare of its citizens than an ill-judged and unpopular lurch towards a federal Europe. It would fly in the face of what the people in this and other countries want. It would lead to bitterness and resentment. It would end in collapse and failure. That is why this Government will never support it.
  As some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, some Governments in other member states do not share that analysis. There is no point whatever in trying to brush away that fact and pretending that differences do not exist—they do. That makes the task of the Government in negotiating on Britain's behalf all the more important. It means that we must be prepared to stand up and say no to centralising proposals put forward in the negotiations and it means that, even if we find that few around the table agree with us, we must go on saying no.
  The task for the next IGC should be to make the Union work better. It should not be a great leap forward. Those who think that it should be have learned little from the Maastricht process. They seem to think that if Europe does not head somewhere, it will go nowhere; if it does not integrate, it will disintegrate. That is why we hear endlessly about catching buses, riding trains and missing boats. Unless we like the destination, we shall not buy the ticket.
  A senior business man participating in the BBC's recent debate about the future of Europe said that the Union was like a business: unless it was heading rapidly in a particular direction, it would falter and fail. I could not agree less. Many of the most successful businesses
  446
  flourish because they stick to their core activities and avoid launching into the unknown. The European Union should do the same.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Hands up everyone who agrees with him.
  Mr. Davis: We would not notice the hon. Gentleman, that is for sure. It means that we should reinforce subsidiarity and make sure that Brussels does not attempt to do what should properly be done by the nation state.
  The democratic legitimacy of the European Union rests first and foremost on the national Parliaments and national Governments of member states. Those who talk about the democratic deficit have got it wrong. They assume that the Commission should be the executive and the European Parliament the legislature, but they are wrong on both counts. It is the Council of Ministers that should take the lead in Europe, and national Parliaments that should call it to account. That is why we have reinforced the authority of the Council of Ministers over that of the Commission, and why we shall oppose attempts to give the European Parliament massive new powers.
  A Community operating along those lines is not a negative vision but a practical one—tackling crime and drug trafficking on an intergovernmental basis, co-operating over foreign policy on the basis not of majority voting but of unanimity, and co-operating on defence in a way that reinforces rather than undermines the transatlantic links embodied in NATO.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington pointed out in an especially cogent speech, there is much that we can achieve by working together. But we shall achieve nothing by forcing countries to act against their will. More centralisation is not inevitable, it is not acceptable and it is not in the interests of the British people.
  The idea of European monetary union and a single currency has dominated much of the debate. We heard wise and thoughtful speeches by my right hon. Friends the Members for Guildford, for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) and for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), by my hon. Friends the Members for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), for Derbyshire, South and for Milton Keynes, South-West and even—I shall exercise my characteristic charity here—by my right hon. namesake the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It got through.
  Our position remains clear—no decisions now or in the lifetime of this Parliament. Our protocol negotiated at Maastricht by the Prime Minister ensures that we shall never be forced to join a single currency. I must tell my hon. Friends that that would not be the case had Labour negotiated the Maastricht treaty.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, with his usual perspicacity, identified the key problems that would arise if a small group went ahead with a single currency in the wrong circumstances. I reject the implication in the Commission's recent Green Paper that countries outside such a small group would have to tie their national currencies to the single currency so that, in the Commission's definition, the single market could continue to work properly. I reject that idea because it would mean bucking the markets, and because it would

  447
  be artificial and ineffective. Our warnings about the divisiveness of a single currency introduced in the wrong circumstances are beginning to hit home.
  The Labour party's approach to all that is markedly different.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Stop there.
  Mr. Davis: Yes, I could stop there.
  The Labour leader said recently that he would never allow this country to be isolated in Europe. What a good time he would have had at Messina. Give up the veto in important areas of national interest? Fine. Give away our rights to make our own decisions on joining a single currency? Certainly. Collapse the pillars of the Maastricht treaty and the treaty of Rome? Absolutely. The meeting would have been a short one. He could have sold the country down the river in the morning and sat on the beach in the afternoon.
  I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that being willing to stand alone is often necessary to defend Britain's interests. This is not the first time that Britain has stood alone. In the past decade and a half, every negotiating success has been marked in the early stages by Britain's standing alone, or in a small minority, for its principles. It was Britain that fought for the single market; it was Britain that fought for enlargement and for subsidiarity. We stood alone, we fought our corner and we won our argument.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: And then we ditched our leader.
  Mr. Davis: It is interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). I was touched by his earlier concern for our party, since he is now a member of the wholly owned subsidiary of the Labour party.
  Jacques Santer said a few weeks ago:
  "It is British initiatives that end up being mainstream Community policy".
  We are still at least seven months away from the beginning of the 1GC, and negotiations have not even begun. Yet what has the leader of the Labour party done? For no conceivable reason, other than to conform with his Euro-socialist friends, he has said that he is willing to give up the veto in four areas: social policy, environmental policy, industrial policy and regional policy. There is no trade-off and no negotiation—just capitulation. So much for the man who would be Prime Minister. Charting the right course for the European Union, and our relationship with it, is one of the great questions.
  Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): I hope that my hon. Friend will go on to tell the House about the declared position of the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who would give up the veto in all areas.
  Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right. It is not clear whether subsidiarity applies between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrat party, and we may not know what the right hon. Gentleman's policy will be in the future. At the moment, however, it is to give up everything.
  We have heard a lot from Opposition Front-Bench Members about the splits and debates that take place on Conservative Benches. Yet they know full well that the
  448
  same divisions exist among Opposition Members. There was a brave attempt by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) to explain away the 59 votes against the Labour Whip on Maastricht. He might have been more persuasive if we could not have seen the faces of his hon. Friends during his subsequent federalist rant. The right hon. Member for Llanelli and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) made a pretty picture during that speech.
  Those hon. Members have at least been consistent in their views. That is more than anyone can say about the leader of the Labour party. If his policy, as clearly stated in his 1983 election address, had been carried out and Britain had left the Community, we would have been having a very different debate today. In the future, the right hon. Gentleman should start every speech in Europe with an apology.
  The Labour leadership has been wrong about Europe at every turn. When it was in Britain's interests to join, it voted to stay out. When tough negotiations to fight for reform were needed, it wanted to pull out. Now, when the people of Europe are saying no to a European super-state, Labour's policy would bring one closer. It has swapped outright hostility to the Community for blind acceptance of whatever comes out of Brussels. Companies across Europe are groaning under the weight of regulation, bureaucracy and social costs, yet Labour wants the United Kingdom to sign the social chapter and to give up our veto rights. The party that wanted out now cannot wait to sign up to any piece of Euro-nonsense on offer.
  Why does the Labour party do it? Because, after four defeats, it has nothing left to believe in. All that brought Labour Members into politics has been ditched, shelved and thrown overboard. The message about the Labour party that the British people should take away from this debate is that those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.
  When the historians look back in 30, 40 or 50 years' time at what we are doing today, I am sure that they will see this time as a critical juncture in the history of Europe. Their judgement will be driven by whether what we do in the next few years creates a Europe that achieves a number of things. First, we must succeed in bringing to the Community of western, liberal and capitalist democracies the massive free states of central and eastern Europe and in doing so, create a stable and peaceful community in the centre of Europe. That, above all, will be the key defining issue of the decade. What we do in dealing with the common agricultural policy, structural funds and the other key institutional issues in the next few years will be crucial to that.
  Secondly, that judgment will be based on whether the European structure that we have created delivers prosperity, security and freedom to the people of Europe. That, of course, will depend on whether we are cemented together by the shackles of a federalist logic or held together by the joint belief of the peoples of Europe that it is in their mutual interest to remain in a co-operative and coherent Community. That will be achieved only if the European Union works with the grain of the nation state and not against it.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

  EMPLOYMENT
  That the draft Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers, which was laid before this House on 1lth May, be approved.

  PUBLIC HEALTH
  That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1388), dated 25th May 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st May, be approved.
  That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 2) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1422), dated 1st June 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.
  450
  That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 3) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1560), dated 19th June 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Question agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND)
Ordered,
That the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees), paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) and Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.) shall apply to the Special Grant Report (No. 14) (Grants to Surrey Police Authority and Receiver of the Metropolitan Police District) (HC 474) and the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Special Grant Report No. 1 (HC 517) as if they were statutory instruments; and that the said Special Grant Reports be referred to Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]

Petitions
10 pm
Mr. Jim Dowd: Just a few short weeks before the 50th anniversary of VJ day, and the final end of hostilities in 1945, it is not just opportune, but essential that Parliament should remember the greatest unrelieved injustice that remains to be settled from the conflict of the second world war.
It is my great privilege to present a petition of more than 200,000 signatures from members of the Japanese Labour Camp Survivors Association and many other citizens of the United Kingdom. That petition states:
That we the undersigned, hereby:
acknowledge the terrible suffering of those former servicemen and Civilian Internees who were taken prisoner by the Japanese during the course of the Second World War;
express our deep concern that, despite the fifty years that have elapsed since the end of the War, the Japanese Government has failed to formally apologise for their actions and compensate the former Prisoners of War and Civilian Internees for their suffering;
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do call on Her Majesty's Government to take whatever steps it can to support the former prisoners including refusing to agree to Japan being given a permanent seat on the UN Security Council until this matter is resolved and by calling on the Japanese Government to fully apologise to the former Prisoners of War and Civilian Internees and compensate them to the sum of £14,000 each.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
To lie upon the Table.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: I wish to present a petition on behalf of almost 2,000 of my constituents, who are seeking an end to the mahogany trade because of the damage it is causing to the rain forests of South America. The petition reads:
"The Petition of York Friends of the Earth and Residents of York
Declares that we wish to express our deep dismay at the damage and destruction caused to the Amazon rainforests by the mahogany trade.
As the world's second largest importer of mahogany from Brazil, the UK is a major contributor to the loss of these forests and the terrible consequences faced by the people who live there.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the government to announce a moratorium on mahogany imports until it can be established that the trade operates on an environmentally sound, socially beneficial and legal basis.
The petition is signed by Guy Wallbanks of York and 1,993 of my constituents.
To lie upon the Table.

Supermarket Development (Northern Ireland)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
10.3 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: I wish to raise the subject of planning policy in relation to supermarket retail development in Northern Ireland. I will speak for 15 minutes and my colleague, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), will speak for five minutes, and then we will let the Minister have the rest of the time. We will be gracious to him.
I want to make it crystal clear, at the outset of this Adjournment debate, that I do not oppose inward investment, new development, freedom of choice, private enterprise and healthy competition. It is, however, essential that all those things are operated in a context of fairness, and on an even playing field with no advantage to any section of the community.
As a public representative, I must be worried about fairness. When that concept of fairness is challenged, not by a mere suggestion, but by some secret agreement, or by some private understanding, then it comes into the public domain and I have a responsibility to comment on it.
Yesterday in Belfast, Mr. David Sainsbury announced plans to open seven supermarkets throughout Northern Ireland and said that his company was confident that a further five proposals would follow in due course.
It must be stated that, in the case of at least half those proposed sites, planning policy hitherto has been to refuse all planning permission for retail development on those sites. That planning policy was rigorously implemented in the case of various applications from local stores and developers who had sought to provide for their clients retailing facilities on the very sites now marked down for Sainsbury developments.
In some cases, applications were refused and in other cases, the applicants were discouraged from even daring to pursue their disclosed intention by a statement from the planning authorities that their proposals would not be considered with any favour whatsoever under the existing planning policy. The exception made at Sprucefield for Marks and Spencer was signalled as a "one-off" development, never to be repeated, and was not to be taken as a breach of the existing policy. There was to be no let-up in that policy.
In that very context, and in directing his attention to some of those very sites, Mr. David Sainsbury finds himself able to state with total assurance that he proposes to develop the seven sites with the prospect of five more. To add, as he does, the token formula "subject to planning approval" is simply to pay lip-service to statutory requirements and to suggest, disingenuously, that there is some element of uncertainty in the achievement of his proposals.
Any other person who had dared hitherto to say that they were going to develop those sites was shot down immediately and was not permitted even to suggest that they were going ahead to seek full planning permission on those sites.
In fact the proposals of Mr. Sainsbury go against the present planning policy in the rest of the United Kingdom about "edge of town" and "out of town" developments.

453
The reason for that is the imperative necessity to bring life back to the city and town centres to make them vibrant; hence the discouragement by the planners, because similar developments have already damaged the centre of other urban areas.
Yesterday, on Radio Ulster, Mr. Sainsbury was questioned by one Mr. James Kerr for the BBC. Mr. Kerr said:
"With 12 stores right across the province, it has been suggested that what you are doing is take the heart out of the town centres in Northern Ireland."
Mr. Sainsbury replied:
"Well, I don't think that's the case at all. In England that has not been the pattern. We only go to sites outside the town centres where that is the only way we can provide the kind of service we want in terms of car parks and size of store. By and large, that doesn't have an effect on town centres if they are healthy, vital centres anyway."
But Northern Ireland has had something which has told against the health and vibrancy of its town centres which generally has not applied to the rest of the United Kingdom—a campaign of barbaric IRA terrorist violence aimed at destroying the economic heart of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Sainsbury maintains that his plans will have no adverse effect on a healthy town centre or city centre provided it is already vibrant. But how can our town centres fall into that category after the mauling destruction that they have received? Surely, if there is one undertaking to which everyone should be dedicated it is that of the reinvigoration and re-establishment of the heart of urban Ulster. Anything that tells against that may give a cosmetic and short-term benefit, but it will be dearly paid for by long-term city decline.
I ask the Minister: has a Province-wide study of retail shopping impact been made? Is there a margin within the present retail shopping enterprises that must be met? If there is no margin, it is correct to conclude that existing businesses will go to the wall—ruthlessly crushed by the juggernauts of huge shopping centres set in motion by this breach of existing planning policy. But if, after such a study has been made, margins have been proved, the requirement makes developments such as Sainsbury inevitable. No matter what the finding of such a study or what margins may be discovered, we must establish the principle that a Johnny-come-lately developer must not be given special privileges or advantages—we must have an even playing field.
I have stood. both as a Member of the House and as a Member of the European Parliament, in the destroyed business premises of many of my constituents. Their premises were blasted by the bombs of those who are now in dialogue with the present Government. Today, in the House, I want to salute the moral resolution, the personal bravery and commercial courage of those business people, both men and women, who extinguished the flames, swept up the ashes, erected signs stating "business as usual" and carried on. Not one of those businesses received from the Government full reinstatement payments and, because of that, some of those involved were forced to see their family businesses brought to an end. I invite the Minister to come with me, when he has time, to the centre of Coleraine to talk to some people there. Perhaps that would be a good place to start.
454
Surely those who have borne the burden and heat of the day must not, by a sudden change in Government policy, be forced out of business now. The sort of development that is being envisaged with the evident lifting of what seemed impregnable planning restrictions will destroy some businesses as surely as did the IRA bombers. Furthermore, there are larger businesses which have sought, by development proposals amidst all the bombings, to give opportunities to the consumer. Those developers should not be discriminated against because a newcomer has arrived on the scene.
The question must be asked: why have others been refused planning permission on some of those sites while Sainsbury is in a position to make the announcement that it made yesterday? What about the constitutional rights of individuals under planning laws? I note that Mr. Sainsbury made no mention of public inquiries into any of his proposals. Does he have information that, even if such inquiries are held, the Minister concerned—who has the final word—will see to it that his objectives will be achieved? Tonight I am asking the Minister to give a solemn undertaking that, wherever there is resistance to any of those sites according to their locality, the people will have the opportunity of a full public inquiry.
I must tell the people of Northern Ireland, using the House as a sounding board, that the present Minister has set aside the findings of at least one public inquiry and that his immediate predecessor set aside the findings of another. Those inquiries have now become no better than a charade, with no credibility at all. To win at a public inquiry is now no guarantee that the battle has been successful. All gain can be taken away by a stroke of the Minister's pen. The very suspicion that the nod and wink has been given before an inquiry puts a question mark over the whole exercise.
I end in the way that I commenced: I fully support inward investment, new development, private choice, healthy competition and free enterprise, but only if the playing field is level. Otherwise it is not freedom, but dictatorship and slavery. Those who compete in the marketplace with Sainsbury require no favours. They are not asking for any advantages; they are simply demanding the inalienable right to justice and fair play. Looking at the record of their endurance, enterprise and investment, they have a right doubly to demand just that.
10.18 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. I. Paisley) should be congratulated on securing the Adjournment debate on planning. This time next year we shall not be able to raise such matters on the Floor of the House if the Minister goes ahead with his plans to transfer responsibility for planning from his Department to some weird agency.
The hon. Gentleman made it very clear that we are not seeking to promote or to disadvantage any particular company in the debate; we are simply concerned to ensure that Department of the Environment planning authorities adopt an even-handed approach. The hon. Gentleman referred to the need for a level playing field, and I do not criticise him for doing so. Unfortunately, that phrase was used several times earlier today in a short debate about fisheries. It was never made clear whether the fish were rising on the level playing field.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Fisheries brings me straight to Portavogie in my constituency, where I hope that we have a level playing field.
I represent a constituency which, thankfully, Sainsbury has selected for one of its locations. We welcome the arrival of Sainsbury in Northern Ireland. Not only is it building stores that will bring lower prices for our constituents, but it will purchase something like £80 million worth of goods per year from producers in Northern Ireland.
In respect of planning decisions in my constituency, Supermac already had planning permission for the development of that location. Apparently, it has now been acquired by Sainsbury. The good news is that Sainsbury will incorporate the road reconstruction at Forster Green junction. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as several hundred people will be made redundant in the changeover from Supermac to Sainsbury every effort should be made by Sainsbury to re-employ those who will lose their jobs in the process?
Mr. Molyneaux: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has obtained firm assurances that the vital road scheme for that intersection, for which he battled so long, will be safeguarded. I hope that my right hon. Friend and I can depend on the Minister to ensure that that promise is kept in all respects and that there is no slippage. I know that it is not the Minister's responsibility, but I would ask any successor company on that site to support my right hon. Friend's plea that the 700 employees of the present supermarket will be given some priority—never mind Mr. Bob Cooper—in applying for jobs in which they are well experienced.
In any community, perceptions are everything, and they are often produced by banner headlines that a company is to develop a site in a certain location. I should not say it in the presence of one, but editors have a horror of small print, so they tend to give the impression that a decision has been made and endorsed by the planning authorities. Unfortunately, such banner headlines imply that a dramatic statement of intent will be sufficient to bulldoze the planning authorities into granting the planning application.
I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to dispel any such perceptions or impressions, not just in regard to the applications to which the hon. Member for Antrim, North has referred today, but for all such proposals which may come before his Department in one form or another before he cedes control of all such matters to the agency. I desperately hope that the Minister will change his mind about that, and that despite all their faults he and his Department retain answerability in the House for all planning matters in Northern Ireland.
10.24 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): I congratulate the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) on his success in obtaining a debate on this important issue. I recognise that the Ulster town has traditionally been the centre of trade and commerce for its population and its rural hinterland. In towns such as Ballymena and Ballymoney, the commercial town centre provides many important services for both town and country.
456
I also acknowledge and pay tribute to the many local businesses to which the hon. Member for Antrim, North drew our attention today when he talked about moral resolution. They have maintained their services and provided important facilities for shoppers during the last 25 years, often in very difficult circumstances.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) spoke of transferring my Department to some "weird agency". I offer him every assurance that the agency will not be weird. It will be fully under my control. I shall still be accountable to the House for all planning issues—
Mr. Molyneaux: A quango?
Mr. Moss: Not in the absolute sense of the word. We shall debate that further. Furthermore, the director of the agency will be accountable to the Public Accounts Committee in a way that his predecessor never has been.
While the Government welcome the general growth of interest in economic and commercial investment in Northern Ireland, I appreciate local concern that incoming investment might threaten or destroy long-established local businesses. I can assure the hon. Member for Antrim, North that my Department is committed to protecting the vitality and viability of existing town centres.
I recognise that an attractive and flourishing town centre can enhance the quality of life of its citizens, stimulate economic investment and support and encourage a whole range of cultural, social and commercial activity. It is for this reason that my Department has been encouraging regeneration initiatives where they are needed in many town centres across Northern Ireland. In broad terms the Department's planning policy is to ensure an adequate provision of retailing and related facilities, accessible to the whole community. This includes support for and enhancement of established town centres as well as recognising the need for local food stores and specialist retailing facilities.
Retailing is an important sector in the Northern Ireland economy, providing some 57,000 jobs and around 10 per cent. of total employment. As in the rest of the UK, the retail industry in Northern Ireland is subject to dynamic change, as consumers expect a wide range of choice and competitive pricing and as retailers adapt and change their marketing methods to respond to consumer demand. Indeed, in the past five years Northern Ireland has seen a continuation of the upsurge in retail development witnessed in the late 1980s, with more than 300,000 sq m of retail floor space approved in major schemes since 1988.
In recent years shopping patterns have changed, with trends in consumer behaviour in Northern Ireland following a similar pattern to those in Great Britain. There is a growing tendency towards one-stop food shopping and greater use of the car for shopping trips.
I come now to the planning policies which relate to the recent announcement by Sainsbury. All proposals for new shopping development will be tested against the planning policies for shopping set out in the planning strategy for rural Northern Ireland and in the Belfast urban area plan. The planning strategy emphasises the Department's commitment to protecting the vitality and viability of existing town centres as a whole and contains detailed planning policies for the control of shopping development.

457
The main thrust of these policies is to favour development which would make a positive contribution to existing centres. My Department also recognises that out-of-town shopping development has a role to play in accommodating types of retailing which are unsuited to a town centre location, and in satisfying local deficiencies in retail provision. It can also contribute towards urban regeneration. However, such developments may seriously prejudice the vitality and viability of existing town, district or neighbourhood shopping centres.
Additional significant retail developments on sites outside existing town centres will therefore be carefully examined against a well established set of planning tests including the following: contribution to deficiencies in the overall shopping provision; impact on existing shopping centres; impact on amenity, traffic movements or road safety; accessibility to both public and private transport.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Does it follow from what the Minister has said that if Stewarts or Wellworths have been refused permission for a site in Northern Ireland, Sainsbury's will be refused permission as well?
Mr. Moss: I can give an assurance to the hon. Gentleman that when we receive the planning applications which, I have to say, we have not as yet received, they will be carefully examined. If there is any objection from any quarter, the applications will go to public inquiry. It has been pointed out by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) that two of the seven sites that were mentioned already have existing retail land use planning permission, notably the one at Supermac at Forster Green junction in Belfast. I will give the assurance that if objections are raised the normal planning procedures will be followed and the matters will go to public inquiry.
Within the food retailing sector, the trend towards car-borne, one-stop shopping has led to the development of large, food-based superstores. Such developments rely on the close proximity of adequate car parking, and for that reason locations within existing town centres may be inappropriate. The Department will carefully examine each food store proposal received for edge-of-town locations and will grant approval only where they comply with published planning policies.
458
In the case of retail warehouse developments, I recognise that trading in bulky goods and do-it-yourself products is difficult to accommodate in town centres, given the parking and servicing requirements. The siting of such developments in out-of-town locations can have a beneficial influence on town centres through the provision of an alternative location for the sale of bulky goods, thus reducing traffic congestion, and through the attraction of additional retail custom to the town. It is said, for instance, that the development at Sprucefield has enhanced the viability of the town centre retailing in Lisburn town centre itself. I use that as an example of what historically has occurred in Northern Ireland.
Proposals for retail warehouse development within urban areas will normally be directed to sites in or adjacent to existing town or shopping centres, thereby complementing and reinforcing the role of the centre. Planning permission for retail warehouses may be subject to conditions setting a minimum floor space and restricting the range and type of goods to be sold.
With regard to transportation, I expect all types of proposals for major shopping developments in Northern Ireland to be assessed within the guiding principles for transportation policy that I announced in January of this year—the primary concerns of which are to reduce, where possible, the need for travel, to encourage the use of alternatives to the private car and to provide an efficient, safe and accessible transportation system offering better choice and availability to all its users.
I know that there have been recent announcements by a major United Kingdom retail chain of its interest in developing in Northern Ireland and I am aware of the speculation in the press about other prospective developers. It would not be appropriate for me to make any comment in relation to confirmed intent or speculation, but in answer to the main thrust of the speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, North when he talked about fairness, an even playing field, and no special privileges or advantages to any group or organisation, I am prepared to give him, from the Dispatch Box, a categorical assurance that what he is asking for will be delivered—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farming Subsidies
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farm holdings receive subsidy payments, excluding environmental and hill livestock compensatory allowances, in excess of(a) £30,000, (b) £40,000 and (c) £50,000 per annum. [28354]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 13 June 1995]: Farm holdings can receive subsidy payments under one or several schemes. Those holdings in England receiving payments under the sheep annual premium, suckler cow premium, beef special premium and arable area payments schemes which either together or separately exceeded the totals stated for the 1994 scheme year are as follows:

  (a) £30,000: 10,857

  (b) £40,000: 7,219

  (c) £50,000: 5,055

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money would be saved if farm subsidy payments, excluding environmental and hill livestock compensatory allowances, were capped at a ceiling of(a)£30,000 per holding, (b)£40,000 per holding and (c)£50,000 per holding per annum. [28355]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 13 June 1995]:Farm holdings can receive subsidy payments under one or several schemes.

  The total sums paid under the sheep annual premium, suckler cow premium, beef special premium and arable area payments schemes, in respect of the 1995 scheme year, would have been reduced by the following amounts if the respective ceilings per holding had been applied:

  Ceiling applied per holding £

  Reduction in total payments £ million

  (a)

  30,000

  350.4

  (b)

  40,000

  261.7

  (c)

  50,000

  201.1

  Brent Spar
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what measure HMS Alderney is taking in respect of(a)monitoring pollution and (b)monitoring the activities of Greenpeace; [29181]

  (2) for what reasons HMS Alderney is following the Shell flotilla towing the Brent Spar; and what task it is undertaking. [29180]
  240
  Mr. Soames
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Royal Navy ship which has been deployed to the area of Brent Spar has been asked to monitor the general situation. It has been taking no measures beyond this specifically to monitor pollution or Greepeace activity.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how may(a)sheriff officers and (b)police officers are present on HMS Alderney on its current voyage following the Shell flotilla towing the Brent Spar. [29182]

  Mr. Soames
  I have been asked to reply.

  The answer is none.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Justices of the Peace
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the political profile of justices of the peace on all benches under his jurisdiction. [29481]

  Mr. David Hunt
  The political breakdown of justices of the peace for benches in the counties of Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside is as follows:

  Political profile of benches in the counties of Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside

  Conservative

  Labour

  Liberal Democrat

  Others uncommitted

  Lancashire

  Blackpool

  68

  31

  14

  30

  Fylde

  29

  7

  7

  9

  Wyre

  38

  13

  10

  7

  Preston

  53

  33

  3

  22

  Lancaster

  30

  19

  14

  20

  Chorley

  40

  12

  6

  15

  South Ribble

  33

  16

  4

  20

  Ormskirk

  46

  19

  7

  11

  Blackburn, Darwen and Ribble Valley

  49

  32

  10

  29

  Hyndburn

  22

  19

  3

  10

  Burnley and Pendle

  67

  40

  17

  36

  Rossendale

  27

  11

  4

  5

  Greater Manchester

  Bolton

  83

  44

  16

  48

  Bury

  62

  26

  20

  33

  Manchester

  122

  104

  59

  74

  Oldham

  62

  49

  32

  50

  Rochdale

  29

  19

  35

  27

  Middleton and Heywood

  26

  23

  11

  19

  Salford

  61

  47

  21

  34

  Stockport

  73

  35

  30

  44

  Tameside

  81

  40

  14

  48

  Trafford

  50

  26

  20

  26

  Wigan

  62

  40

  12

  49

  Leigh

  26

  28

  3

  29

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  45

  39

  27

  24

  Liverpool

  171

  76

  89

  62

  North Sefton

  45

  2

  19

  45

  South Sefton

  50

  25

  22

  30

  St. Helens

  41

  18

  18

  50

  Wirral

  123

  49

  36

  55

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many written parliamentary questions were tabled for answer by his Department in each of the past five years; how many of these were not answered because the information(a)could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, (b)was not held centrally and (c)was not normally disclosed; how many of these could now be answered now due to computerisation; more effective and efficient operational systems or more open government; and if he will list each question along with the name and constituency of the right hon. or hon. Member who originally tabled it. [28509]

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of parliamentary questions, which would have been answered directly by him or his Ministers prior to the establishment of executive agencies, are now referred to the chief executive of such an agency. [28499]

  Mr. David Hunt
  Ministers are accountable to Parliament for all matters concerning their agencies. Written parliamentary questions concerning matters which have been delegated to the chief executive of an executive agency in its framework document normally receive a reply from the Minister to the effect that he or she has asked the chief executive to reply direct to the Member by letter. The chief executive's letter is published in Hansard after the Minister's reply.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 519, what was the total amount of fraudulent legal aid claims made by solicitors in each of the last five years; how much was recovered in each year; and how many cases resulted in criminal prosecutions and conviction. [29707]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is not possible to quantify the total amount of fraudulent legal aid claims made by solicitors in each of the last five years. This is because there may well be an element within the total amount of the claims under suspicion which may relate to work actually and reasonably done by the solicitor. In addition,

  Table 1: Details of judiciary in post as at 1 June 1995

  Number

  Men

  Women

  Barrister1

  Solicitor

  Black/Asian

  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary

  12

  12

  0

  12

  0

  0

  Lords Justices

  32

  31

  1

  32

  0

  0

  Heads of division (excludes Lord Chancellor)

  4

  4

  0

  4

  0

  0

  High court judges

  95

  89

  6

  94

  1

  0

  Circuit judges (include official referees)

  514

  483

  31

  455

  59

  3

  Recorders

  927

  872

  55

  833

  94

  10

  Assistant recorders (excludes assistant recorders in training)

  334

  284

  50

  270

  64

  8

  Stipendiary magistrates

  87

  76

  11

  36

  51

  1

  242
  it is very difficult to identify fraud separately from claims made outside the regulations either through abuse, misuse, ignorance or incompetence. The number of cases involving solicitors and/or their employees prosecuted in the past five years is shown in the table, together with the outcome of those proceedings:

  Financial year

  Cases

  Number of solicitors/employees Prosecuted

  Outcome

  1990–91

  3

  7

  4 convictions

  3 acquittals

  1991–92

  2

  3

  3 convictions

  1992–93

  2

  2

  1 conviction

  1 acquittal

  1993–94

  4

  4

  3 convictions

  1 acquittal

  1994–95

  1

  1

  1 jury failed to agree—acquitted at retrial

  The amounts recovered either by order of the court or by the board's investigation section, in each of the last five years were as follows:

  1990–91: £50,331

  1991–92: £2,853

  1992–93: £20,153

  1993–94: £143,001

  1994–95: £524,276

  Judiciary
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will update the information given in his answer of 7 February 1994,Official Report, column 11, to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North regarding the composition of the judiciary. [28889]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information relating to numbers of men, women, barristers and solicitors in post, correct as at 1 June 1995, is set out in table 1. The figures for black and Asian office holders are believed to be correct, but the formal recording of the ethnic background of applicants for judicial office began only on 1 October 1991, so such information may be incomplete. Aggregated information is not generally kept on the average ages of judges. The information supplied on 7 February 1994 was available as a result of a special exercise, which has not since been repeated, and no new information is readily available. Aggregated information is not generally kept about the educational background of judges, but the results of a recent special exercise in relation to the university background of the more senior levels of the judiciary, as at 26 May 1995, is set out in table 2.
  243

  Table 1: Details of judiciary in post as at 1 June 1995

  Number

  Men

  Women

  Barrister1

  Solicitor

  Black/Asian

  Industrial tribunal chairmen2

  80

  70

  10

  34

  46

  2

  Value added tax chairmen2

  4

  4

  0

  3

  1

  0

  Social security appeal tribunal chairmen2

  42

  31

  11

  13

  29

  1

  1 Or member of the faculty of advocates.

  2 The figures relate to full-time chairmen.

  University backgrounds As at 26 May 1995

  Oxbridge

  Other University

  College

  None

  Total

  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary

  8

  4

  0

  0

  12

  Lord Justices

  26

  5

  1

  0

  32

  Heads of division (excludes Lord Chancellor)

  3

  1

  0

  0

  4

  High court judges

  78

  14

  0

  3

  95

  Circuit judges (includes Official Referees)

  264

  180

  38

  36

  158

ENVIRONMENT

  National Rivers Authority
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had over the future of the NRA within the proposed environment agency. [28045]

  Mr. Gummer
  The integrated environment agency has been welcomed in all parts of the House and by the environmental bodies. We are now consulting on the options for the geographical and managerial structure.

  Empty Houses
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest information he has on the number of empty houses in England. [28047]

  Mr. Gummer
  Local authorities estimated in their 1994 housing investment programme returns that there are some 845,000 empty properties in England.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to assist council leaseholders of former council high-rise dwellings with service charges. [28048]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration announced on Monday the introduction of a package of measures to help local authorities to assist leaseholders, including a good practice guide on service charges, a more flexible form of mortgage indemnity agreement and an exchange sale scheme.

  35. Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses have been bought by their tenants under right-to-buy legislation; and if he will make a statement. [28065]

  Mr. Curry
  In England, almost 1.25 million homes have been sold under the right to buy up to the end of 1994. The figure for Great Britain as a whole is more than 1.6 million.

  House Repossessions
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses were repossessed in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [28050]

  Mr. Curry
  Figures published by the Council of Mortgage Lenders show that the number of properties taken into possession in each year since 1990 is as follows:

  1990: 43,890

  1991: 75,540

  1992: 68,540

  1993: 58,540

  1994: 49,210

  These figures show that the number of properties taken into possession in 1994 was the lowest since 1990 and 35 per cent. lower than the peak in 1991.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of households likely to lose their home through repossession for mortgage arrears in the next 12 months. [28054]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Government do not make predictions about future levels of repossessions, but I am pleased to note from the latest figures published by the Council of Mortgage Lenders that the number of properties taken into possession in 1994 was the lowest since 1990 and 25 per cent. lower than the peak in 1991.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the likely need for social housing in Britain up to 2001. [28052]

  Mr. Curry
  The analysis released by the Department last month to the Environment Select Committee suggests the additional demand for new social lettings lies within the range 60,000 to 100,000 units a year.

  Planning Policy
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding his review of planning policy. [28053]
  245
  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to my oral answer to the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) earlier today.

  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the implementation of planning policy guidance notes 6 and 13. [28064]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  PPG6 is currently being revised. I hope to issue it for consultation next month. A guide to better practice, to help implement PPG13, will be issued in the early autumn. Research is under way to monitor the implementation of PPG13.

  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding his review of planning policy. [28049]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The only review that my right hon. Friend proposes is to revise PPG6, on which he has received a number of representations.

  Water Metering
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had about compulsory water metering of the business premises by North West Water. [28057]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the need to introduce regional government in the east of England. [28058]

  Mr. Gummer
  I have received no representations on this issue.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated amount of energy saved, to date, as a result of his Department's "Wasting Energy Costs the Earth" campaign. [28059]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The "Wasting Energy Costs the Earth" campaign, launched in October last year, aims to raise public awareness and encourages action to save energy in the home, as part of the United Kingdom's climate change programme. A full assessment of the campaign's effectiveness will be made when it is completed.

  Standard Spending Assessment, St. Helens
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will pay an official visit to St. Helens to discuss standard spending assessments. [28062]

  Mr. Gummer
  I have no plans to visit St Helens. If there are any proposals that St. Helens wishes to make as to how the standard spending assessment methodology could be improved, I suggest that these are passed to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities for discussion at the SSA sub-group.

  Landfill
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the implications for the United Kingdom of the recent changes made in the EU draft directive on landfill of waste by the European Parliament in report A-4 0082/95. [28066]

  Mr. Atkins
  There are no implications for the United Kingdom of the report to the European Parliament by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. This recommended acceptance of the Council's proposal to amend the legal basis of the draft landfill directive from article 100A of the treaty of Rome to article 130S. The United Kingdom supported this change in Council. The European Parliament has now agreed to the change of legal base.

  Private Rents
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average rent paid by tenants of private landlords; and what the figure was in 1978–79 in actual and real terms. [28055]

  Mr. Curry
  The average weekly rent paid by tenants of private landlords in England is £60. The average weekly rent in 1978–79 was £6.30, equivalent to £17 a week at 1993–94 prices.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to reduce levels of air pollution in London. [28056]

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government have put forward amendments to the Environment Bill to implement a new framework for air quality management, and will publish later this year their draft national strategy for improving air quality throughout the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for revising the air quality banding system in order to make it readily understandable by the public. [29489]

  Mr. Atkins
  I shall shortly be publishing a consultation paper proposing revisions to the Department of the Environment's air quality bulletin service.

  Rural Water and Sewerage Services
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce what action the Government intend to take on the recommendations in the review of rural water supply and sewerage in England and Wales following the consultation exercise on the review's findings last year. [30236]

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government accept the review's recommendations affecting existing development. In taking them forward, my right hon. Friend will be introducing today into the Environment Bill amendments to the Water Industry Act 1991. These will put a new requirement on sewerage undertakers to provide public sewers to be used for the drainage for domestic purposes of premises in any locality in its area where there are problems arising from the existing system, and mains connection is the most satisfactory and most effective solution.
  247
  In the event of any dispute, there will be a right to apply to the new Environment Agency to rule on whether there is a case for extending the mains sewerage network. The agency will also have the power to direct a statutory sewerage undertaker to extend the mains sewerage network in a locality by a due date. The costs will be spread across all the customers for the area of that undertaker. It is intended that these powers will relate only to existing properties and will not cover future development. The Government will issue guidance to sewerage undertakers and the agency on how to address these issues.

  From the date the provisions come into force, section 151 of the Water Industry Act 1991, which makes provision for the current grant regime, will be repealed and the Government will no longer pay grant towards first-time mains water supply and sewerage, but provision will be made to allow for existing commitments to be met. The reason for this is that the Government consider that mains water connection has reached its natural limits, and that better provisions are required for first-time sewerage services.

  The Government will be pursuing those recommendations arising from the review which relate to the issue of further guidance about the potential problems from new development served by non-mains sewerage, and how best to prevent those problems.

  In addition, other recommendations arising from the review will also be pursued, including discussing with the Director General of Water Services the operation of inset appointments and encouraging the environment agency to continue the detailed mapping of groundwater vulnerability.

  Privatisation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those parts of his Department or departmental agencies which were privatised without an in-house bid; if he will indicate the expertise which was absent in his Department or departmental agencies which prevented an in-house bid taking place; which future parts of his Department or departmental agencies he intends to privatise; and which of them do not have the necessary in-house expertise to mount an in-house bid. [29421]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Since April 1992, the Department's agencies, Property Holdings and the Planning Inspectorate, strategically contracted out—that is, without an in-house bid—two areas of work:

  Property Holdings: Professional Property Services

  Planning Inspectorate: IT Project Management

  All the central Department's activities under the "Competing for Quality" initiative so far have involved in-house bids.

  No decisions have been taken on which additional areas of work may be suitable for contracting out without an in-house bid.

  Contracting out without an in-house bid can occur for example when a Department judges that the private sector is clearly better equipped to deliver a specific service, has a better understanding of market needs or has capacity to invest in new technology. A strategic decision to contract
  248
  out could also be taken where an activity has not previously been performed in-house or where an activity may be relatively small and peripheral to a Department's functions.

  Community Charge Registers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the number of times per year addresses were changed on the community charges registers held by London boroughs during the operation of the poll tax; and if he will make a statement. [29768]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  None. The maintenance of community charge registers was a matter for local authorities.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sits of special scientific interest have been(a) wholly and (b) partially affected by residential, industrial or other development in the past 10 years. [29643]

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is not available in the form requested. Between 1 April 1984 and 31 March 1991 statistical information on damage to SSSIs in Great Britain is set out in the annual reports of the former Nature Conservancy Council. Since 1 April 1991 similar detail for England is contained in English Nature's annual reports. Copies of annual reports are in the Library.

  Local Government, Wiltshire
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will implement in full the recommendations for Wiltshire of the Local Government Commission, with particular reference to parish council status to the city of Salisbury. [28233]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We expect to announce shortly our decisions on a number of the commission's recommendations concerning new parishes, including that for Salisbury.

  As to the commission's other recommendations for Wiltshire, the draft Wiltshire (Borough of Thamesdown) (Structural Change) Order, which provides for change to the structure of local government in Thamesdown on 1 April 1997 and other associated matters, was laid before Parliament on 15 June 1995. Subject to approval of that order, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary intends in due course to lay before Parliament an order giving effect to the commission's recommendation for a combined fire authority. We intend to give effect to the commission's recommendations for ceremonial matters in a statutory instrument to be laid before Parliament later this year. Other recommendations are for the local authorities themselves to take forward.

  Riding Schools (Rates)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from riding school proprietors about the rates they pay; what subsequent action he is proposing to take; and if he will make a statement. [28548]
  249
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I have received four such representations since the beginning of last year. I have no plans for action in this area.

  Natterjack Toads
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has to multiply and improve the habitats of natterjack toads. [29302]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The natterjack toad has been the subject of a three-year English Nature species recovery programme, which is due to end in June 1995. English Nature will continue to participate, in co-operation with the Herpetological Conservation Trust, in conservation and repopulation measures identified in a consequential 10-year management plan.

  Airport Noise Abatement Grants
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the airports outside London that have received European grants for noise abatement; [24980]
  250
  (2) how much by way of European grants was paid for noise abatement to each airport in respect of (a) London airports and (b) airports outside London. [24981]

  Mr. Norris
  I am answering these questions on behalf of my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  We have no record of European grant being paid for noise abatement to any airport in the UK.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many representations he has received(a) for and (b) against the size of the jackpot in the national lottery. [29105]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 20 June 1995]: I have received many representations about the size of the national lottery jackpots. It is not possible to determine the number for or against the size of the jackpot without incurring disproportionate cost.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the figures for each month since the launch of the Child Support Agency of(a) the amount of child maintenance assessed by the Agency as payable and (b) the amount payable under arrangements carried over from before the launch of the agency; and how much of each amount was paid (i) directly to the parent with care and (ii) via the agency. [27947]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 21 June 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about maintenance assessed by the Child Support Agency.
  Monthly information in the form you request is only available for maintenance arising from CSA assessments in cases where the parents are using the Agency collection service. This is set out in the attached table.
  However, these figures do not show the whole picture, as they do not include maintenance paid direct between parents who do not use the Agency's collection service. Although this information is now being collected, figures are not available for 1993/94 or broken down on a monthly basis for 1994/95. We do however, estimate that between April 1994 and March 1995, around £111 million arising from CSA assessments was assessed as payable and actually paid in this way.
  The total maintenance assessed and paid arising from CSA assessments for the 1994/95 year was therefore £615.77 million and £185.24 million respectively.
  Comparable figures are not available for maintenance paid under pre-CSA arrangements, as in these cases it is only necessary for information to be collected on the amount of maintenance paid that offsets benefit spending.
  I hope this is helpful.

  £ per week

  Standard rate of basic retirement pension for people under 80

  Value at April 1995 prices

  Single1

  Married couple2

  Single1

  Married couple2

  November 1979

  23.30

  37.30

  57.62

  92.24

  November 1980

  27.15

  43.45

  58.22

  93.18

  November 1981

  29.60

  47.35

  56.69

  90.69

  November 1982

  32.85

  52.55

  59.21

  94.72

  November 1983

  34.05

  54.50

  58.54

  93.70

  November 1984

  35.80

  57.30

  58.65

  93.87

  November 1985

  38.30

  61.30

  59.50

  95.22

  July 1986

  38.70

  61.95

  59.13

  94.66

  April 1987

  39.50

  63.25

  57.81

  92.58

  April 1988

  41.15

  65.90

  57.95

  92.81

  April 1989

  43.60

  69.80

  56.84

  90.99

  April 1990

  46.90

  75.10

  55.86

  89.45

  April 1991

  52.00

  83.25

  58.21

  93.19

  252

  Annex A: Maintenance arising from CSA assessments

  £ million

  Assessed and scheduled for payment via agency collection service

  Paid via agency collection service

  Total 1993–94

  107.54

  12.57

  April 1994

  27.82

  3.70

  May 1994

  30.43

  4.04

  June 1994

  32.33

  4.66

  July 1994

  43.31

  4.80

  August 1994

  42.64

  5.75

  September 1994

  47.41

  6.10

  October 1994

  44.81

  6.47

  November 1994

  45.95

  7.03

  December 1994

  53.98

  7.09

  January 1995

  43.56

  7.85

  February 1995

  43.48

  7.66

  March 1995

  49.05

  9.09

  Total 1994–95

  504.77

  74.24

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many absent parents are making child support payments by way of deduction of earnings orders. [29521]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 21 June 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of absent parents who are making child support payments via Deduction from Earnings Orders (DEO).
  Since launch to the end of March 1995, the Agency has issued over 34,000 DEOs Aggregated information is now available on the number of DEOs that have been honoured since 18 November 1994. Of the 15,600 DEOs issued from that date to the end of March 1995, payments have been received in relation to 5,800. Due to the processes involved in the implementation of a DEO, a number of the DEOs issued towards the end of 1994/95 would not have been implemented by employers before the end of March 1995.
  I hope this is helpful.

  State Retirement Pension
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the value of the state retirement pension in real terms, for each year since 1979. [29550]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is in the table:
  253

  £ per week

  Standard rate of basic retirement pension for people under 80

  Value at April 1995 prices

  Single1

  Married couple2

  Single1

  Married couple2

  April 1992

  54.15

  86.70

  58.13

  93.07

  April 1993

  56.10

  89.80

  59.45

  95.17

  April 1994

  57.60

  92.10

  59.52

  95.17

  April 1995

  58.85

  94.10

  58.85

  94.10

  1 Man or woman on own insurance.

  2 Man plus wife on his insurance.

  Income Support, North Wales
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the amount recovered by claimants by way of arrears of supplementary benefit in the area covered by the Wrexham and North Wales Coast district benefits agency for each of the last 12 months for which figures are available. [29706]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  Respiratory Illness
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the number of people who died because of asthma and respiratory illness in each of the last five years. [29089]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information for England and Wales is shown in the table.

  Numbers of deaths certified as due to asthma, ICD9 code 493, and diseases of the respiratory system, ICD9 code 460–519 inclusive, in the last five years.

  Year

  Deaths certified as due to diseases of the respiratory system (ICD9 code 460–519)

  Deaths certified as due to Year asthma (ICD9 code 493)

  1993

  90,745

  1,690

  1992

  60,388

  1,790

  1991

  63,237

  1,884

  1990

  61,018

  1,858

  1989

  66,712

  1,957

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the top 10 districts where expenditure on prescriptions are the highest for(a)asthma treatment and (b)other respiratory conditions. [29088]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the tables. They list those family health services authorities in which total expenditure is greatest, which could reflect the size of the family health services authorities, and do not show where the expenditure per head of population is greatest.
  254

  The top 10 family health services authorities in terms of net ingredient cost for drugs and appliances used in the treatment of asthma

  England 1994

  Rank

  Family health services authority

  1

  Lancashire

  2

  Hampshire

  3

  Essex

  4

  Kent

  5

  Devon

  6

  Nottinghamshire

  7

  Staffordshire

  8

  Birmingham

  9

  Cheshire

  10

  Derbyshire

  1. Drugs used in the treatment of diseases of the respiratory system are contained in the British National Formulary chapter 3. Drugs used in the treatment of asthma are contained in the British National Formulary sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. Some of the drugs may be used for other conditions.

  2. Data cover all prescriptions dispensed by chemist and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and personal administration.

  The top 10 family health services authorities in terms of net ingredient cost for drugs used in the treatment of diseases of the respiratory system excluding those used in treatment of asthma

  England 1994

  Rank

  Family health services authority

  1

  Essex

  2

  Lancashire

  3

  Kent

  4

  Hampshire

  5

  Birmingham

  6

  Humberside

  7

  Hertfordshire

  8

  Surrey

  9

  Leicestershire

  10

  Cheshire

  1. Drugs used in the treatment of diseases of the respiratory system are contained in the British National Formulary chapter 3. Drugs used in the treatment of asthma are contained in the British National Formulary sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. Some of the drugs may be used for other conditions.

  2. Data cover all prescriptions dispensed by chemist and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and personal administration.

  Temazepam
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies her Department has made of the possible negative effects of using temazepam without a prescription, with special reference to the injection of the drug; what assessment she has made of whether other benzodiazepines are more effective in the treatment of anxiety and sleeplessness than temazepam; what information and educational material is currently available to the general public concerning the ill effects of illegal
  255
  use of temazepam; to what degree this information is available; and if she will make a statement. [29247]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department has commissioned research on the impact of prescription drug leakage on the illicit drug market, including on the risk behaviours associated with injecting prescription drugs. It is due to be completed in late 1996.

  It is for doctors treating patients for anxiety and sleeplessness to decide which benzodiazepine, if any, would be the most effective for individual patients. Doctors have access to information about the effects of benzodiazepine prescribing in the British National Formulary, copies of which are in the Library. The Department issues this to all doctors free of charge.

  General information on the ill-effects of the misuse of benzodiazepines, including temazepam, is given in the leaflets "Drugs and Solvent Misuse—A Basic Briefing" and "Drugs and Solvents: Things You Should Know" which is targeted at young people. These are widely available and, together with similar leaflets produced for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, can be ordered free of charge through the national drugs helpline service, telephone 0800 77 66 00. Local health authorities and boards or other agencies may produce their own educational materials.

  The Mental Health Foundation booklet "Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Benzodiazepine Dependence", which contains information about the risks of benzodiazepines, drew attention to the potential for misuse of these drugs and for diversion of supplies to illicit markets. The booklet, copies of which are available in the Library, was circulated to all English family health services authorities in March 1994 under cover of a letter which gave Departmental endorsement to the guidelines and recommended their use by general practitioners wishing to help patients who may be dependent on benzodiazepines to shift gradually to non-prescribing interventions.

  The Department is considering what further advice should be issued to FHSAs on the powers they have to examine controlled drug prescribing and to clinicians on the prescribing of benzodiazepine and related drugs.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will take action to unfreeze the posts for speech therapists required for special education needs in Bootle. [29321]

  Mr. Malone
  This is a matter for Sefton health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. F. R. Ludlow, chairman of the health authority, for details.

  Residential Care Charges
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the treatment of occupational pensions by local authorities when the recipient enters residential accommodation leaving a spouse remaining in the community. [30505]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have been looking carefully and sympathetically at this issue. While our guidance to social services departments makes it clear that they can exercise 256
  discretion when applying the charging rules to care home residents with occupational pensions, they are not at present required to disregard a portion of that occupational pension in order to provide for a spouse remaining at home. We have now decided in principle that the local authority charging regulations should be amended so as to disregard half the occupational pension when a husband or wife enters a residential care or nursing home in order to help their spouse remaining at home. The Department will be consulting with the interested parties, including the local authority associations, about the details of implementing this proposal. At the same time, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will be taking forward a similar proposal in respect of people who were in residential care or nursing homes on 31 March 1993 and who have preserved rights to the higher levels of income support.

  Special Hospitals
  Sir Malcolm Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the future management of special hospitals. [30595]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have decided on a number of important changes in the organisation and funding of high security psychiatric services provided by the three special hospitals, Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton. Their purpose is to integrate special hospital services more closely with mainstream mental health services while fully maintaining the protection of the public, staff and patients themselves. They build on the substantial improvements in quality and effectiveness of services that have been achieved by the Special Hospitals Service Authority since it was set up in 1989.

  The changes take account of the recommendations of the expert group, chaired by Dr. John Reed CB, on high security and related psychiatric provision whose report was published in July 1994. I announced then that we were asking officials to examine further the group's recommendations and advise on what changes, if any, should be made in the funding, management and deployment of the services. In doing this, they were to pay particular regard to Ministers' obligations to maintain the security and quality of the services and to achieve value for money. The decisions I am announcing today have been taken in the light of this further advice.

  The key features of the new arrangements that we are introducing are:
  a national high security psychiatric services commissioning board within the NHS executive, which will be responsible for commissioning services provided by the special hospitals. It will advise and be accountable to Ministers through the chief executive of the national health service executive and include representation from NHS purchasers, the Welsh Office, Home Office, Prison Service and the present Special Hospitals Service Authority;
  the establishment of three new special health authorities which will be responsible for managing services provided by the special hospitals;
  the establishment of a co-ordinated structure of commissioning arrangements for secure psychiatric services from the special hospitals to those provided at local level.

  Further details are contained in a paper entitled "High Security Psychiatric Services—Changes in Funding and

  257
  Organisation" which is being published today, copies of which are available in the Library.

  This will bring high-security services much more closely into line with the arrangements for other NHS services through:

  separation of responsibility for commissioning and provision of high security services:
  This will extend to the special hospitals the benefits which have been achieved in the NHS generally through the separation of the purchasing and providing functions. The hospitals will concentrate on improving the quality and effectiveness of service delivery. The new commissioning board will be responsible for assessing national needs for psychiatric care in conditions of high security and contracting for services to meet those needs;

  local management for the three special hospitals:
  will give greater responsibility to the people who work in each hospital so that they are able to develop the organisation in ways that best meet the needs of their patients and respond quickly on day-to-day matters affecting patients and staff;

  better integration of high security services with other parts of the mental health services:
  will help to reduce, both for patients and staff, the isolation of the special hospitals and the impediment this presents to improving the quality and effectiveness of their services. This includes the removal of financial and organisational barriers which have tended to impede the movement of patients through services in accordance with their clinical and security needs. It will also allow freer movement of staff between the hospitals and other NHS employment. It will support the reshaping of existing patterns of services in accordance with assessed patients needs;

  direct involvement of local NHS health purchasers in commissioning high security services:
  will ensure that the needs of patients requiring high security are better understood and strategies to meet their continuing care needs are built into local mental health service development plans. This will help secure the most effective use of available resources to provide high- quality services at the level of security required.

  The new arrangements will take effect on 1 April 1996. At that point, the Special Hospitals Service Authority will cease to be responsible for the management of special hospital services and we intend to take the necessary steps to abolish it. I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the chairman, Mrs. Anne-Marie Nelson, her predecessor Dr. David Edmond, the members of the authority, and all its staff for the invaluable work that they have done in the past six years in improving and modernising the services of the special hospitals.

  The new arrangements will incorporate special provisions for funding, commissioning and regulation to maintain the degree of central oversight which is essential for high security services. The chief executive of the NHS executive is putting in hand the necessary preparatory work to enable the change to be implemented from April 1996.

  I recognise that the period of change will be a challenging one for the staff of the authority and the hospitals. The authority is arranging for there to be full discussion with staff and patients about the implications of the changes for them. I have complete confidence in their commitment and dedication to ensure that the quality of the service they provide is fully maintained as the changes proceed.
  258
  Our task now is to consolidate the authority's past successes and develop a service for the future which can respond to the full range of patients' needs, meet the aspirations and potential of staff and work effectively with other secure psychiatric services, while continuing to ensure the protection the wider public rightly expects. I believe that the changes I have announced today create the framework we need for achieving this.

  Appetite Suppressants
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to reduce the availability of appetite suppressant drugs. [29305]

  Mr. Sackville
  Proposals are being considered to limit the availability of appetite suppressants by way of an order under section 62 of the Medicines Act 1968 to situations in which there exists a clear medical need for such products. The Medicines Control Agency is currently consulting those with an interest in this subject on the form that such an order might take.

  Hip Replacements
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average cost in real terms of hip prostheses to the national health service in each of the last 12 years. [29300]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally.

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many sets of(a)twins, (b)triplets, (c)quadruplets, (d)quintuplets and (e)sextuplets were born in England in each year from 1990 to 1994; what was the total number of maternities in England in each year; how many multiple births were conceived as a result of (i) in vitro fertilisation, (ii) gamete intra-fallopian transfer and (iii) other forms of assisted conception; and if she will make a statement. [29529]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information on multiple and total maternities is shown in the table.

  England

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Twins

  7,537

  7,739

  7,883

  7,897

  8,014

  Triplets

  190

  201

  192

  225

  249

  Quadruplets

  9

  10

  8

  11

  8

  Quintuplets

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Sextuplets

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Septuplets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total number of maternities with multiple births

  7,736

  7,951

  8,084

  8,134

  8,271

  All maternities

  662,048

  655,703

  646,266

  631,710

  624,004

  The table excludes those maternities to mothers resident outside England and Wales.

  Figures relating to multiple births following assisted conception are contained in the Human Fertilisation and

  259
  Embryology Authority annual report, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Edgware General Hospital
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to visit Edgware general hospital in the near future; and if she will meet a deputation of local residents and medical staff during her visit. [29752]

  Mr. Malone
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to visit Edgware hospital at present.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make it her policy to review the proposed closure in April 1997 of Edgware general hospital accident and emergency unit when her Department receives medical evidence of up-to-date local requirements; [29753]

  (2) if she will list the replacement services for the local community to be undertaken by the relevant health authorities after the closure in April 1997 of the accident and emergency department of Edgware general hospital. [29751]

  Mr. Malone
  No. Barnet health authority has a duty to ensure that residents have a comprehensive health service meeting the full range of their needs effectively and safely. Edgware hospital's accident and emergency department will not close until alternative facilities are available and capable of providing an improved service to patients.

  A new minor accident treatment service is being established on the Edgware site and will provide modern and effective services for local residents. Full-scale accident and emergency services will be provided at the redeveloped Barnet hospital, as well as at Northwick Park and the Royal Free. A primary care investment fund, amounting to £17 million, has been established to improve family doctor and community services in the area.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what have been the annual costs of carrying out competitive tendering processes in the national health service since their introduction. [29705]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  General Practitioner Lists
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients(a) in each region and (b) in England were removed from general practitioners' lists in the latest available year; how many and what proportion of these were de-registered at the request of their GP; and how many patients in England were de-registered at the request of their GP in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [29700]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the removal of patients is available only for 1992–93, and I refer the hon. Member to the answer that the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), gave him on 20 July at columns 368–70.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the annual cost of carrying out market-testing processes in the national health service since their introduction. [29704]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Gorton Medical Centre
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her reply of 16 May,Official Report, column 167, with regard to Gorton medical centre, if she will state the latest position both with regard to the judgment of the High Court and with regard to financial assistance to improve the premises of the centre. [29969]

  Mr. Malone
  We are still considering the implications of the judgment of the High Court.

  Officials at Manchester family health services authority have recently received a copy of plans from the doctors at Gorton medical centre regarding the proposed work to improve their practice premises. The authority will now consider what financial assistance can be provided and the right hon. Member may wish to contact Professor Joan Higgins, chairman of Manchester FHSA, about future progress in this connection.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Treasury Counsel Fees
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 451, how much each Treasury counsel retained for civil work received in fees from public funds in 1994–95; of the Treasury counsel based at the central criminal court, how many received between (i) £250,000 to £300,000, (ii) £300,000 to £350,000, (iii) £350,000 to £400,000, (iv) £400,000 to £500,000, (v) in excess of £500,000 from the Crown Prosecution Service for financial year 1994–95. [29928]

  The Attorney-General
  The Treasury Solicitor's Department paid each of the two Treasury counsel retained for Government civil work between £200,000 and £250,000 in the financial year 1994–95. However, Treasury counsel will also have received fees from other Government Departments and agencies which have instructed them direct. The total fees paid to Treasury counsel from public funds could be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

  On the information currently available, of the Treasury counsel based at the central criminal court the following numbers received payments from the Crown Prosecution Service during the financial year 1994–95 in the following bands:

  Number

  (i) £250,000 to £300,000

  3

  (ii) £300,000 to £350,000

  1

  (iii) £350,000 to £400,000

  0

  (iv) £400,000 to £500,000

  1

  (v) in excess of £500,000

  1

  All figures are inclusive of value added tax.

TREASURY

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all areas within(a) his Department, (b) agencies under his Department's control and (c) organisations for which he has ministerial responsibility to which Crown immunity applies; what consideration he has given to removing this; and if he will make a statement. [28657]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: The reference to the Crown immunity in the question is taken to refer to legislation that does not bind the Crown. Certain legislation is expressly applied to the Crown. In most legislation, however, particularly older legislation, there is no such express provision. In those circumstances, whether legislation applies to the Crown will depend upon the implications to be drawn from the drafting and context of the legislation.

  Lloyd's
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his estimates of the(a) total tax assessed and (b) total tax refunded in respect of profits or losses made by the underwriting members of Lloyd's of London in each of the years since 1977–78. [28673]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: The available information is shown in the table, and covers (a) the total tax charged on initial assessments, including estimated assessments, made during each tax year on underwriting profits and gains and (b) the total of income tax and capital gains tax repaid to Lloyd's underwriters by the underwriters unit of Inland Revenue in each tax year, including any repayment supplement attracted by the tax refunded.

  £ million

  Tax year

  (a) Initial assessments

  (b) Repayments

  1977–78

  43.6

  not available

  1978–79

  53.0

  not available

  1979–80

  60.5

  not available

  1980–81

  72.1

  not available

  1981–82

  75.9

  not available

  1982–83

  96.3

  24.3

  1983–84

  146.9

  85.6

  1984–85

  153.5

  87.1

  1985–86

  182.7

  62.0

  1986–87

  204.0

  160.3

  1987–88

  152.5

  155.6

  1988–89

  157.3

  157.7

  1989–90

  308.9

  118.2

  1990–91

  228.2

  91.0

  1991–92

  101.8

  126.7

  1992–93

  10.3

  386.6

  1993–94

  3.7

  479.1

  1994–95

  8.9

  375.4

  BMARC
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the findings of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise will be presented to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury following its investigation into breaches of export control by BMARC. [29352]
  262
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: No.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the terms of the reference and subject matter of the HM Customs and Excise inquiry into BMARC. [29484]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Customs and Excise is an independent prosecuting authority of the Crown and conducts investigations to determine whether there is a basis for instituting criminal proceedings in relation to alleged breaches of, inter alia, statutory export and import controls.

  In that capacity, it is for the commissioners to determine the subject matter and extent of any investigation and, in relation to the BMARC allegations, the Department is actively following up information received.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last reviewed the threshold figure for the definition of proportionate cost in relation to parliamentary questions. [29362]

  Mr. Nelson
  The disproportionate cost threshold for answering written parliamentary questions was last reviewed in February 1995. I concluded that costs had not increased sufficiently since the previous review to warrant raising the threshold. The threshold continues to be £450.

  Public Sector
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his estimates of the(b) public sector's tangible assets, (b) public sector's net financial liabilities and (c) public sector's net worth for each year from 1970–71 to 1997–98 expressed in 1994 prices. [29890]

  Mr Aitken
  Table 12.12 in the Central Statistical Office Blue Book provides the information requested for 1984 up to 1993. Included within the table are the relevant CSO identifiers, providing the data as far back as is readily available, for each of (a),(b) and (c).

  Forecasts of the public sector's tangible assets and thus net worth are not available. However, forecasts of the public sector's net financial liabilities, as measured by "net public sector debt" were published in table 4.3 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96", revised tables. Table 6A.1 of the FSBR contains the necessary deflators to convert the figures into real terms.

  Budget
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to aim to run a balanced Budget over the cycle. [29898]

  Mr. Aitken
  The Government's fiscal objective is to bring the public sector borrowing requirement back towards balance over the medium term.

  Spirits
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumption about the price elasticity of demand for spirits was used by his Department in 1994
  263
  in consideration of altering the levels of domestic duty on spirits in the Budget. [29891]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Chancellor takes into account a wide range of factors when determining possible tax changes. The revenue implications are estimated using a computer model produced by the Institute of Fiscal Studies. That model has a wide range of both own and cross price elasticities for various categories of consumption. The own price elasticity for spirits is -1.07.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what change has taken place in the retail prices index between March 1979 and March 1995. [26364]

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested can be calculated from table 11 of the March 1995 edition of the "Business Monitor MM23 on Retail Prices Index", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Information Technology Contracts
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer on 12 June,Official Report, column 395, regarding contracts with EDS in respect of Government data, what arrangements exist to ensure the smooth, continuous running of the relevant systems in the event of a change of contractor, the appointment of a subcontractor or an unforeseen event or policy decision taken by the contractor; and what back-up arrangements are in place to ensure the continuous running of these systems. [29766]

  Sir George Young
  EDS has outsourcing contracts with the Inland Revenue, the Department of Social Security and the Department of Transport.

  There are provisions within the EDS contracts with those Government Departments, which cover the handover of work and resources at the end of the contract and which will ensure continuity of service. The provisions for handover apply equally to a transfer to another supplier or direct to the Department and they can be invoked even if the contract is terminated prematurely.

  Generating Company Shares
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he took into account section 164 of the Financial Services Act 1986 in determining whether or not to go ahead with the sale of National Power and PowerGen. [28816]

  Sir George Young
  Section 164 of the Financial Services Act 1986 has never been brought into force, but would in any case have applied only to unlisted securities. The shares of the generating companies were already listed.

  Alcohol Duty
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what forward projections he has made for the income from alcohol duty for each of the next 10 years. [29436]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Forecasts cover the short to medium term; and the last published set was in the revised 1995–96 "Financial Statement and Budget Report". After 264
  1995–96, figures presented combine income from excise duties on fuel, alcohol and tobacco. New estimates will be published by HM Treasury in the summer economic forecast at the end of June.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to meet representatives of the Licensed Victuallers Association to discuss the Government's policy on the harmonisation of alcohol duties across the EC. [29434]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Meetings are held regularly with trade organisations and other representatives of that industry.

  Manufactures (Exports)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect of the Government's monetary and exchange rate policies since 1979 on the UK share of exports of manufactures by the main manufacturing countries. [29442]

  Mr. Nelson
  The UK's share of exports of manufactures by the main manufacturing countries depends on a variety of factors, including competitiveness and export profitability. It is not possible to isolate with any confidence the effects stemming from monetary and exchange rate policies. However, the Government's commitment to deliver permanently low inflation will provide a stable climate within which British manufacturing can compete successfully, in both world and domestic markets.

  Alcohol Policy
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the EUROCARE report into alcohol policy across the European Union. [29433]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I await a copy of that report, which will then receive attention.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies his Department has carried out into the potential for using the reform of vehicle excise duty to encourage the sale and purchase of less-polluting vehicles. [29490]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The possibility of using vehicle excise duty to encourage the sale and purchase of less-polluting vehicles is kept under review. The policy of phased increases in fuel duty is, however, thought at present to be the most efficient way of curbing emissions from vehicles.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many notices have been issued to
  265
  carriers under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 in each quarter since March 1991. [29701]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The total number of notices issued in each quarter since March 1991 is as follows:

  Quarter ending

  Number of notices

  31 March 1991

  2,843

  30 June 1991

  2,759

  30 September 1991

  2,451

  30 December 1991

  2,031

  31 March 1992

  1,954

  30 June 1992

  1,605

  30 September 1992

  2,355

  31 December 1992

  2,197

  31 March 1993

  1,608

  30 June 1993

  1,663

  30 September 1993

  1,815

  31 December 1993

  1,819

  31 March 1994

  1,638

  30 June 1994

  1,605

  30 September 1994

  2,085

  31 December 1994

  2,011

  31 March 1995

  1,864

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total amount of liability incurred by all carriers under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987; and how much has been paid. [29703]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  A total of £79.770 million had been incurred to 31 May 1995. Of that sum, £45.861 million has been paid and £10.47 million waived following representations by carriers.

  Repatriation (Financial Assistance)
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to extend to British citizens born overseas who wish to return to their countries of origin the programme of financial assistance for repatriation already available to non-British citizens in similar circumstances. [29929]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Under section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971 the Government fund a small humanitarian programme that provides for limited assistance to be given to non-British citizens who wish to return to their countries of origin but who lack sufficient means to do so. British citizens born overseas who wish to return to their countries of origin to settle may, in certain circumstances, renounce their British citizenship, and become eligible to receive assistance from the programme.

  Asylum
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications were taken in; how many decision were made; what was the backlog of all work; what was the average cost per case; and what was the average output per staff day in each year since 1990. [29702]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is given in the table.
  266

  Decisions1 on applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1990 to 1994

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Asylum applications2

  26,205

  44,840

  24,605

  22,370

  32,830

  Decisions2 3

  4,025

  6,075

  34,900

  23,405

  20,990

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  920

  505

  1,115

  1,590

  825

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave to remain4

  2,400

  2,190

  15,325

  11,125

  3,660

  Total refused

  705

  3,380

  18,465

  10,690

  16,500

  Refused asylum and ELR—after full consideration

  705

  3,380

  2,675

  4,705

  12,655

  Refused under para 3405

  —

  —

  15,195

  5,240

  2,985

  Refused on safe third country grounds6

  —

  —

  595

  745

  865

  Applications outstanding at end of year7

  34,050

  72,070

  19,110

  45,805

  55,255

  Average cost per case8

  —

  —

  —

  £175

  £185

  Average output per staff day9

  —

  —

  —

  0.30

  0.25

  1 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5 with '—' = not available.

  2 Figures exclude information on applications made overseas.

  3 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same year.

  4 Usually granted for a year in the first instance, subject then to further review.

  5 For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period including failure to respond to invitation to interview to establish identity (para. 180F prior to 1 October 1994 and para. 101 prior to 26 July 1993).

  6 Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.

  7 Figures for 1991 and earlier years are maxima which may overstate. They are not directly comparable with figures for later years.

  8 Cost of asylum determination staff per initial asylum decision.

  9 Number of initial asylum decisions by the number of determination staff days worked.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to ensure that all people who request asylum upon arriving on the Eurostar train at Waterloo station are returned immediately. [29628]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  All such asylum applications are referred to the asylum division. In accordance with paragraph 345 of the Immigration Rules, claims may be refused without substantive consideration where there is a safe third country to which the applicant may be sent.

  Taxi Drivers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will exempt taxi drivers from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. [27954]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 13 June 1995]: We have no plans to do so.

  Firearms Fees
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the increase in firearms fees in each of the past five years in both cash and percentage terms; what is the justification for such levels of
  267
  increase; and if he will use his powers under section 55 of the Firearms Act 1968 to require chief officers of police forces to adopt models of best practice in the management of their firearms departments. [29741]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 20 June 1995]: The Government increased some of the fees that are payable under the firearms acts with effect from 1 January 1995. The cash and percentage increases are set out in the table. The previous change to those fees took effect on 1 June 1990.

  The fee levels are designed to reflect the cost to the police service of operating the firearms licensing system. They take account of the best practice guidelines for administering the system, which the Home Office issued to chief officers in 1991 and of a subsequent costing exercise undertaken by independent consultants.

  In calculating costs, we have assumed that police forces are already well on the way to operating best practice and will continue to make efficiency savings during the five-year period over which costs have been calculated. In the case of shotgun fees, the cost of additional checks made as a result of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 is reflected for the first time. In particular, on first application, the police will normally make a home visit to make sure that the requirement for safekeeping at all times will be satisfied.

  Without those increases, there would be a shortfall in income of some £8 million over the next five years to meet the police costs, a shortfall that would have to be met at the expense of some other police activity.

  My right hon. and learned Friend does not propose to use section 55 of the Firearms Act 1968 to require chief officers of police to adopt the best practice guidelines.

  1990 fee £

  1995 fee £

  Cash increase £

  Percentage increase

  Firearm certificate

  Issue

  46

  56

  10

  22

  Renewal

  46

  46

  —

  —

  Variation

  26

  26

  —

  —

  Replacement

  9

  9

  —

  —

  Shotgun certificate

  Issue

  17

  43

  26

  153

  Renewal

  11

  18

  7

  64

  Coterminous with firearm certificate

  5

  5

  —

  —

  Replacement

  8

  8

  —

  —

  Firearms dealers certificate

  Issue

  94

  118

  24

  26

  Renewal

  50

  50

  —

  —

  Register for game, fair, etc

  12

  12

  Visitors firearm permit

  Individual

  12

  12

  —

  —

  Group

  60

  60

  —

  —

  Home office approval of rifle and pistol clubs

  Issue and renewal

  33

  84

  51

  154

  268

  1990 fee £

  1995 fee £

  Cash increase £

  Percentage increase

  Museum firearms licence

  Issue and renewal

  1200

  1200

  —

  —

  1 Maximum.

  Fire Service
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning making motorists pay for rescue operations completed by the fire service. [29952]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  We have received no such representations.

  Prisoners (HIV and AIDS)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons have ceased to apply the policy of viral infectivity restrictions among prisoners with HIV or AIDS; if he will now rescind this policy; and if he will make a statement. [29718]

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

  Retail Staff
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance has been given by his Department to retail staff on reducing risk of assault by customers. [29199]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Retail Action Group, a sub-group of the National Board of Crime Prevention, is working to produce a series of crime prevention booklets for retailers: advice on the prevention of violence to retail staff is currently being prepared and will be published shortly. Booklets on the prevention of burglary and of robbery were launched in January, and advice on the prevention of customer theft, external fraud and staff dishonesty is also planned.

  The Home Department was represented on the Health and Safety Executive committee which in March 1995 published guidance giving practical information on how employers can prevent violence to retail staff in the workplace. The Home Department was also represented on the steering committee of the "Theftstop Initiative", which recently launched a training video on the prevention of shop theft. As research indicates that almost half the incidents of violence to retail staff occur when staff intervene to prevent theft, it is essential that staff are trained in preventive action that will not put them at risk.

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the dangers posed to retail staff by the introduction of the national lottery as a result of the increased amounts of money changing hands; and what representations he has received on the subject. [29200]

  Mr. Maclean
  Prior to the launch of the lottery, Camelot, in consultation with the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers, put together and
  269
  distributed advice to retailers on health and safety issues, including robbery. Lottery-related crime, including crime affecting retailers, is being monitored. My right hon. and learned Friend has received representations on the subject of violence against retailers from 13 Members of Parliament since the lottery was launched.

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many retail staff were(a) killed, (b) seriously injured as a result of attacks from customers and (c) physically assaulted by customers in each of the last five years. [29198]

  Mr. Maclean
  The official information available centrally does not enable a distinction of victims by occupation to be made. However, information on violence against staff in the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94 is contained in the British Retail Consortium publications "Retail Crime Costs: 1992–93 survey" and "Retail Crime Costs: 1993–94 survey", copies of which are held in the Library.

  Scotland Yard
  Mrs Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is putting in place to prevent further theft from Scotland Yard. [29069]

  Mr. Maclean
  Following the discovery in July 1994 of a serious fraud by a member of the Metropolitan police civilian staff, the receiver for the Metropolitan police district, with our agreement, appointed Mr. Wilfred Hyde, a former senior official in the Home Office, to undertake an independent review of financial procedures relating to confidentially funded police operations.

  The review found no evidence of any further fraud or weaknesses parallel to those in the particular arrangements that led to the fraud. Mr. Hyde made a number of recommendations for improving the systems of financial control for confidentially funded operations, which have been accepted in full and are being implemented.

  We stand ready to consider any recommendations that the Public Accounts Committee may make following its hearing on 14 June of this and related matters.

  Life Sentence Prisoners
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the outcome of his review of the sentences on Abdul Qayyum Raja and Mohammed Riaz. [29193]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Written representations have recently been received on behalf of both those mandatory life sentence prisoners. I expect to receive further representation shortly. Thereafter, the reconsideration of the period to be served for retribution and deterrence in each case—the tariff—will be completed as soon as possible.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present waiting time for cases to be heard by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; and if he will make a statement. [28983]
  270
  Mr. Maclean
  The board advises that information on the present waiting time for cases to be heard is not available. However, some information about the time taken to reach decisions on cases and the time taken to resolve hearings applications is given at paragraphs 3.12 and 4.14 of the board's 30th annual report, Cm 2849, copies of which are held in the Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  Privatisation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those parts of his Department or departmental agencies which were privatised without an in-house bid taking place; which future parts of his Department or departmental agencies he intends to privatise; and which of them do not have the necessary in-house expertise to mount an in-house bid. [29413]

  The Prime Minister
  For this purpose, my Department is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science on 20 June,Official Report, column 220.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those parts of his Department or departmental agencies which were privatised without an in-house bid; if he will indicate the expertise which was absent in his Department or departmental agencies which prevented an in-house bid taking place; which future parts of his Department or departmental agencies he intends to privatise; and which of them do not have the necessary in-house expertise to mount an in-house bid. [29422]

  Mr. Horam
  Those parts of the work of the Cabinet Office—OPSS—its agencies, HMSO and COI which have been contracted-out without an in-house bid are as follows:

  Central OPSS

  Consortium Reports

  Publishing and print Procurement Service

  CCTA

  GTN (Long-Distance)

  Chessington

  UNISON (Phase 1)

  CS College

  Prospectus Distribution

  RAS

  Catering Services

  Cleaning Services

  IT Hardware Maintenance

  IT Software Support Services

  HMSO

  Print Order Processing System

  Software Development: Business Supplies

  Software Development: Finance

  COI

  Videotext Unit

  The Cabinet Office, its agencies, HMSO and COI have contracted-out activities without inviting in-house bids where it has been judged that the private sector is clearly better equipped to deliver a specific service, has a better

  271
  understanding of market needs, or the capacity to invest in new technology. Other decisions to contract-out services without inviting in-house bids have been taken where an activity is relatively small and peripheral to the Department's functions.

  There are no current plans to contract-out any activities within the Cabinet Office, its agencies, HMSO and COI without inviting an in-house bid.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers), 12 June,Official Report, column 373, if he will set out the reason for declining to give details of the dates of letters sent from his office to the Scott inquiry. [29158]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government do not propose to disclose details of confidential exchanges with the Scott inquiry.

  Former Prisoners of War
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to approach the Japanese Government to secure new compensation for British prisoners of war held by the Japanese. [29303]

  The Prime Minister
  We are precluded on legal grounds from raising the question of compensation formally with the Japanese Government. I have drawn their attention to the strong feelings which the situation of the former prisoners arouses in the UK. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary most recently discussed the matter with his Japanese counterpart at the G7 summit in Halifax on 16 June.

  Ministerial Speeches
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the total annual cost to public funds of publishing every Minister's speeches. [29866]

  The Prime Minister
  It is usual practice for ministerial speeches made on official occasions to be published and distributed to the press by the relevant departmental press office. The cost is not separately identified in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

WALES

  Privatisation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those parts of his Department or departmental agencies which were privatised without an in-house bid; if he will indicate the expertise that was absent in his Department or departmental agencies which prevented an in-house bid taking place; which future parts of his Department or departmental agencies he intends to privatise; and which of them do not have the necessary in-house expertise to mount an in-house bid. [29430]

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department has strategically contracted out architects and surveyors services, an activity identified as peripheral to its core functions but 272
  one which the private sector specialises in and is well equipped to deliver.

  The Department and its agency, CADW, have not yet identified any other existing activities as appropriate for contracting out without an in-house bid.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in the "Too Old, Who Says?" campaign in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [29511]

  Mr. Richards
  The campaign is being taken forward by the Employment Department. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on 13 June 1995,Official Report, column 443, by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment. To compete successfully, employers in Wales must be ready to take full advantage of the skills, reliability, experience and commitment that older people have to offer. It is in employers' best interest to treat people on their merits, regardless of their age.

  Pupil Numbers
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) primary and (b) secondary school pupils there were in each local education authority in (a) 1990 and (b) 1994. [29323]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is shown in the following tables:

  Full-time equivalent pupil numbers at January each year in:

  1990

  1994

  LEA maintained schools

  Grant maintained schools

  LEA maintained schools

  Grant maintained schools

  (a) Primary schools

  Clwyd

  37,208

  —

  37,957

  450

  Dyfed

  31,853

  —

  31,567

  —

  Gwent

  41,499

  —

  43,576

  216

  Gwynedd

  19,868

  —

  19,426

  254

  Mid Glamorgan

  54,892

  —

  56,814

  —

  Powys

  10,361

  —

  10,661

  27

  South Glamorgan

  35,599

  —

  39,472

  —

  West Glamorgan

  34,463

  —

  35,242

  —

  Wales

  265,743

  —

  274,715

  947

  (b) Secondary schools

  Clwyd

  26,487

  —

  23,195

  3,558

  Dyfed

  23,182

  —

  24,571

  —

  Gwent

  28,222

  —

  28,517

  1,485

  Gwynedd

  15,849

  —

  15,318

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  36,161

  —

  38,590

  —

  Powys

  7,814

  —

  7,927

  —

  South Glamorgan

  25,743

  —

  24,867

  2,497

  West Glamorgan

  22,565

  —

  22,909

  967

  Wales

  185,723

  —

  185,894

  8,507

  Source: Schools census.

  A-level Results
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average A-level point score of students embarking on first degrees at Welsh higher education institutions in(a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92, (c) 1992–93 and (d) 1993–94; and if he will make a statement. [29045]

  Mr. Richards
  Information is not readily available for the university of Wales or the Open university. Information on the average A-level point score of students on the first year of the first degree course at Welsh higher education institutions other than the university of Wales is shown in the following table:

  First-year first degree students whose qualification on entry was "A" level at Welsh higher education institutions1

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  21993–94

  Total first year students

  3,535

  4,537

  6,297

  6,506

  Number of students with A-level on entry

  2,222

  2,614

  3,420

  3,245

  Average A-level score3

  10.3

  10.5

  10.4

  11.0

  1 At November, excluding university of Wales and Open university.

  2 Data provisional pending publication.

  3Average score for those with A-level on entry.

  Small and Medium-Sized Businesses
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is his Department's definition of a small business and a medium-sized business; [29574]

  (2) in which sectors of the economy (a) small businesses and (b) medium-sized businesses are predominantly to be found. [29577]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There is a wide range of definitions of small and medium-sized businesses used in practice, each valid in its own context. For example, the annual small firms merit award for research competition is aimed at businesses with up to 50 employees, whereas eligibility for the small firms loan guarantee scheme is determined by both turnover and employee numbers, the thresholds for which vary from sector to sector. Data on the number of VAT-based enterprises in Wales by industry and turnover sizeband are published in table 3E of Business Monitor PA1003 which is published annually by the Central Statistical Office. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many people were employed by(a) small businesses and (b) medium-sized businesses in each of the last 10 years; and if he will break these figures down by gender; [29576]

  (2) how many (a) small businesses and (b) medium-sized businesses were started up in each of the last 10 years; and if he will break these figures down by gender of the entrepreneur. [29575]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There is no single official definition of a small or medium-sized business. However, data are available for Wales for 1984, 1987, 1989 and 1991 on the number of persons employed in census of employment data units, which roughly correspond to workplaces, broken down by size of employment. While comprehensive information on the number of business start-ups in Wales is not available, a good guide to trends 274
  in business start-ups is given by the number of new registrations for VAT. Data are available on the number of VAT registrations in Wales, for each year 1980 to 1993. The vast majority of VAT registrations are for small firms. All these data can be obtained from the NOMIS database through the Library of the House. Information by gender is not available.

  Women in Business
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what initiatives his Department has to assist and encourage women who want to start their own businesses; and how the success of any initiative is monitored and assessed. [29573]

  Mr. Richards
  The business start-up scheme, operated through the training and enterprise councils, is available to all unemployed people wishing to start their own business. The scheme is monitored by the Welsh Office on a quarterly basis.

  In addition, all TECs have equal opportunities policies supported by specific projects where appropriate. They are monitored by the TECs and through the annual Welsh Office/TEC business planning process.

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sets of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and (e) sextuplets were born in Wales in each year from 1990 to 1994; what was the total number of maternities in Wales in each year; and how many multiple births of each type in each year were conceived as a result of (i) in-vitro fertilisation, (ii) gamete intrafallopian transfer and (iii) other forms of assisted conception; and if he will make a statement. [29531]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested on multiple and total maternities registered in England and Wales, for residents of Wales is as follows:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Twins

  397

  416

  423

  399

  431

  Triplets

  11

  6

  8

  8

  11

  Quadruplets

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Quintuplets

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Sextuplets

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All maternities

  38,624

  37,824

  37,237

  36,375

  35,122

  Figures relating to multiple births following assisted conception are available only for the United Kingdom as a whole and are contained in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority annual reports, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Indonesian Police
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 5 May,Official Report, column 337, if he will name the Indonesian police officer trained by his Department who is serving with the Brigade Mobile. [28907]
  275
  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: Mr. Medhy Chumaedi.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what scholarships, awards or other forms of training paid for by his Department have been received by Gorrys Mere of the Indonesian national police; and when, for how long and at what cost they were provided. [28905]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: We have no record of having paid for any training for Lieutenant Colonel Gorrys Mere.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what formal training the British consultants working in the Indonesian national police under the police management training project have had in human rights law; and to what extent the advice and training provided by the consultants involves specific advice and training in human rights law. [28901]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: The consultants have had no formal training in human rights law and they have not provided any specific advice under the project on it.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what scheme scholarship awards for Indonesian police officers are funded; what is the nature of the training provided by the scholarships; who provides the training; and to what extent the training involves formal instruction in human rights law. [28903]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: Scholarship awards are funded under the technical co-operation programme and the Chevening scholarship scheme. The training provided includes courses on personnel management, business administration, training management, organisation development, leadership, training for trainers, and attachments to UK police forces. The training has been provided by British universities, RIPA International and Surrey and Gloucestershire constabulary. It does not include formal instruction in human rights law.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what scheme study tours for Indonesian police officers are funded; what is the nature of the study involved; and to what extent the study involves the formal instruction in human rights law. [28902]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: Study tours for Indonesian police officers are funded from the technical co-operation programme. They develop the trainees' diagnostic skills to analyse management and organisation problems. The study tours do not include formal instruction in human rights law.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date the Government agreed to fund the police management training project in Indonesia; and on what date the project commenced. [28904]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: We approved the national police management training project on 22 March 1990 and it began on 16 June 1990. Earlier support for the training of police tutors began in 1983.

  Children's Centre, Sri Lanka
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what British financial or other support is provided to the International Childcare Trust training and children's centre at Makandura Gonawila in Sri Lanka. [29243]

  Mr. Baldry
  Since 1993 we have provided £10,000 for the completion of an irrigation well and installation of an irrigation system, and £68,000 towards two shanty development programmes.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Sri Lanka to prevent the eviction of the International Childcare Trust training and children's centre from its property at Makandura, Gonawila, Sri Lanka. [29244]

  Mr. Baldry
  The British high commissioner in Colombo wrote to the additional secretary of the district where Makandura is situated on 2 June 1995 expressing concern about the request to vacate the property. The matter has also been brought to the attention of the President of Sri Lanka and is now in the hands of the permanent secretary to the Ministry of Health, Highways and Social Services.

  Population Control Projects
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of IPPF and UNFPA evaluation and review reports on their projects in China and Tibet sent to his Department. [28951]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: The United Nations Population Fund and the International Planned Parenthood Federation undertake reviews and evaluations of their country programmes. These are internal documents which are not made publicly available.

  Georgia
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals hehas to extend the use of the know-how fund in Georgia. [29301]

  Mr. Baldry
  The size of the know-how fund programme for Georgia has recently been doubled. The fund will continue to provide rapid and flexible assistance to the reform process in Georgia. We have also provided emergency humanitarian assistance—£500,000 in 1994–95. This support is very much welcomed by Georgia.

  East Timor
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, column 58, how many of the lighthouses, lightbeacons and lightbouys supplied under the navigational aids project with Indonesia are operating in East Timor or in its territorial waters. [29456]
  277
  Mr. Baldry
  None of the equipment supplied under the navigational aids project is located in East Timor or its waters.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the ODA spent on research and development in each year since 1987. [29863]

  Mr. Baldry
  Net ODA expenditure on research and development was as follows:

  £ million

  1987–88

  32.5

  1988–89

  34.2

  1989–90

  36.2

  1990–91

  47.1

  1991–92

  56.0

  1992–93

  86.7

  1993–94

  116.0

  1994–95 (estimated outturn)

  91.8

  Slovakia
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals he has to extend the work of the know-how fund in Slovakia. [29298]

  Mr. Baldry
  Know-how fund assistance in Slovakia will continue to focus on financial services and banking; management and educational training; small and medium enterprise development; good governance and public administration.

  An important element of our strategy is to extend the work of the know-how fund beyond Bratislava to the regions. The first phase of a three-year multi-sectoral regional capacity building project will begin in July 1995 and terms of reference for a rural tourism initiative in the Gemer region of eastern Slovakia are being drawn up. We continue to support the development of economic regeneration strategies through the local authorities technical links scheme and through an on-going project aimed at local government reform. Know-how fund assistance will also begin to reflect Slovakia's wish to join the European Union.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 23 May to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway),Official Report, column 563, how many people in full-time employment in the United Kingdom earn less than the minimum hourly wage rates in (a) Portugal, (b) Greece and (c) Spain. [26980]

    Mr. Oppenheim
    Of a sample of 102,700 full-time employees in the 1994 new earnings survey, 53 in the sample said that they earned less than £1.30 per hour, Portugal; 184 earned less than £1.70 per hour, Greece; and 233 earned less than £1.80 per hour, Spain.

    Restart Interviews
    Mr. Frank Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list the numbers leaving restart interviews, as an actual number and as a percentage of total leavers, for each year of its operation stipulating those who went into work, those who went into further employment schemes and those who become unemployed, and, of these, if he will list the type and level of qualification each leaver obtained, including those who failed to obtain any qualification at all; [27509]

    (2) if he will list the numbers attending and leaving restart interviews, for each year of their operation. [27519]

    Miss Widdecombe
    Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

    Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Frank Field, dated 21 June 1995:
    The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about the number of people attending Restart Interviews for each year of operation and the numbers who went into employment schemes.
    I have set out the information you have requested in the attached tables. Restart interviews do not lead directly to qualifications, although they do lead to opportunities such as Training for Work which provide qualifications. Nor do they have "leavers" in the way that our programmes do.
    It may also be helpful if I explain the scope and purpose of the Restart interviews which are offered at regular six monthly intervals as part of a comprehensive advisory and information service aimed at helping people back into work. These interviews provide clients with the opportunity to discuss with an Employment Service (ES) Client Adviser, the steps they are taking to find work, how to access the employment and training opportunities that are available to them, and the course of action which, if followed, will offer the best prospects of returning to work.
    I should emphasise that the figures quoted in the tables represent only the immediate result of Restart interviews. However, the real measure of the effectiveness of these interviews lies in their longer term effects. Many people subsequently take up a job or a place on an employment or training programme as a result of the guidance given to them at their interview. Independent researchers who have studied the Restart Interview programme have concluded that this indirect effect is extremely significant. For example, a study published by the Policy Studies Institute in August 1992, "The Restart Effect", found that the difference made by Restart in influencing the time people took to leave unemployment was about the same as the difference between being qualified or not qualified, fit or in poor health, in a favourable or unfavourable labour market.
    I hope this is helpful.

    1988–89

    Total

    As percentage of total interviews

    Total restart interviews

    2,053,580

    —

    Job placings

    12,367

    0.6

    Programmes starts1

    270,381

    13.1

    1 Jobclub. Enterprise Allowance Scheme.

    Employment Training.

    Job Training Scheme.

    Community Programme.

    Voluntary Project Programme.
    279

    1989–90

    Total

    As percentage of total interviews

    Total restart interviews

    2,032,633

    —

    Job placings

    18,439

    0.9

    Programmes starts1

    261,347

    12.9

    1 Jobclub. Enterprise Allowance Scheme.

    Restart Course.

    Employment Training.

    1990–91

    Total

    As percentage of total interviews

    Total restart interviews

    1,888,378

    —

    Job placings

    19,066

    1.0

    Programmes starts1

    192,763

    10.2

    1 Jobclub. Enterprise Allowance Scheme.

    Restart Course.

    Employment Training.

    1991–92

    Total

    As percentage of total interviews

    Total restart interviews

    2,495,940

    —

    Job placings

    21,185

    0.8

    Programmes starts1

    343,004

    13.7

    1 Jobclub. Enterprise Allowance Scheme.

    Restart Course.

    Employment Training.

    Job Review Workshop.

    Employment Action.

    Job Interview Guarantee.

    1991–92

    Total

    As percentage of total interviews

    Total restart interviews

    2,818,281

    —

    Job placings

    33,272

    1.2

    Programmes starts1

    397,035

    14.1

    1 Jobclub. Enterprise Allowance Scheme.

    Restart Course.

    Employment Training.

    Job Review Workshop.

    Employment Action.

    Job Interview Guarantee.

    Job Search Seminar.

    1993–94

    Total

    As percentage of total interviews

    Total restart interviews

    3,324,141

    —

    Job placings

    35,884

    1.1

    Programmes starts1

    731,840

    22.0

    1 Jobclub. Restart Course.

    Training for Work.

    Learning for Work.

    Jobplan.

    Job Review Workshop.

    Job Search Seminar.

    Community Action.

    Job Interview Guarantee.

    Business Start-Up.
    280

    1994–95

    Total

    As percentage of total interviews

    Total restart interviews

    3,758,593

    —

    Job placings

    49,493

    1.3

    Programmes starts1

    901,832

    24.0

    1 Jobclub. Business Start-Up.

    Restart Course.

    Training for Work.

    Community Action.

    Learning For Work.

    Job Interview Guarantee.

    Work Trial.

    Job Search Seminar.

    Jobplan.

    Job Review Workshop.

    Workwise.

    Travel-to-work Areas
    Sir David Madel
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest position about changes in the boundaries of travel-to-work areas; and if he will make a statement. [28854]

    Mr. Portillo
    [holding answer 15 June 1995]: I do not intend to make changes to the boundaries of travel-to-work areas.

    Occupational Disease
    Mr. Ian McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the article on diagnosing and managing occupational disease, a copy of which has been sent to him, with special reference to the employment medical advisory service. [29185]

    Mr. Oppenheim
    The Health and Safety Executive is conducting a prior options feasibility study of the employment medical advisory service. Such studies consider how best value for money can be obtained from available resources. The results of the EMAS study, on which the article speculates, have yet to be finalised. The HSE gives high priority to occupational health, and EMAS staff continue to be available to provide advice to family practitioners.

    Health and Safety Executive
    Mr. Ian McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on how the Government are ensuring that ILO convention No. 81 (1947) is applied consistently in the Health and Safety Executive's market-testing and contracting-out programme. [29227]

    Mr. Oppenheim
    ILO convention No. 81 (1947) concerns the provision of labour inspection in industrial and commercial workplaces. The Government have decided that the Health and Safety Executive's inspection and enforcement functions will not be subjected to market testing or contracting out and therefore the convention is not relevant.
    281
    Mr. Ian McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money has been spent to date onundertaking the current review of the Health and Safety Executive's field operations division; and what he expects the final cost will be. [29215]

    Mr. Oppenheim
    To date, the cost of the Health and Safety Executive's field operations division management arrangements feasibility study is estimated at £30,000 plus the time spent on staff consultation, which cannot readily be measured.

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average frequency of visits by Health and Safety Executive inspectors to(a) high-risk premises and (b) low-risk premises. [29221]

    Mr. Oppenheim
    The Health and Safety Executive does not specifically identify high-risk and low-risk premises, nor does it base its inspection programme on frequency. Although years elapsed since the previous inspection are one consideration in determining inspection priorities, more account is taken of the degree of hazard and risk posed to employees and the public.

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many premises will be transferred from the Health and Safety Executive's SHIELD computer system to the new FOCUS system. [29213]

    Mr. Oppenheim
    Approximately 445,000 premises' records were transferred from SHIELD to FOCUS. Each record represented one employer working at or from one fixed workplace. In the transfer process, those were split into separate employer and location records. At the start of FOCUS, there were approximately 343,000 employers registered, identified as working at approximately 420,000 locations.

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much it will cost to equip and train field inspectors, and other staff, at the Health and Safety Executive's Cardiff office to use portable computers; and from what budget these costs are to be met. [29217]

    Mr. Oppenheim
    The hardware and software cost of providing staff in Cardiff with portable computers is £163,000 excluding VAT, met from a central Health and Safety Executive information technology budget. The cost of training those staff to use portable computers is £13,400—there is no VAT on this service—met from a training budget held by the HSE's field operations division.

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total loss of experience in staffing years to Health and Safety Executive(a) factory inspectors in area offices, (b) agricultural inspectors in area offices, (c) doctors in area offices and (d) nurses in area offices as a result of the recent early retirement scheme. [29208]

    Mr. Oppenheim
    Total loss of experience in staffing years is shown in the table:
    282

    Total loss of experience in HSE Area Offices as a result of <pathe recent Early Retirement Scheme

    Grade

    Total staffing years

    (a) Factory inspectors

    476

    (b) Agricultural inspectors

    55

    (c) Doctors

    119

    (d) Nurses

    41

    Total

    691

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place in the Library(a) the Health and Safety Executive's management arrangements feasibility study report and its implementation plan and (b) the Health and Safety Executive's employment medical advisory service feasibility study. [29224]

    Mr. Oppenheim
    No. The documents represent internal management advice to the Health and Safety Executive and commission and will not be placed in the Library.

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what exceptions exist to the Health and Safety Executive's policy that all workplaces should be visited by an inspector over a period of time; and what policy changes are planned. [29220]

    Mr. Oppenheim
    Since 1977 preventive inspections by the Health and Safety Executive's field operations division have been prioritised on the basis of an inspection rating system. The inspection rating system is currently being refined. The refined system will come into use shortly.

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many premises were registered on the health and Safety Executive's SHIELD computer system in each area office on(a) April 1992, (b) 1 April 1993 and (c) 1 April 1994. [29212]

    Mr. Oppenheim
    The number of premises registered on SHIELD in each area office on the specified dates is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which industrial or work sectors will not be visited on a preventive inspection basis by a Health and Safety Executive inspector after 1 August. [29216]

    Mr. Oppenheim
    No industrial or work sectors are excluded from preventive inspection. The Health and Safety Executive's field operations division aims to ensure that contact with duty holders is proportionate to the hazard and risk at any organisation, and focuses its inspection effort on higher-risk premises. Low-hazard, low-risk premises are contacted in the main by other non-inspection techniques, but inspectors retain discretion to inspect where necessary, and investigate accidents and complaints in accordance with HSE policy.

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage reduction in the Health and Safety Executive staffing levels of(a) factory inspectors in area offices, (b) agricultural inspectors in area offices, (c) doctors in area offices, (d) nurses in area offices, and (e) specialist staff in policy divisions as a result of the recent early retirement scheme. [29222]
    283
    Mr. Oppenheim
    The percentage reduction of staffing levels as a result of the recent early retirement scheme is shown in the table:

    Grade

    Reduction in staffing levels as percentage of staff employed in the grade

    (a) Factory inspectors

    4.1

    (b) Agricultural inspectors

    1.9

    (c) Doctors

    22.2

    (d) Nurses

    11.5

    (e) Specialist staff in policy divisions

    6.9

    Workplace Accidents
    Mr. McFall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the statutory obligations on employers to report accidents and injuries involving their employees to his Department; and what plans he has to change these arrangements. [29074]

    Mr. Oppenheim
    The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985— RIDDOR—require employers to notify the enforcing authority, for the purposes of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, in the event of an accident at work to any employee resulting in a fatality or major injury forthwith. Accidents at work to employees resulting in an absence of more than three days must be reported within seven days. Separate reporting arrangements currently apply offshore and on the railways.

    Financial year

    With compensation

    No compensation

    Total

    1991–92

    10

    19

    29

    1992–93

    21

    31

    52

    1993_94

    9

    39

    48

    1994–95

    9

    34

    43

    Total

    49

    123

    172

    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of his Department's civil servants are now based in central London. [29648]

    Miss Widdecombe
    Ten per cent. of staff in the Employment Department group are based in central London.

    Employees in food manufacturing in Great Britain (Not seasonally adjusted)

    Thousands

    Region

    September 1991

    September 1993

    September 1994

    March 1995

    Rest of South East

    44

    39

    40

    42

    Greater London

    30

    28

    28

    26

    East Anglia

    31

    32

    33

    31

    South West

    33

    28

    30

    28

    West Midlands

    38

    27

    27

    28

    East Midlands

    46

    46

    46

    46

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    66

    63

    59

    56

    North West

    60

    60

    60

    55

    284
    The Health and Safety Commission published a consultative document last year containing proposals to update the regulations, incorporating all onshore and offshore reporting requirements. New regulations should be laid later this year.

    Civil Servants
    Mr. Milburn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 2 May, Official Report, column 145, if he will provide comparable details on civil service early retirement packages on grounds of inefficiency. [29292]

    Miss Widdecombe
    [holding answer 19 June 1995]: Inefficiency is a ground for dismissal rather than early retirement. In some circumstances, usually where the inefficiency is deemed not to be the fault of the individual, a lump sum payment of up to two years' salary may be made. Where compensation is agreed and the person dismissed is over age 55, that may be forgone in favour of immediate payment of the accrued superannuation benefits that would otherwise be preserved for payment at retiring age.

    Information is readily available for only the last four financial years, during which there have been 172 departures on inefficiency grounds from the Department. Details of the individual payments made could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, but the number of dismissals on inefficiency showing whether or not compensation was paid is given in the table:

    Food Manufacturing
    Mr. Cummings
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in the food manufacturing industry in each region in each of the last five years. [29356]

    Mr. Oppenheim
    The available information is shown in the table:
    285

    Employees in food manufacturing in Great Britain (Not seasonally adjusted)

    Thousands

    Region

    September 1991

    September 1993

    September 1994

    March 1995

    North

    23

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    Wales

    20

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    Scotland

    46

    46

    44

    42

    Notes:

    1. Figures are not given for the North region or for Wales as sample size is too small for reliable estimates.

    2. Food manufacture is defined by the groups 411–423 of the Standard Industrial Classification 1980 (SIC 80).

    Source:

    September 1991: Census of Employment.

    September 1993, September 1994 and March 1995: Workforce in Employment series.

    Privatisation
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those parts of his Department or departmental agencies which were privatised without an in-house bid; if he will indicate the expertise which was absent in his Department or departmental agencies which prevented an in-house bid taking place; which future parts of his Department or departmental agencies he intends to privatise; and which of them do not have the necessary in-house expertise to mount an in-house bid. [29429]

    Miss Widdecombe
    Under the Government's "Competing for Quality" programme for 1992–94, the following activities within the Employment Department group were contracted out without an in-house bid:

    Employment department

    The Field System

    Training and Enterprise Council National Providers Unit

    Employment service

    Travel services

    Forms supply/distribution

    Employment rehabilitation courses

    Financial management training

    Field staff training (First aid)

    Building maintenance and new works

    Health and safety executive

    Graphics services

    Estates management

    Distribution of publications

    Field support (Norwich)

    For 1994–95, the following activities are due to be contracted out without an in-house bid:

    Employment department

    Staff development (support services)

    Employment service

    Warehousing

    Health and safety executive

    Scientific management and on-site sampling and analysis

    Analysis of chemical substances

    Accident coding

    Staff training

    Advice helpline

    Dosimetry services

    286
    The decision to contract out without an in-house bid was taken in each case in the light of a range of considerations. Information about the extent to which the availability of in-house expertise was a relevant factor in each case could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Jobseeker's Allowance
    Mr. Rooney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if unemployed persons receiving benefit who join non-schedule 2 further education courses not funded by the Further Education Funding Council will be allowed to participate for up to 21 hours per week in such courses without prejudice to benefit entitlement when the jobseeker's allowance is introduced. [29478]

    Miss Widdecombe
    [holding answer 19 June 1995:]: As now, people studying full time will not be able to claim jobseeker's allowance. Those studying part time will, however, be able to claim JSA, provided they remain available for and actively seeking employment. For courses funded by the Further Education Funding Council, where there is no longer a clear distinction between full and part-time courses, the threshold below which courses will be considered to be part time will be 16 guided learning hours per week. The rules for courses that are not funded by the Further Education Funding Council, including non-scheduled 2 courses, will remain unchanged.

    Mr. Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimated reduction of unemployment figures(a) immediately following the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance, (b) six months following the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance and (c) one year following the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. [29920]

    Miss Widdecombe
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) on 8 December 1994,Official Report, column 342. It is too early to say exactly when any effect of the jobseeker's allowance on the claimant count will become apparent.

    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about his staff implementing aspects of the jobseeker's allowance's procedure in advance of its implementation. [29715]

    Miss Widdecombe
    None. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been asked a number of questions by the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) relating to whether various provisions of the jobseeker's allowance might be introduced in advance
    287
    of the date of implementation. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, North on 6 June, Official Report, column 102.

    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the training process for staff in respect of the planned jobseekers allowance; and how long the training will take. [29716]

    Miss Widdecombe
    A variety of modular training courses, based on a detailed analysis of training needs, is being developed for staff who are to deliver jobseeker's allowance, depending on the duties they are to perform. We recently commissioned an external review of the arrangements being made to implement JSA. In the light of the findings of that review, and the decision to defer the implementation of JSA, the timing, length and content of the training proposed are now being reviewed, to ensure that it is adequate, appropriate and effectively targeted. All the training needed to ensure that JSA is delivered effectively will, however, take place before October 1996.

    Mr. Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimated reduction he has made of the unemployment figures following the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance(a) nationally and (b) in Nottinghamshire. [29919]

    Miss Widdecombe
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) on 8 December 1994,Official Report, column 342. No estimates have been made below national level.

    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the cost of installing the new computer system for the jobseeker's allowance. [29728]

    Miss Widdecome
    A jobseeker's allowance payments system is being developed to pay jobseeker's allowance, by girocheque or automated credit transfer, at an implementation cost of around £40 million to March 1997. Further releases of software to enhance the system are already planned for 1997–98 at a cost of around £11 million.

    In addition, the delivery of JSA will be supported by a labour market system. The Employment Service has been developing the LMS for some time to replace the existing computer systems in ES jobcentres, which support vacancy filling and advisory work. The implementation cost of the LMS is around £70 million.

    European Commission Expert Group
    Mr. Battle
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade who on behalf of the United Kingdom Government attended the European Commission's expert group on the social aspects of the information society meeting held on Thursday 18 May; and if he will make a statement. [29862]

    Miss Widdecombe
    I have been asked to reply.

    The members of the Commission's "High Level Group of Experts on the Social and Societal Aspects of the Information Society" were selected and appointed by the European Commission itself and are not in any sense representatives of member state Governments.

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mr. Milburn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what procedures exist to register conflicts of interest declared by training and enterprise council board directors; and how many such matters have been notified to his Department. [29667]

    Mr. Paice
    [holding answer 20 June 1995]: The Department's contract with training and enterprise councils requires that a register of declared interests of both TEC directors and employees is maintained, detailing the nature and extent of such interest. The register is available for inspection by representatives of the Department at any reasonable time. Formal notification to the Department is not required.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Rowe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs have been created in the United Kingdom by(a) direct investment from within the EU and (b) direct investment from elsewhere and how many secondary to (a) and (b). [29007]

    Mr. Eggar
    I have been asked to reply.

    Between 1979–80 and 1993–94, the last year for which figures are available, inward investment projects from within the EU, notified to the Invest in Britain Bureau, were expected to create nearly 51,000 new jobs and safeguard over 130,000 existing jobs. Over the same period, projects from outside the EU were expected to create over 229,000 jobs and safeguard nearly 228,000 existing jobs. No estimate has been made of the number of secondary jobs associated with those projects, although benefits to other UK-based companies will occur through the supplier chain. A study published in 1991, based on a sample of inward investors, estimated that those investors had bought over 50 per cent. of their capital equipment within the UK.

    Those figures are based on information provided by companies themselves at the time of the decision to invest and take no account of subsequent developments. Companies are under no obligation to notify investment decisions to the Department and the figures are therefore based only on projects that have come to the attention of the Department's Invest in Britain Bureau.

  DEFENCE

    Scott Inquiry
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has been requested by Lord Justice Scott to provide information on the role played by the Saudi Monetary Agency in funding the export of British military equipment. [28997]

    Mr. Freeman
    Requests for information from Sir Richard Scott's inquiry are a matter for the inquiry and my Department.

    Rapier Missiles
    Mr. Thurnham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to bring forward the follow-on contract for Rapier mark 2 missiles. [28888]
    289
    Mr. Freeman
    None. The follow-on missile buy is based on a detailed analysis of Her Majesty's Government's Rapier missile requirements, which on present analysis will not be required for delivery before 1999. As missiles have a finite shelf life, buying them before they are required significantly reduces their value for money.

    Mr. Thurnham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when he expects the contract for Rapier 200 tranche 1A missiles to be placed. [28886]

    Mr. Freeman
    I hope to be able to announce a decision shortly on an order for Rapier field standard C ground and support equipment and spares. The order will not include missiles.

    Brent Spar
    Mr. Harvey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Government Department has commissioned HMS Alderney to follow the Shell flotilla towing the Brent Spar oil platform. [29183]

    Mr. Soames
    A Royal Navy ship has been deployed to the area of the Brent Spar flotilla by my Department in response to a request from the Department of Trade and Industry, reflecting a Government decision that the Royal Navy should monitor developments with the disposal operation.

    Mr. Harvey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if a financial contribution is being made by Shell towards the current voyage of HMS Alderney. [29184]

    Mr. Soames
    No.

    Upholder Class Submarines
    Mr. McFall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Canadian authorities concerning the leasing of Upholder class submarines to Canada in exchange for free British armed forces access to training areas in Canada. [29093]

    Mr. Freeman
    Since the Ministry of Defence's decision in 1993, announced in Cm 2270, to withdraw the four Upholder class submarines from RN service, the Defence Export Services Organisation has offered the submarines for sale or lease to friendly or allied countries. DESO is currently in discussion with the Canadian Government and a number of options regarding price, the methods of payment and means of transfer are being considered, but no decisions have been taken.

    Defence Research Agency
    Mr. Byers
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 9 June,Official Report, column

    Civilian staff as at 1 April 19951

    Respondents to ethnic origin survey2

    Total

    Male

    Female

    Total

    White

    Black

    Asian

    Other ethnic origin

    Total Non-Industrial Staff

    81,041

    51,939

    29,102

    69,965

    68,504

    590

    682

    189

    Retired Officers

    1,883

    1,872

    11

    1,696

    1,692

    <5

    <5

    <5

    1 Figures on headcourt basis, counting part-timers as one

    2 On grounds of personal confidentiality, where the number of staff in any one ethnic minority category is less than five, the actual number is not disclosed.

    290
    337, how many contracts have been awarded to the SEMA Group plc, since July 1991 by the Defence Research Agency; and what is their total estimated value. [29747]

    Mr. Freeman
    Since July 1991 a total of 14 contracts have been placed with SEMA Group. Those fall into three broad categories; nine contracts in support of DRA technical work with a value of £317,000; four contracts in support of developing and maintaining the DRA commercial accounting systems with a value of £4.9 million and one enabling agreement with SEMA, against which eight orders have been placed with an approximate value of £216,000.

    Staff
    Mr. McAllion
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff were employed as non-industrial grades and how may staff were employed as retired officer grades for each year since 1979. [28793]

    Mr. Freeman
    The information is as follows:

    Year

    Non-industrial grades 1 April

    Retired officer grades 1 April

    1979

    114,758.0

    1,922.0

    1980

    112,637.0

    1,923.0

    1981

    107,675.0

    1,923.0

    1982

    102,638.0

    1,871.5

    1983

    100,490.0

    1,846.5

    1984

    98,029.0

    1,819.5

    1985

    94,943.0

    1,793.5

    1986

    93,822.5

    1,769.0

    1987

    93,289.5

    1,687.5

    1988

    88,626.5

    1,693.5

    1989

    88,709.5

    1,685.5

    1990

    89,866.0

    1,677.5

    1991

    90,332.5

    1,718.0

    1992

    90,682.0

    1,768.0

    1993

    87,884.5

    1,784.0

    1994

    82,761.0

    1,839.0

    1995

    79,806.0

    1,882.0

    From 1979 to 1994 part-timers are counted as half. However, from 1995 part-timers have been counted on the basis of the hours that they have worked.

    Mr. McAllion
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the breakdown of(a) non-industrial staff and (b) retired officer staff by gender and by ethnic origin. [28790]

    Mr. Freeman
    The number of non-industrial staff and retired officers employed by my Department and its agencies, broken down by gender and ethnic origin, is shown in the table:
    291
    Mr. McAllion
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff were employed as retired officers in the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force and central areas for each of the years since 1985. [28792]

    Number of retired officers by board

    Number: full time equivalent1

    1 April 1992

    1 April 1993

    1 April 1994

    1 April 1995

    Army

    1,146.5

    1,151.5

    1,153.5

    1,185

    Navy

    178.5

    194.5

    202.5

    209

    RAF

    289.0

    284.0

    293.0

    300

    Centre and PE

    154.0

    154.0

    190.0

    189

    Total

    1,768.0

    1,784.0

    1,839.0

    1,882

    1 Full-time equivalents counts part-timers as a half up to 1 April 1994 and as the proportion of conditioned hours worked from 1 April 1995. Figures for 1995 have been rounded independently and therefore the total may not equal the sum of the parts.

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Private Clegg
    Dr. Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about the continued imprisonment of Private Clegg; and if he will make a statement. [28630]

    Sir John Wheeler
    Since January more than 4,800 letters and eight petitions have been received about Private Clegg's imprisonment. Replies have been sent to most correspondents.

    Illegal Waste Dumping
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about illegal dumping near the River Enler at Newtownards road, Comber; what areas in this location are designated as(a) areas of outstanding beauty and (b) sites of special scientific interest; and what action he has (i) taken against dumping (ii) proposes to take, if dumping has ceased at this location; what volume of waste material remains on the site; and if he will make a statement. [28613]

    Mr. Moss
    The site is located within the Strangford lough area of outstanding natural beauty and part of it is also situated in the Strangford lough area of special scientific interest. Following representations from residents of the Ballydrain road, the Department of the Environment initiated enforcement action to have illegal dumping stopped and the materials removed from the site. No action was taken on foot of the enforcement notice and summons action has been instigated. The Department's objective is to secure the removal of all the material and to have the site satisfactorily restored. It is not possible to give a precise figure as to the volume of waste remaining on the site.

    Prisoners (HIV and AIDS)
    Rev. Martin Smyth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many cases of HIV and AIDS have been reported in prisons in Northern Ireland for each year since 1986; [28975]
    292
    Mr. Freeman
    The information requested is available only from April 1992 onwards, and is as follows:

    (2) how many prisoners have been infected with HIV while in prison in Northern Ireland; [28974]

    (3) how many inmates are currently HIV positive or have AIDS in prisons in Northern Ireland. [28976]

    Sir John Wheeler
    Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Northern Ireland Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. Alan Shannon. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

    Letter from B. R. D. White to Rev. Martin Smyth, dated 20 June 1995:
    In the absence of the Chief Executive, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to the three Parliamentary Questions you have tabled relating to the number of reported cases of AIDS and HIV in Northern Ireland Prisons.
    There have been no known cases of prisoners with AIDS reported in Northern Ireland since 1986. In the same period only one prisoner has identified himself as HIV positive. HIV antibody tests are treated in medical confidence and information is not centrally available to determine if there are further HIV positive prisoners in the prison system. Records are kept by the Department of Health and Social Services based on test results notified by test facilities but these are included in statistics for Heath Board Regions and do not specify positive tests among prisoners in individual establishments.
    There is no medical evidence to suggest that any prisoners have been infected with HIV whilst in prison in Northern Ireland.
    There are no known cases of AIDS among the current prison population in Northern Ireland and at present only one prisoner is reported to be HIV positive.
    I hope that this information is helpful.

    Market Testing
    Mr. Spellar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement regarding market testing of the legal directorate of the Northern Ireland Central Services Agency for Health and Social Services. [29775]

    Mr. Moss
    [holding answer 20 June 1995]: As part of the Government's commitment to this programme, set out in "Competing for Quality", DHSS officials are working closely with officers in the health and personal social services to market test services provided by the legal directorate of the Central Services Agency for Health and Social Services.

    Employment Statistics
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons in Northern Ireland are employed by(a) United States firms, (b) Great Britain owned-firms, (c) European-owned firms, (d) far eastern-owned firms and (e) Irish Republic-owned firms; and, in each case, what percentage of the total work force this represents. [29040]

    Mr. Ancram
    Employment figures for all externally owned companies operating in Northern Ireland are not readily available. The Central Statistics Office in London will be able to provide disaggregated figures on externally owned companies across all sectors of industry and commerce in Northern Ireland and my noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for the economy will write to the hon. Member shortly about this matter.

    However, the following information on companies in the manufacturing and internationally tradeable services sectors has been drawn from the Industrial Development Board's client company data:

    Number of employees in IDB client companies

    Number

    USA

    9,077

    Great Britain

    18,301

    Europe

    3,715

    Far East

    2,757

    Republic of Ireland

    3,504

    Total

    37,354

    Education Expenditure
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of identifiable Government expenditure on education in Northern Ireland, including mandatory loans and awards to students, is devoted to(a) primary education, (b) secondary education, (c) further education and (d) higher education; and if he will make a statement. [29044]

    Mr. Ancram
    The information for 1993–94 is as follows:

    Per cent.

    Primary education

    24.0

    Secondary education

    31.1

    Further education

    9.0

    Higher education

    17.8

    Small and Medium-sized Businesses
    Ms Primarolo
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in which sectors of the economy(a) small businesses and (b) medium-sized businesses are predominantly to be found. [29581]

    Mr. Ancram
    An analysis of the numbers of Northern Ireland businesses by size of turnover, for all economic sectors is published in the Central Statistical Office Business Monitor publication PA 1003, table 3E, copies of which are available in the Library.
    294
    Ms Primarolo
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were employed in(a) small businesses and (b) medium-sized businesses in each of the last 10 years; and if he will break these figures down by gender. [29580]

    Mr. Ancram
    Details of the numbers employed by employment size band are available for manufacturing industries from the Central Statistical Office Business Monitor PA 1003, table 10, for the years 1985 to 1994 inclusive. Similar figures are not available for other sectors, or by gender.

    Multiple Births
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sets of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and ( e) sextuplets were born in Northern Ireland in each year from 1990 to 1994; what was the total number of maternities in Northern Ireland in each year; and how many multiple births of each type in each year were conceived as a result of (1) in-vitro fertilisation, (ii) gamete intra-fallopian transfer and (iii) other forms of assisted conception; and if he will make a statement. [29530]

    Mr. Moss
    The information requested is set out in the table:

    Type

    1990

    1991

    1992

    1993

    11994

    Sets of

    (a) twins

    267

    315

    258

    280

    302

    (b) triplets

    5

    6

    8

    9

    6

    (c) quadruplets

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    (d) quintuplets

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    (e) sextuplets

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Maternities

    26,338

    26,058

    25,425

    24,741

    23,821

    (i) IVF2

    (i) twins

    12

    11

    n/k

    n/k

    n/k

    (ii) triplets

    2

    11

    n/k

    n/k

    n/k

    (ii) GIFT3

    1 Provisional.

    2 These figures are the result of IVF by year of conception.

    3 GIFT was available in Northern Ireland only in 1986 and 1987.

    Dispensing of Medicines
    Mr. Mallon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Southern health and social services board received a request from Dr. Mary Allen to be allowed to dispense in her Cullyhanna medical practice. [29607]

    Mr. Moss
    A request was received in November 1994.

    The general principle under the legislation governing dispensing arrangements is that doctors should prescribe and pharmacists dispense. Exceptionally, if a health and social services board is satisfied that patients are experiencing serious difficulty in obtaining their medicines from a pharmacist, it may require the doctor to dispense for those patients. This action is taken only if alternative arrangements cannot be made with pharmacists.

    Mr. Mallon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what are the current dispensing arrangements for the Cullyhanna area; and what assessment of the dispensing
    295
    requirements of the residents of the Cullyhanna area has been made by (a) the Southern health and social services board, (b) the Central Services Agency and (c) the Department of Health and Social Services; [29608]

    (2) what steps are being taken to ensure that the dispensing requirements of the residents of Cullyhanna area are being fully satisfied. [29610]

    Mr. Moss
    Patients in the Cullyhanna area are served by pharmacies in Newtownhamilton and Crossmaglen. The Southern health and social services board is currently reviewing the dispensing arrangements and needs in the Cullyhanna area and this will include the possibility of a delivery service being provided by pharmacists. Neither the Central Services Agency nor the Department of Health and Social Services has been involved, as this is primarily a matter for the board.

    Mr. Mallon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals have been received, and on what dates, for the provision of dispensing facilities for the residents of the Cullyhanna area, by(a) the Southern health and social services board, (b) the Central Services Agency and (c) the Department of Health and Social Services. [29609]

    Mr. Moss
    Dr. Mary Allen contacted the Southern health and social services board in November 1994 requesting the right to dispense for her patients in Cullyhanna. At the same time, the Cullyhanna community committee wrote to the board indicating that some residents in Cullyhanna were experiencing difficulty in obtaining medication. Neither the Central Services Agency nor the Department of Health and Social Services has received any proposals.

    Mr. Mallon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the Southern Health and Social Services Board has taken to ensure that a speedy decision is made in relation to the dispensing requirements of the residents of the Cullyhanna area. [29611]

    Mr. Moss
    The Southern health and social services board asked Dr. Allen to provide a list of her patients who were having serious difficulty in obtaining medicines. The board has received that list and will be contacting these patients and considering whether their difficulties can be resolved by the provision of an improved community pharmacy service. If such a service cannot be provided, the board may require Dr. Allen to dispense.

    EU Peace and Reconciliation Funding
    Mr. Mallon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures will be introduced under the European Union's fund for peace and reconciliation to promote(a) employment, (b) urban and rural regeneration, (c) cross-border developments, (d) social inclusion and (e) industrial development and productive investment. [29612]

    Sir John Wheeler
    The guidelines for the European Union's initiative for peace and reconciliation allow for an extensive range of measures under the five priorities of social inclusion, employment, urban and rural regeneration, cross-border developments and industrial development/productive investment. The programme submitted makes provision for such actions. However, as the details are still the subject of negotiation between the 296
    relevant member states and the European Commission, it is premature to give a definitive list of the measures which will be funded.

    Mr. Mallon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what procedures are in place for monitoring the operation of the European Union's fund for peace and reconciliation. [29613]

    Sir John Wheeler
    A programme under the European Union's peace and reconciliation initiative has recently been submitted to the European Commission and is presently being negotiated. Monitoring arrangements consistent with stipulations in the guidelines will be put in place following agreement on the programme between the relevant member states and the European Commission.

    Mr. Mallon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what body or organisation will be charged with the task of dispensing the European Union's fund for peace and reconciliation; how applications will be assessed; and if there will be a right of appeal for unsuccessful applicants. [29614]

    Sir John Wheeler
    The draft programme under the peace and reconciliation initiative which has been submitted to the European Commission envisages that a range of organisations will be used to dispense the available funds. The details of these arrangements are currently being discussed with the Commission and will be publicised when the programme is agreed. Applications for assistance from the initiative will be assessed against criteria to be published in the programme. Decisions on grant applications to EU programmes are normally considered to be final, but unsuccessful applicants will be given an explanation for refusal and may wish to amend and resubmit their proposals accordingly.

    Mr. Mallon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the specific funding programmes which will be supported by the European Union's fund for peace and reconciliation. [29699]

    Sir John Wheeler
    The guidelines for the European Union's peace and reconciliation initiative stipulate that the following priorities might be funded—employment, social inclusion, cross-border developments, urban and rural regeneration and industrial development/productive investment. The specific funding programmes will reflect these priorities.

    Mr. Mallon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when applications will be invited for programmes supported by the European Union's fund for peace and reconciliation; how these programmes will be advertised; how long each funding programme will remain open for applications; and what support will be made available to advise and support applicants through the application procedures. [29615]

    Sir John Wheeler
    Applications will be invited for projects under the European Union's peace and reconciliation initiative as soon as the programme is agreed between the member states concerned and the European Commission. Appropriate steps will be taken by the member states, the European Commission and, if necessary, other funding bodies under the programme to
    297
    publicise the measures to be funded. The length of time allowed under individual measures for applications to be received will be a matter for specific funding bodies but may depend, inter alia, on the resources available and the demand for particular measures. The programme envisages that technical assistance will be made available to assist with the implementation of the programme; the exact details are being negotiated between the member states concerned and the European Union.

    Mr. Mallon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the application process for individuals and organisations wishing to apply to the European Union's fund for peace and reconciliation, including details of application forms, closing dates for individual programmes and addresses of the appropriate department or dispensing body. [29698]

    Sir John Wheeler
    The programme under the European Union's peace and reconciliation initiative is currently being negotiated between the member states concerned and the European Commission. The details of the application process can be settled only when all the management arrangements have been agreed. The application procedure will be fully publicised when the programme is agreed.

    "Accountability through Partnership"
    Mr. Worthington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library the submissions made in response to his document "Accountability through Partnership". [29976]

    Mr. Ancram
    No responses to the consultative document on educational administration issued in 1993 were submitted in confidence.

    Education and Library Boards
    Mr. Worthington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will state the populations represented by his proposed education and library boards and, in each case, the number of people represented by each member of each board. [29977]

    Mr. Ancram
    Based on the 1993 mid-year estimates, the population of the four areas proposed would be as follows:

    Population

    North Eastern

    375,500

    Western

    267,600

    Southern

    385,100

    Greater Belfast

    603,600

    The members of education and library boards are appointed to reflect a range of interests in education, not as representatives of particular populations.

    Military Complaints Report
    Mr. Streeter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Contract Location Northern Ireland when he intends to lay before Parliament Mr. David Hewitt's second annual report as independent assessor of military complaints procedures in Northern Ireland [30621]
    298
    Sir Patrick Mayhew
    I have today arranged for the second annual report of the independent assessor of military complaints procedures in Northern Ireland to be laid before each House of Parliament. I welcome this report which clearly demonstrates the thoroughness with which the assessor has approached his task. I note with satisfaction that the General Officer Commanding has been able to accept all five of the report's recommendations. This fully justifies the assessor's comment that"the Army continues to be seriously committed to proper investigation of genuine complaints as part of its overall strategy, which increasingly understands the value of public acceptability and fostering good community relations."

    The Army's presence on the streets of Northern Ireland is, of course, diminishing. But while there still remains a need for the Army to patrol in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary there will still clearly be a need for the post of independent assessor. I look forward to the day when there will be no further need for it.

    Contracting Out
    Ms Hodge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for each piece of work subject to a bidding process under the auspices of(a) his Department and (b) agencies for which his office is responsible (i) where work was contracted out, who were the successful bidders and (ii) which contracts were won by in-house bidders in (1) 1993–94, (2) 1994–95 and (3) 1995–95. [25655]

    Sir John Wheeler
    The information is as follows:

    1993–94

    Northern Ireland Office

    Prison Messes Catering Facilities won by Quadrant.

    Hillsborough Castle Grounds Maintenance won by Business Management NI.

    Stormont Castle Courier Service won by Group 4.

    Air Charter won by Eurojet Aviation Ltd. and Magec Aviation Ltd.

    Official Cars won by Government Car Service.

    Department Finance and Personnel

    Valcom Computer System in the Valuation and Land Office (now the Valuation and Lands Agency) won by the in-house team.

    Contract

    Department of Environment

    Roads Service

    Bridge Inspections

    In-house team

    Material Testing Laboratories

    In-house team

    Surface Dressing (part)

    In-house team

    Surface Dressing (part)

    J. McQuillan Contracts Ltd. and R. J. Maxwell and Son Ltd.

    Public Record Office of Northern

    Ireland

    Catering Service

    Quadrant Catering

    Contract

    Location

    Water Executive

    Sewer Maintenance 1

    Lisburn

    Clearway Disposals

    Antrim

    Precision Cleaning

    Armagh

    Clearway Disposals

    299

    Contract

    Location

    Road Reinstatement

    Armagh

    Collen Brothers

    Coleraine

    R. J. Maxwell

    Ards/Bangor

    D. Minnis

    Omagh

    R. J. Maxwell

    Antrim

    R. J. Maxwell

    Craigavon

    Collen Brothers

    Lisburn

    R. J. Maxwell

    Sludge Tankering 4B

    Coleraine

    McKitterick Contractors

    Enniskillen

    Road Safety Contractors

    Londonderry

    Road Safety Contractors

    Lisburn

    McKitterick Contractors

    Sludge Tankering 4A

    Ballymena

    McKitterick Contractors

    Armagh

    Curran Waste

    Septic Tank Contract 1

    Larne

    Road Safety Contractors

    Downpatrick

    McKitterick Contractors

    Lisburn

    McKitterick Contractors

    Londonderry

    Road Safety Contractors

    Enniskillen

    Road Safety Contractors

    Newry

    McKitterick Contractors

    Dungannon

    Road Safety Contractors

    Sewer Maintenance 2

    Lisburn

    T. G. Megarry

    Sewer Maintenance

    Belfast

    In-house team

    Coleraine

    In-house team

    Craigavon

    In-house team

    Londonderry

    In-house team

    Omagh

    In-house team

    Road Reinstatement

    Londonderry

    In-house team

    Sludge Tankering 4B

    Downpatrick

    In-house team

    Lisburn

    In-house team

    Ballymena

    In-house team

    Newry

    In-house team

    Armagh

    In-house team

    Sludge Tankering 4A

    Newry

    In-house team

    Antrim

    In-house team

    Sludge Contract 1

    Antrim

    In-house team

    Ballymena

    In-house team

    Sewer Maintenance 2

    Antrim

    In-house team

    Craigavon

    In-house team

    Coleraine

    In-house team

    Armagh

    In-house team

    Belfast

    In-house team

    Omagh

    In-house team

    Londonderry

    In-house team

    Grounds Maintenance

    Coleraine

    In-house team

    Armagh

    In-house team

    Downpatrick

    In-house team

    Omagh

    In-house team

    Department of Health and Social Service

    ICI Mainframe Computer Services won by GFM Group Ltd.

    Contract

    Child Support Agency

    Facilities Management

    Grafton Support Services

    Typing

    Grafton Support Services

    Telephonists

    Grafton Support Services

    Receptionists

    Grafton Support Services

    Cleaning

    Maybin Cleaning Services

    Security

    Mallusk Security Services

    300

    Contract

    Post-Opening

    Initial Cleaning Services

    Messengerial

    Initial Cleaning Services

    Porterage

    Initial Cleaning Services

    Handyman

    Initial Cleaning Services

    Catering

    Catering Guild

    1994–95

    Department of Economic Development

    Messenger Service contract won by the In-house Team.

    Northern Ireland Office

    Hillsborough Castle Estate Management won by Povall Worthington.

    Hillsborough Castle Facilities Management won by Symonds Facilities Management.

    Key Persons Protection Scheme won by Department of Environment, Works Service.

    Air Charter won by Eurojet Aviation Ltd. and Magee Aviation Ltd.

    Officials Cars won by Government Car Service. Office cleaning won by Office Cleaning Services Ltd.

    Department of Environment

    Roads Services General Road Maintenance activities won by a large number of measured term contractors.

    Child Support Agency

    In addition to the services contracted out in 1993–94 the following services have been contracted out:

    Reprographics won by Grafton Support Services.

    Stationery Store won by Grafton Support Services.

    Off-Site File Store won CFM (NI).

    Compensation Agency

    Prior Options Study won by Capita Management Consultants.

    1995–96

    Northern Ireland Office

    Civilian search arrangements won by Symonds Facilities Management.

    Security Guard Post won by Mallusk Security Services.

    Air Charter won by Eurojet Aviation Ltd. and Magee Aviation Ltd.

    Official cars won by Government Car Service.

    Office cleaning won by Office Cleaning Services Ltd.

    Child Support Agency

    It is proposed that the services contracted out in 1993–94 and 1994–95 will continue to be contracted out in 1995–96.

    Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

    Local office functions won by the In-house Team.

    Rate Collection Agency

    Computer printing and output handling won by CFM Northern Ireland.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Indonesia
    Mr. Galbraith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of human rights in Indonesia. [29317]

    Mr. Goodlad
    We follow closely the human rights situation in Indonesia. We discuss it regularly with the Indonesian Government. Depsite a number of recent setbacks, there have been some improvements over recent
    301
    years. But more needs to be done. With our European Union partners we shall continue to press for further progress.

    European Parliament
    Mr. Spearing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been proposed to the intergovernmental conference by officials, academics or other bodies into the terms of the current consolidated treaty on European Union concerning the powers and duties of the European Parliament in respect of their functions of appropriation, surveillance and audit of expenditure, examination of public accounts, and discharge of the budget of the European Community. [29339]

    Mr. David Davis
    Several bodies have proposed changes to the powers and duties of the European Parliament. The European Parliament's own proposals have been tabled for scrutiny—EP:A4–0102/95. The European Parliament needs to do more to monitor EC spending, tackle fraud and waste. We have yet to hear a convincing case that the European Parliament needs additional powers which were gained for this purpose. Some new powers which were gained at Maastricht and which could be useful in this connection have yet to be used, for example, temporary committees of inquiry.

    Malaysia
    Miss Lestor
    To ask the Secretary of States for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the Government Ministers who accompanied the then Secretary of State for Defence when he visited Malaysia on 31 March 1989; and if he will list the Ministers who visited Malaysia in the first six months of 1989. [29341]

    Mr. Goodlad
    No Ministers accompanied the then Secretary of State for Defence on his visit to Malaysia.

    In addition to the Secretary of State for Defence, the following Minister visited Malaysia in the first half of 1989:

    Mr. Robert Atkins—Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry.

    Privatisation
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those parts of his Department or departmental agencies which were privatised without an in-house bid; if he will indicate the expertise which was absent in his Department or departmental agencies which prevented an in-house bid taking place; which future parts of his Department or departmental agencies he intends to privatise; and which of them do not have the necessary in-house expertise to mount an in-house bid. [29415]

    Mr. Goodlad
    Since April 1992, no parts of the FCO diplomatic wing or its agency, Wilton Park, have been privatised without an in-house bid.

    Two contracts have been let by the Overseas Development Administration without an in-house bid: travel unit messagerial service and daytime security guarding of the London premises. In both cases, a
    302
    strategic decision was taken to contract out because outside contractors are better equipped to deliver the services.

    The following services have already been identified as possible candidates for privatisation:

    FCO

    Travel accounts unit

    Pensions

    ODA

    Natural Resources Institute

    A strategic decision has been taken not to include an in-house bid in the privatisation of the FCO's travel accounts unit, based on the relatively small size of the operation. In-house bids have not been ruled out in the other cases.

    Nigeria
    Mr. Keith Hill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what types of lethal military equipment the United Kingdom has supplied to Nigeria's United Nations contingents, to which contingents, and when. [29845]

    Mr. David Davis
    Although the measures adopted by the EU in December 1993 leave open the possibility of exporting to Nigeria equipment for peacekeeping use, it has been the practice of successive Governments not to reveal details of export licences or applications for licences unless the requirements of confidentiality are outweighed by the public interest.

    Eastern Europe (Investment)
    Ms Quin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 12 June,Official Report, column 376, what steps would be necessary to obtain the information sought on investment in eastern Europe. [29476]

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    It would have been necessary, through our embassies, to approach the authorities in Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands and/or the authorities in the six recipient countries.

    Further research here has revealed a recent OECD publication containing some of the figures requested. I can now provide figures on German, French and Italian investment into the six countries, as shown in the tables.

    The publication does not provide figures on UK, Dutch or EU investment into the countries concerned.

    Too much significance should not be read into the figures given the problems of data capture, defining investment and determining national origin.

    A: Figures in national currencies Stock of direct investment end year

    Million FF

    France

    1988

    1989

    1990

    1991

    1992

    Bulgaria

    —

    37

    98

    70

    —

    CSFR

    —

    22

    33

    5

    —

    Hungary

    —

    3

    4

    4

    —

    Poland

    —

    92

    171

    877

    —

    Romania

    —

    40

    65

    64

    —

    303

    Million DM

    Germany

    1988

    1989

    1990

    1991

    1992

    Bulgaria

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    CSFR

    —

    —

    —

    537

    1,355

    Hungary

    39

    73

    266

    489

    1,158

    Poland

    16

    10

    26

    86

    286

    Romania

    —

    —

    —

    16

    27

    Billion Lira

    Italy

    1988

    1989

    1990

    1991

    1992

    Bulgaria

    —

    —

    —

    1

    2

    CSFR

    —

    —

    —

    4

    45

    Hungary

    —

    —

    —

    44

    69

    Poland

    —

    —

    —

    6

    31

    Romania

    —

    —

    —

    3

    4

    Source: OECD International Direct Investment Statistics Yearbook 1994.

    B: Exchange rates used to produce table C from table A National currency/$ average exchange rates

    1988

    1989

    1990

    1991

    7992

    France

    0.165044

    0.172771

    0.19497

    0.19305

    0.181604

    Germany

    0.561703

    0.588998

    0.669344

    0.659631

    0.619579

    Italy

    —

    —

    —

    0.000869

    0.000587

    Source: IMF IFS Yearbook 1994.

    C: Figures in US dollars

    Million US$

    France

    1988

    1989

    1990

    1991

    1992

    Bulgaria

    —

    343.6

    388.0

    384.4

    —

    CSFR

    —

    6.4

    19.1

    13.5

    —

    Hungary

    —

    3.8

    6.4

    1.0

    —

    Poland

    —

    0.5

    0.8

    0.8

    —

    Romania

    —

    15.9

    33.3

    169.3

    —

    Million US$

    Germany

    1988

    1989

    1990

    1991

    1992

    Bulgaria

    —

    —

    —

    —

    CSFR

    —

    —

    —

    103.7

    246.1

    Hungary

    6.4

    12.6

    51.9

    94.4

    210.3

    Poland

    2.6

    1.7

    5.1

    16.6

    51.9

    Romania

    —

    —

    —

    3.1

    4.9

    Million US$

    Italy

    1988

    1989

    1990

    1991

    1992

    Bulgaria

    —

    —

    —

    0.9

    1.2

    CSFR

    —

    —

    —

    3.5

    26.4

    Hungary

    —

    —

    —

    38.2

    40.5

    Poland

    —

    —

    —

    5.2

    18.2

    Romania

    —

    —

    —

    2.6

    2.3

    Ms Quin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 12 June,Official Report, column 376, what estimates he has made of the costs which would have been incurred in providing a full answer. [29475]

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    I refer the hon. Member to my earlier reply. The cost in time and resources needed to pursue the inquiries would clearly have been in excess of £450 and no more accurate estimates were made.
    304
    Ms Quin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts he has had with the embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany to discuss levels of German and EU investment into the countries of Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Rumania and Bulgaria. [29363]

    Mr. David Davis
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Minister of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), today. The Department is in close contact with the embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany on a wide variety of matters, but we have not recently discussed German and EU investment levels in the countries mentioned.

    Foreign Affairs Council
    Sir Malcolm Thornton
    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 12 June. [30412]

    Mr. David Davis
    The A points listed in document 775/95, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House, were adopted unanimously.

    The Commission was mandated to conclude the negotiations with Israel on a new agreement and report to the Committee of Permanent Representatives, COREPER.

    The Council approved the initialling of a Europe agreement with Slovenia.

    On former Yugoslavia, the Council expressed appreciation for the contribution of Lord Owen and welcomed his successor, Mr. Bildt. Agreement was given to open negotiations with Croatia for a trade and co-operation agreement.

    The presidency concluded that the situation in Chechnya did not yet allow the EU to proceed with signature of the interim agreement with Russia. But the Council agreed to keep the question under review, and to prepare to sign the agreement as soon as possible.

    The presidency outlined subjects for discussion at the European Council at Cannes.

    The Council agreed to the disbursement of the first tranche—200 million ecu—of a balance of payments loan to the Ukraine.

    The Council agreed that negotiations should be opened for partnership and co-operation agreements with the countries of the Transcaucasus, and to open exploratory talks with Uzbekistan.

    There was a further discussion of the European development fund. The subject was referred to COREPER for further work.

    The Commission reported on the state of play in negotiations for agreements with Morocco and Egypt, and announced details of a new Mediterranean financial regulation. There was a brief exchange over lunch on the forthcoming Barcelona Euro-Med conference.

    Negotiating directives for an EU/MERCOSUR framework agreement, plus an accompanying political declaration, were agreed.
    305
    Agreement was reached on negotiating directives for a long-term agreement with South Africa, subject to the solution of one outstanding problem by COREPER.

    There was a discussion of free trade areas, and the subject was remitted to COREPER for further discussion.

    The Council agreed that if Canada dropped its threatened retaliation over compensation for tariff increases resulting from EU enlargement, the Community would introduce tariff reductions on newsprint.

    Sir Leon Brittan reported on subjects on the agenda of the World Trade Organisation. The Council took note without debate, and endorsed the procedural conclusions on trade and social standards agreed previously in COREPER.

    The Council agreed, following a vote, the Commission's proposed negotiating directives for the revision of the protocols on textiles with the central and eastern European countries. Italy, Portugal and Greece opposed, and made minutes statements.

    A copy of the Council's conclusions will be placed in the Library of this House as soon as it is received by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

    Intergovernmental Conference, Luxembourg
    Sir Malcolm Thornton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the meeting of the study group to prepare for the 1996 intergovernmental conference which took place in Luxembourg on 13 and 14 June. [30413]

    Mr. David Davis
    As the Foreign Secretary's representative, I attended the second meeting of the study group in Luxembourg on 13 and 14 June. The meeting concentrated on institutional arrangements in the European Community—the "first pillar". Members of the group agreed that there was no need to change the overall balance between the central EC institutions—the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament.

    In my contribution I stressed the need to arrest centralising tendencies in Europe, and to banish the notion of a European Government in embryo. The European Parliament had acquired important new powers in recent years. The EP needed to demonstrate that it was using its existing powers responsibly, and to the full, for example to secure better value for money from Community programmes and to hold the Commission more closely to account.

    I put the case for closer involvement of national Parliaments in the work of the EU, and suggested that we might examine, in particular, whether national Parliaments could play a more active role in the application of the principle of subsidiarity.

    With respect to the Council, I repeated my opposition to any extension of majority voting, and I put the case for changes in the voting system to increase democratic legitimacy and to reduce the present bias against large member states.

    I argued that with the accession of new member states including perhaps some very small ones there could be a case for re-examining the system of six-monthly rotating presidencies in the EC.
    306
    Turning to the Commission, I commended Mr. Santer's emphasis on the need to do "less but better". The Council should take a closer interest in the Commission's legislative programme to help to achieve this. I suggested that we might examine the possibility of requiring the Commission to withdraw proposals which had not been agreed within, say, three years—a "sunset clause".

    North Atlantic Assembly
    Sir Malcolm Thornton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made in the composition of the United Kingdom parliamentary delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly.

    Mr. David Davis
    The hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) has replaced the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) as a member of the delegation.

  EDUCATION

    Research
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of English higher education departments received a research rating of(a) three or above and (b) five during the recent research assessment exercise; and if she will make a statement. [29041]

    Mr. Boswell
    The higher education funding bodies are responsible for the conduct of the periodic research assessment exercise. Of the 2,127 submissions made by higher education departments in England to the 1992 research assessment exercise, 62 per cent. received a research rating of three or above; 14 per cent. of the departments received the top rating of five. The Government and the High Education Funding Council for England are committed to the principle of selectivity in the allocation of funding for research. The next research assessment exercise is to be undertaken in 1996.

    University Degrees
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the proportion of students obtaining(a) first class and (b) upper second class degrees at (i) the university of Oxford, (i) the university of Cambridge, (iii) the university of London and (iv) higher education institutions in England in (1) 1991–92 and (2) 1992–93; and if she will make a statement. [29046]

    Mr. Boswell
    The proportion of first degree graduates obtaining first class honours is as follows:

    Percentage Achieving

    Academic Year

    1991–92

    1992–93

    University of Cambridge

    24

    24

    University of London

    10

    10

    University of Oxford

    15

    14

    Other former UFC funded institutions

    8

    9

    All former UFC funded institutions

    10

    10

    1 Source:USR Volume 1 "Students and Staff Data on the number of graduates who obtain upper second class degrees are not published in volume 1 and are not readily available

    307
    The proportion of graduates from former PCFC funded institutions in England who achieved a first class degree or upper second class degree is as follows:

    Percentage achieving

    Academic year

    1991–92

    1992–93

    First class honours

    5

    5

    Upper second class honours

    39

    40

    Source: Department for education examinations results and first destination survey.

    Students
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the average mandatory loans and awards expenditure on each student from England and Wales in 1994–95; what proportion of the figure went on(a) student loans, (b) fee expenditure and (c) maintenance expenditure; what were the corresponding figures for those studying at the universities of (i) Oxford and (ii) Cambridge; and if she will make a statement. [29049]

    Mr. Boswell
    In the academic year 1993–94, the latest year for which data are available, the average expenditure per mandatory award holder in England and Wales was £3,790 of which 56 per cent. was on fees and 44 per cent. on maintenance.

    The average loan to students, including those who do not qualify for mandatory awards, in England and Wales in the academic year 1993–94 was £740.

    Separate data in respect of those studying at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge are not collected centrally.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Andrew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 20 February,Official Report, column 52, when the chairman of the Funding Agency for Schools will reply to the questions on balances and deficits of grant-maintained schools. [29978]

    Mr. Robin Squire
    I understand that the chief executive of the Funding Agency wrote to the hon. Member on 16 June.

    Funding Agency for Schools
    Mr. Andrew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education if the remuneration of the chairman and senior staff of the Funding Agency for Schools includes any element of performance-related pay. [29984]

    Mr. Robin Squire
    The chairman receives a fee with no element of performance-related pay. The chief executive's contract entitles him to receive a non-pensionable cash bonus; the basis for the determination of the bonus is his personal responsibility plan, which is agreed each year with the chairman. The remuneration of other senior staff includes an element of performance-related pay, as is the case for most senior staff employed by non-departmental public bodies whose terms and conditions are analogous to those of the civil service. The pay and conditions of senior staff are overseen by the board's remuneration committee.

    Good Shepherd School, Sefton
    Mr. Benton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the provision of speech therapists at the school of the Good Shepherd, Sefton. [29322]

    Mr. Forth
    Responsibility for the provision of speech and language services rests with the NHS. I understand that the Department of Health will be asking Sefton health authority to look into provision at the school.

    Privatisation
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list those parts of her Department or departmental agencies which were privatised without an in-house bid; if she will indicate the expertise which was absent in her Department or departmental agencies which prevented an in-house bid taking place; which future parts of her Department or departmental agencies she intends to privatise; and which of them do not have the necessary in-house expertise to mount an in-house bid. [29428]

    Mr. Boswell
    Since the start of the "Competing for Quality" programme in April 1992, my right hon. Friend has not contracted out any parts of the Department or its agencies without an in-house bid.

    My right hon. Friend will be inviting expressions of interest for a contract to administer the teachers' superannuation scheme. We shall let a contract only if it would provide better value for money than keeping the administration of the scheme in the public sector. We shall not invite a bid from the Teachers Pensions Agency, which administers the scheme at present, because we are not conducting a market test. But it would be open to the management or staff of the TPA to seek to buy out the agency. Whether or not the administration is contractorised, the scheme itself will stay in the public sector, on its current statutory basis.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Insolvency Service
    Mr. Hargreaves
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has set the Insolvency Service executive agency for 1995–96. [30596]

    Mr. Heseltine
    Against the Insolvency Service's business plan assumption of a further reduction in the number of compulsory insolvencies to 25,000 in 1995–96, I have set it the target of closing 35,000 cases. Taken together with the number closed in 1994–95, this will mean that nearly 90,000 case closures will have been completed by the service in two years. I also expect the service to continue to place increased emphasis on investigative work and hence exceed the number of disqualification proceedings commenced in 1994–95–930—itself an increase of 100 per cent. on 1993–94.

    In addition, I have set the service the following quality of service targets for 1995–96:
    —to report to creditors on assets and liabilities within eight weeks in at least 90 per cent. of all cases; and within 12 weeks in 98 per cent. of all cases;

    309
    —to hold the initial meeting of creditors within 12 weeks in at least 90 per cent. of all cases; and within four months in 98 per cent. of all cases;
    —to submit reports within 10 months in at least 90 per cent. of bankruptcy cases and 80 per cent. of company liquidation cases where there is evidence of criminality;
    —to submit disqualification reports within 15 months in at least 80 per cent. of cases where there is evidence of unfit conduct by directors;
    —to check and action at least 95 per cent. of payment requisitions within five days or by the due date;
    —to reduce by at least 10 per cent. the proportion of open cases that are more than 36 months old, so that there are no more than 1,900 such cases concerned at 31 March 1996.

    The service is also required to reduce its unit cost of administering bankruptcy and compulsory liquidation cases by 3 per cent.

    In addition, I expect the chief executive of the service to continue to reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply and to produce audited commercial-style accounts for 1995–96.

    I expect the service to complete its contracting-out exercise by 31 March 1996.

    Teaching Company Schemes
    Mr. Battle
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the teaching company schemes between academical institutions and industry and numbers participating sponsored by the research councils. [29859]

    Mr. Ian Taylor
    I am replying as my Department has the lead sponsor role for TCS on behalf of all Government Department and research council sponsors.

    I have placed in the Library of the House a copy of the latest edition of the "TCS Quarterly Statistical Report", dated 31 March 1995, which includes brief details of all 518 TCS programmes current at that date. Pages 10 to 12 of the report list TCS programmes by academic institution, while pages 3 and 4 list the current TCS programmes by sponsor, including research council sponsors.

  BMARC
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether BMARC received export credits support from the Export Credits Guarantee Department between 1984 and 1990. [29723]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Yes.

  ECGD provided short-term insurance support to BMARC for export transactions to a variety of markets following the issue of a policy to the company in 1990.

  In addition, ECGD guaranteed one medium-term transaction for BMARC in May 1988 involving a sale of ammunition valued at just under £1.6 million covered under a line of credit to the Jordan armed forces.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the funds that had been earmarked for the now cancelled research into a wave power 310
  station will be transferred to research into other forms of alternative entry. [28063]

  Mr. Page
  The answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy on 31 March 1994,Official Report, column 1009, to my hon. Friend the member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on the publication of energy paper 62, set out the Government's policy, strategy and forward programme for new and renewable energy, including closure of the wave programme. As set out in EP62, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House, the forward programme is expected to reduce in value over a 10-year time horizon as the technologies move towards the market and the DTI's task force role diminishes. Resources will be concentrated on key technologies with good prospects of commercial application in the coming decades—such as solar, energy from coppice and waste, wind and fuel cells. Expenditure estimates for the new and renewable energy programme, consistent with EP62, are published in the Department's annual report, a copy of which is also available in the Library of the House.

  Irish Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the change in the United Kingdom share of the Irish Republic's market for manufactures following the loss of trade preferences against imports from the EEC Six. [29438]

  Mr. Needham
  The United Kingdom share of Irish imports was 51 per cent. in 1972 and 36 per cent. in 1993, the latest year information on a consistent basis is available.

  Imports of Manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide a further breakdown of the figures contained in the tables in section D of the 1992 annual supplement to the monthly review of external trade statistics, to show for the EEC Six, the other eight EEC countries and the rest of the world the United Kingdom share in each case of their imports of manufactures. [29507]

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is given in the table.

  UK share of imports of manufactures 1993

  Per cent.

  Original EEC Six Members2

  7.4

  Additional EEC Eight Members3

  8.5

  Rest of the World4

  n/a

  Notes:

  1 Standard International Trade Classification 5 to 8.

  2 Comprises Belgium/Luxembourg, France, Germany, Italy and Netherlands.

  3 Comprises Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland.

  4 Data for the rest of the world are not readily available.

  Source:

  OECD Series C

  Eurostat Intra and Extra EU Trade.
  311
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the United Kingdom percentage share of imports of manufactures by(a) Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa combined, (b) Germany, (c) France and (d) Italy in (i) 1970, (ii) 1979, (iii) 1990 and (iv) 1994. [29437]

  Mr. Needham
  The following is the information:

  UK share of imports of manufactures1

  Per cent.

  1970

  1979

  1990

  1994

  Canada, Australia and New Zealand2

  12.0

  6.4

  3.8

  n/a

  Germany

  5.5

  6.6

  7.1

  7.0

  France

  6.2

  7.0

  7.5

  n/a

  Italy

  6.3

  6.9

  6.7

  7.0

  Note:

  1 Standard International Trade Classification 5 to 8.

  2 Data for South Africa are not readily available.

  n/a = not available.

  Source:

  United Nations World Trade Annual OECD Series C.

  Eurostat Intra and Extra EU Trade.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide a further breakdown of the figures contained in the tables in section D of the 1992 annual supplement to the monthly review of external trade statistics to show for the Irish Republic, the original signatories of the EFTA convention and Finland combined and(a) Germany, (b) France and (c) Italy the United Kingdom percentage share of the total imports of manufactures in (i) 1970, (ii) 1979, (iii) 1990 and (iv) 1994. [29508]

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is given in the table.

  UK share of imports of manufactures

  Per cent.

  1970

  1979

  1990

  1994

  Original EFTA Ireland and Finland2

  15.5

  12.6

  8.7

  n/a

  Germany

  5.5

  6.6

  7.1

  7.0

  France

  6.2

  7.0

  7.5

  n/a

  Italy

  6.3

  6.9

  6.7

  7.0

  Note:

  1 Standard International Trade Classification 5 to 8.

  2 Original EFTA comprises Austria, Iceland, Norway, Portugal,

  n/a = not available.

  Source:

  United Nations World Trade Annual OECD Series C.

  Eurostat Intra and Extra EU Trade.

  No. 1 Victoria Street
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much it has cost to renovate his Department's building at 1 Victoria street, London. [28945]

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: The Department of Trade and Industry does not own 1 Victoria street. The building was vacated in 1991 after condition surveys had shown substantial deterioration of mechanical and electrical services. The landlord, Legal
  312
  and General Property, subsequently agreed to commit £59 million—net of VAT—to bring the building up to modern standards, in exchange for a new 25-year lease on commercial terms. DTI will finance the balance of the project costs which are expected to be up to £2.4 million.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effect of the Government's monetary and exchange rate policies since 1979 on the rate of return in manufacturing industry. [29441]

  Mr. Needham
  The net rate of return on capital employed by manufacturing companies rose from 3.3 per cent. in 1979 to 5.8 per cent. in 1993. This reflects an underlying improvement in the performance of manufacturing industry.

  Business Initiatives (Women)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what initiatives his Department has to assist and encourage women who want to start their own business; and how the success of any initiative is monitored and assessed. [29567]

  Mr. Page
  The Department of Trade and Industry's initiatives for businesses are open to all regardless of gender. All DTI business services are accessible through business links.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the maximum amount of compensation the privatised nuclear utility will be liable for in the event of a nuclear accident; and if the utility will be required to be insured for that amount. [28598]

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the then Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 10 January 1995,Official Report, columns 29–30.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further plans he has for full privatisation of all Patent Office functions. [28075]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The plans are as set in the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 14 December 1994,Official Report, columns 657–58.

  Telephone Numbers
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will publish or place in the Library a list of towns or areas which are expected to run out of telephone numbers by(a) January 1997, (b) January 1998, (c) January 1999 and (d) January 2000 if further action is not taken by the Office of Telecommunications; [29897]

  (2) if he will hold an inquiry into Oftel's recent addition of "1" to all telephone numbers; [29893]
  313
  (3) what steps he took to secure an undertaking from Oftel that the addition of "1" to all telephone numbers in April would be the last major number change this century; [29895]

  (4) what steps he took to ensure that the addition of "1" to all telephone numbers in April would meet the needs of all current and future telephone users; [29894]

  (5) if he will estimate the cost to business and individuals of the addition of "1" to all telephone numbers in April; [29892]

  (6) if he will ensure that the recommendations of Oftel's consultation into the requirement for new numbers in London, Cardiff, Belfast, Reading, Portsmouth and Southampton are the subject of independent scrutiny. [29896]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My Department welcomes the evidence of increased use of telephones and the demands for new applications of technology in telephony. The need to create new numbers reflects this.

  Specific numbering issues are the responsibility of an independent regulator, the Director General of Telecommunications, and I have therefore asked him to write to the hon. Member about the matters he has raised.

TRANSPORT

  River Thames
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the potential of the River Thames for residents and tourists. [28061]

  Mr. Norris
  Both the River Thames working group report and the Thames strategy report, the latter launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, recognise the importance of the Thames as a leisure and amenities resource for residents and visitors alike. Both reports make recommendations for maximising transport and recreational use of the river. Work on implementing these recommendations is continuing.

  Bull Bars
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what communication he has received from European Commissioner Kinnock on bull bars; and what is his response. [29304]

  Mr. Norris
  European Commissioner Kinnock wrote to me on 24 May and I replied on 8 June. I have placed a copy of the correspondence in the Library.

  Coastguard
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport at what time Falmouth received notification of distress signals issued by two British yachtsmen 110 nautical miles off La Corunna, Spain; when validation was confirmed by the coastguard station; when surface-to-air rescue was dispatched; and when it located the crew. [29332]

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Coastguard agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  314
  Letter from C. J. Harris to Ms Joan Walley, dated 21 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as the question deals with an operational matter, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.
  At 0954 Universal Time Coordinated (UTC) on 5 June 1995 a `detect only' signal was passed to the UK Mission Control Centre (UKMCC) and the Marine Rescue Coordination Centre (MRCC) Falmouth. This initial satellite 'hit' was "detect only"' that is, the data picked up by the satellite was insufficient to provide a position.
  The beacon was registered to the trimaran SEVERALLES CHALLENGE which was known to be participating in the AZAB race (Azores and back race), which departed from Falmouth on 3 June 1995. MRCC attempted to contact the vessel via BT International Radio Station, Portishead while AZAB race control were contacted for the last known position of the vessel.
  At 1053 UTC the UKMCC received positive information which indicated that the SEVERALLES CHALLENGE was positioned approximately 110 nautical miles off La Corunna, Spain. As the vessel was within the Spanish Search and Rescue Region the details were passed to MRCC Madrid.
  A search and rescue helicopter was despatched from the Marine Rescue Sub Centre La Corunna at 1155 UTC and located SEVERALLES CHALLENGE at 1300 UTC.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of(a) the balance of payments gains to the United Kingdom tourist industry and (b) the losses in holidays abroad following the construction of the channel tunnel. [29444]

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  Births at Sea
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many ships masters have reported a birth aboard their vessel to a marine superintendent during the last 10 years. [29593]

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Barry Field, dated 21 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about reports of births on ships.
  During the last ten years masters of ships have reported to Department of Transport marine superintendents that there have been twelve births at sea. All births were on UK registered ships. No reports were received of births of UK citizens on non-UK registered ships.

  Al Steering Group
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times the Al steering group has met during the last two years; what were the dates of the meetings; what were the principal items on the agenda; and if he will make a statement on the future of the Al steering group and his Department's representation on it. [27583]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 14 June 1995 by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister with responsibility for roads in Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh,
  315
  West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), Official Report, column 589.

  Fatal Accidents
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current cost of a fatal accident used by his Department's Highways Agency in its cost-benefit analysis used for justifying new highway schemes; and how many fatalities involving HGVs there were in 1991–92, 1992–93, and 1993–94. [27874]

  Mr. Watts
  The latest estimate of the cost of a fatal accident is £913,140—in 1994 prices and values.

  The number of fatalities in accidents involving heavy goods vehicles were:

  1991–92: 759 (of which 359 were on trunk roads)

  1992–93: 730 (of which 292 were on trunk roads)

  1993–94: 677 (of which 307 were on trunk roads)

  Estonia Accident
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the purpose of his visit to a roll-on roll-off ferry following the sinking of the Estonia; and what was the link between the exercise he witnessed and the disaster in the Baltic sea. [29299]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  As soon as preliminary investigations linked the cause of the Estonia accident to a failure of the bow door mechanism, I asked the Marine Safety Agency to carry out precautionary checks on the bow doors of all ro-ro ferries operating to and from United Kingdom ports. These inspections involved an examination of the bow door structure and locking system, a hose test to verify the watertight integrity of the doors and checks of surveillance equipment. Operational and reporting procedures were also examined.

  I was informed regularly of the progress of the inspection campaign, and I visited a ro-ro ferry in Dover to witness the comprehensive tests that were being carried out by MSA surveyors.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the net profit or loss so far of the preparation for and implementation of rail privatisation. [29337]

  Mr. Watts
  The net benefit of privatisation will be assessable only after the privatisation process is complete. We fully expect the benefits to passengers, of introducing private sector management and of freeing the railway from the constraints of public sector ownership, to far exceed the costs of restructuring and privatisation.

SCOTLAND

  Offshore Installations
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to meet the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to discuss the effect of the abandoning of offshore oil and gas installations on the fishing industry. [28988]
  316
  Sir Hector Monro
  I have been asked to reply.

  Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department officials have liaised closely with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on abandonment policy prior to and since the federation submitted its view to the Government's Abandonment Policy Review Committee. I have no plans to meet the federation to discuss this matter.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what monitoring his Department intends to undertake on the effect on the Scottish fishing industry of the abandonment of offshore oil and gas installations. [28986]

  Sir Hector Monro
  I have been asked to reply.

  The possible impact of abandoned offshore oil and gas installations on the marine environment or on the fishing industry is considered fully as part of the Government's assessment of each abandonment plan. That is described in the Government's Abandonment Policy Review Committee's recent "Guidance Notes for Industry". The monitoring requirements of each abandonment will be specified in the abandonment plan, as necessary.

  Dounreay
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will conduct an inquiry into the criticisms of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate made by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment in relation to their failure to conduct a full investigation of the release of particles at Dounreay; and if he will ensure that UKAEA provides COMARE with all the information in their possession, now and in the future, relevant to their investigation of the Dounreay foreshore. [29195]

  Sir Hector Monro
  No. Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate has confirmed that it will make available to COMARE any information in its possession that is relevant to COMARE's inquiries. I understand that a similar assurance has been given by UKAEA.

  College Lecturers
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total cost of the 1991 Anderson committee of inquiry into training of college lecturers. [28932]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This matter is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The review of the arrangements for the initial training of further education college lecturers in Scotland was undertaken during the period December 1991 to August 1993. The analysis was undertaken by a review committee, the membership of which was drawn from further and higher education and other interests. Direct costs of the exercise were confined to travelling and subsistence for members of the review committee; and the printing of the report. Total costs in the those respects amounted to approximately £5,500.

  Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd.
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will name the consultants who are to conduct the review of private sector involvement in Highland and Islands Airports Ltd.; what is the cost of the exercise; what are their terms of reference; when the consultants are due to report; and if he will undertake to publish the final report. [29315]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Proposals by a number of firms of consultants have been received and are currently being assessed. The successful candidate will be selected by the end of June and will report by mid-October. The study will cost around £60,000. No decision has been taken yet on whether the final report will be published.

  The aim of the study will be to advise my right hon. Friend on how the private sector might be involved in all or part of the business of Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd., with the objective of ensuring the most cost-effective delivery of high-quality services to users, both passengers and air transport operators.

  The terms of reference for the study make it clear that the airports are seen as essential for the social and economic well-being of the highlands and islands of Scotland and that it is essential that any arrangements should secure the long-term future of those services. The consultants will be asked to advise on a range of options, including: the sale of all or part of the business; franchising all or part of the business to the private sector; and other options for involving private sector finance and/or management skills.

  Those options will be considered against a base case of no change in the present arrangements. No decision has been taken at this stage to privatise HIAL of any part of it.

  Water Supply
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the chairmen of the water boards to discuss quality and reliability of water supply. [28060]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Secretary of State intends to meet chairmen-designate of the new Scottish water authorities in July to discuss a range of issues of mutual interest.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people from Scotland were studying at a higher education institution in the United Kingdom in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [29042]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of people from Scotland studying at higher education institutions in the United Kingdom, for the latest two years available, is set out in the table:

  Number of people from Scotland in UK Higher Education Institutions

  Number

  1992–931

  97,860

  1993–942

  103,059

  1 Includes full-time university students only for HEIs in Wales and Northern Ireland.

  318

  2 Includes university students only for HEIs in Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of Scottish higher education departments received a research rating of(a) 3 or above and (b) 5 during the recent research assessment exercise; and if he will make a statement. [29047]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Of the total number of units of assessment for which submissions were made by Scottish higher education institutions, 63 per cent. received a rating of 3 or above and 9 per cent. received a rating of 5.

  The 1992 research assessment exercise rated research by units of assessment which do not necessarily coincide with the internal structure of departments in the higher education institutions, and not all departments made submissions of research for assessment.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average loans and awards expenditure on each student from Scotland in 1994–95; what proportion of the figure went on(a) student loans, (b) fee expenditure and (c) maintenance expenditure; what were the corresponding figures for those studying at the universities of (i) Oxford and (ii) Cambridge; and if he will make a statement. [29048]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the academic year 1994–95 the average awards expenditure per student domiciled in Scotland is estimated to be £1,227 on fees and £1,560 on maintenance. The reduction in average fee payments by comparison with earlier years reflects a shift in the overall funding of tuition costs as between institutional grant in aid and individual tuition fees.

  The average loan to students domiciled in Scotland, including those who do not qualify for an award, in the academic year 1993–94, the latest for which information is available, was £695.

  Separate data in respect of those studying at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge are not available centrally.

  Estate Ownership
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the foreign-owned companies which currently own estates in Scotland; which are(a) wholly owned by foreign state Governments and (b) partly owned by foreign Governments; and if he will make a statement. [29745]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No specific record is maintained for the purpose of identifying foreign companies, owned wholly or partly by foreign state Governments, which own land in Scotland.

  Education (Government Expenditure)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of identifiable Government expenditure on education in Scotland, including mandatory loans and awards to students, is devoted to(a) primary education, (b) secondary education, (c) further education and (d) higher education; and if he will make a statement. [29043]
  319
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Identifiable Government expenditure on education in Scotland in 1993–94 was £3,644 million. That includes expenditure by the Secretary of State directly and by local authorities, and was divided as follows:

  Per cent

  Primary

  30.0

  Secondary

  34.1

  Further

  7.7

  Higher

  22.8

  The following points are relevant to interpretation of these figures:

  1. The percentages do not total to 100 as other items of education expenditure—principally nursery and community education and the careers service—are excluded.

  2. The figure of £3,758 million for identifiable Government expenditure on education in 1993–94 included in table 7.6A of Cm 2821—Public Expenditure: Statistical Supplement to the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96—also includes expenditure on recreation and leisure, sport and Gaelic broadcasting.

  3. Pupils began secondary education in Scotland at age 12.

  4. Further education expenditure includes bursaries paid by local authorities.

  5. Higher education expenditure includes the costs of grants—paid by the Student Awards Agency for Scotland—and of student loans received by all Scottish domiciled students undertaking higher education courses. It does not include expenditure on awards or loans for students who are domiciled elsewhere in the United Kingdom but are undertaking courses in Scotland.

  6. Some higher education courses are provided at further education colleges; further education courses may also be provided at higher education institutions. The costs of these cannot readily be separately identified and are attributed to the sector of provision.

  Small Businesses
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in which sectors of the economy(a) small businesses and (b) medium-sized businesses are predominantly to be found. [29572]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Although there is no fixed definition of "small" or "medium-sized" businesses, VAT registration data are available by turnover size band and are often used as a basis for analysis. Sectoral data on the number of VAT-registered legal units, by turnover size band, are available for Scotland in table 3E of Business Monitor PA1003 "Size Analysis of UK Businesses" for various years. Copies are available in the Library.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were employed by(a) small businesses and (b) medium-sized businesses in each of the last 10 years; and if he will break these figures down by gender. [29571]

  Mr. Kynoch
  There is no single official definition of small or medium-sized business. However, data for Scotland on the number of persons employed in census of employment data units, which roughly correspond to workplaces, broken down by employee size band are available for 1984, 1987, 1989 and 1991. Those data can be obtained from the NOMIS database, which can be accessed by the staff of the Library of the House. Information by gender is not available.
  320
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's definition of a small business and a medium-sized business. [29569]

  Mr. Kynoch
  There is no single "official" definition of what constitutes a small or medium-sized business. A range of definitions is used, each valid in its own context. For example, the SMART competition is aimed at businesses with up to 50 employees with an annual turnover not exceeding 5 million ecu or a balance sheet total not exceeding 2 million ecu, whereas the SPUR scheme if open to businesses with no more than 250 employers and an annual turnover not exceeding 20 million ecu or a balance sheet total not exceeding 10 million ecu.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) small businesses and (b) medium-sized businesses were started up in each of the last 10 years; and if he will break these figures down by gender of the entrepreneur. [29570]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Although there is no fixed definition of "small" or "medium-sized" businesses the vast majority of new business start-ups will, by any definition, be small. The best guide to trends in the number of start-ups in Scotland is given by registrations for VAT. Copies of "VAT registrations and deregistrations, county and district analyses 1980–91" and "VAT registrations and deregistrations, county and district analyses 1992–93" are in the Library. Information is not available on gender of the entrepreneur.

  Swedish Land
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much land in Sweden is owned by the Scottish Office. [29744]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  Woodland Grants
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the foreign-owned companies which have been paid Government grants to plant trees on estates in Scotland in the past five years; and how much each has been paid in Government grants for this purpose; [29742]

  (2) if he will list the foreign-owned companies in receipt of Government grants for planting trees on estates in Scotland in 1995–96; and how much has been paid out to each company; [29746]

  (3) how much his Department has allocated to pay out to foreign-owned companies to plant trees on estates in Scotland in 1995–96; and how much is allocated to be spent on foreign-owned companies planting trees on Scottish estates in (a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [29743]

  Sir Hector Monro
  We do not record the nationality of the owners of companies which have received, or will receive, grants under the woodland grant scheme.

  M80
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the present position concerning the proposed construction of the M80 motorway between Stepps and Haggs; and if he will make a statement. [29749]
  321
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In response to an earlier question I had indicated that a decision on the proposed route for the M80 would be taken soon. Because of the scale and complexity of this scheme, its 322
  substantial cost and the need to minimise its impact on the environment, further studies have been commissioned. Those are nearing completion.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Privatised Industries: Consumer Safeguards
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the safeguards against the abuse of the monopoly or near monopoly of the privatised public utilities are adequate.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, yes. The Government believe that their approach of promoting competition where possible and regulating utility prices elsewhere has protected the consumer. It has also benefited both consumers and the wider economy, as shown by price reductions and service improvements.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many consumers do not believe that they have been adequately protected by the present regime covering, in particular, water, electricity and gas? Consumers feel that, although some prices may not have gone up, they should have gone down more than they have. The activities of the management of those industries and their sheer corporate greed make one wonder whether a bit of competition is not what is needed in those industries.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, first, I welcome anybody from the party opposite to the ranks of those of us who believe in competition. The noble Lord said that prices may have come down. That is an interesting use of the word "may", because prices in two of the three industries mentioned have come down. That is in stark contrast to the warnings given by the party opposite at each and every privatisation when it said that prices would go up. For example, the price of gas has fallen by 23 per cent. in real terms, and the real industrial price of electricity has come down by 14.5 per cent. in the past five years. Of course in the water industry prices have had to increase, but that is because it has had to invest a vast amount of money to ensure that we have clean waters around our shores and in our rivers. That is what has been done—£15 billion has been spent on that over the past five years. I should have thought that noble Lords would welcome that.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, if we are to judge by results, it is worth bearing in mind that before we started to privatise nationalised industries, they were losing collectively £50 million per week? According to the latest privatised industries accounts which are available, they have been making £50 million to the benefit of the Treasury.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to draw attention to those facts. British Airways is now the leading international airline in
266
private hands. Companies like British Steel are now making a profit. Yesterday I read a report that it is among one of the most profitable steel companies in the world. What a change that is from 15 years ago.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, since this matter was last raised in the House, I commended to the Minister a statement by the regulator of Ofgas, Clare Spottiswoode, who said that she did not know her terms of reference, and her annual report to Parliament was not worth the paper that it was written on. The lady concerned has since received a substantial increase in salary as a result of that confession. Can the Minister comment on that?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as to the second part of the noble Lord's question, the lady has received an increase in salary but nothing like the increase which the Labour Party predicted that she would receive. It was wrong about that as it is wrong about so many other matters when it comes to speculation. But the noble Lord should recognise—and I am sure that he does—that the pay increase reflects the fact that her job has changed since she was appointed. Since then, the Gas Bill has given her extra functions and the Government have brought forward the opening up of the domestic gas market to competition.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the continual carping against the privatisation of this Government is extremely stupid in view of the fact that, as my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out, the amount of money going to the Exchequer, rather than subsidies being paid by the taxpayer, has proved that that economic policy is absolutely right? Does my noble friend also agree that the dead hand of nationalisation from which we suffered in the past is so well behind us?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right, although he is unkind to use the word "stupid". I believe that "misguided" would perhaps be a better word to use. Of course, when one goes through the history of the past 15 years, one realises that the opposition of the parties opposite to each and every privatisation was even more misguided. To each and every one there was the promise of renationalisation. Where is that promise now? Is it dead, with the old Labour Party?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, has the Minister, like the rest of us, received the latest report from the Post Office which paints a glowing picture of how well it is doing under public ownership; how great are the profits; how it is improving; and how much it is contributing every year to the Treasury? I sincerely hope that the Government have no plans to privatise the Post Office. I seek his assurance on that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, some noble Lords will appreciate that I have not had much time to read some of the contents of my mailbag. I have not read that report, but I have read in the press that the Post Office is improving its service and doing better than it was. That is to be widely welcomed, and my right honourable friend Mr. Michael Hesel tine has made clear our position in regard to the Post Office.

267
Of course, the success of a related firm, British Telecom, has been quite astronomical. Do your Lordships remember the predictions made by the party opposite that on privatisation there would be no phone boxes working in the country? There are now 50 per cent. more phone boxes and almost all of them work, in stark contrast to the situation in the days of the dead hand of state control.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that there are also better things ahead, inasmuch as the privatisation of the grid will be of great benefit in cash terms to domestic consumers of electricity?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, my Lords; I agree with my noble friend. I believe that there is considerably more good news to come for electricity consumers. New distribution controls will lead to further falls in domestic prices this year. Of course, the early abolition of the nuclear element of the fossil fuel levy ought to lead to a reduction of something like 8 per cent. for all customers during 1996.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the abuses that has most disturbed members of the public is the extraordinary increase in salaries and share options which the directors of privatised industries have awarded themselves? I am sure that the noble Lord is aware—although some of his colleagues do not seem to be—that the Prime Minister has denounced those practices; indeed, he called them distasteful. However, why has he said so much and done nothing?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that my noble friends were expressing their surprise at the noble Lord's line of questioning. Perhaps they expected him to join us in praising the success of the privatised industries or to explain why the Labour Party was not going to renationalise them if they think that they are so awful. The last time that I appeared at the Dispatch Box answering such a question I underlined the point that the Government condemn excessive and unjustified salary increases at any level. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made those points on a number of occasions in response to the Leader of the Opposition in another place. We are awaiting the outcome of the Greenbury Committee and, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, we shall consider any proposals that require legislation.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, as a matter of interest, can my noble friend say how an industry when privatised can make £50 million a week and yet, when nationalised, it seems to lose £50 million a week? Is it something to do with management?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as experience all over the world has shown, the point that my noble friend makes is absolutely right: industries when privatised are markedly more successful than they were when nationalised. That is why both this country and many other countries in the world—including, interestingly, ones which appear to have governments of the Left—have gone down exactly the same road. I would need much more time to explain the matter. However, the
268
fact is that industries work much better when privatised. I believe that that is why the party opposite is no longer pledging to renationalise.

Churches: VAT on Repairs
2.46 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will withdraw the charge of VAT on work done on the maintenance and repair of listed buildings, including churches.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Government have no intention of withdrawing or reducing VAT charges on the repair and maintenance of listed buildings and churches.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, to begin with, perhaps I may disclose an interest as I am church warden of a very small and beautiful church in Hampshire. With great difficulty we raised sufficient funds to cover necessary repairs to the building but then found an additional heavy load of VAT was imposed. Is it not outrageous that such transactions should be subjected to heavy taxation of a wholly unmeritorious and unnecessary character?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am slightly surprised that my noble friend, who was a distinguished Chief Secretary to the Treasury, should think in such terms about taxation. The Government believe that it is wisest to have as broadly based a tax system as possible. In general terms, we are opposed to reduced rates in principle. They erode the revenue yield and lead other people to ask, "Well. if them, why not us?"
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that church buildings have a significance for our society which amounts to far more than being places of worship, providing, as they do, a sense of stability, security and history in a volatile society, especially in those communities where the church is the only remaining public institutional building? Further, does the Minister recognise that, for the small congregation without assured access to outside funding, the difference made to the cost of the restoration of its church by the requirement to pay VAT can determine whether or not the building survives as a facility for the community in the future?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, of course I recognise that fact. The right reverend Prelate is outlining the importance not only of the church buildings but also, I would hope, the importance of the Church in a community, quite separate from the church building. I equally appreciate the difficulties in raising funds. That difficulty is shared by other organisations and institutions looking after buildings which require work to he carried out on them.
However, I am afraid that my position remains what it was when we debated the subject at the end of January. We believe it is sensible that repairs and maintenance should be subject to standard rating and that there should he no exceptions on the kinds of buildings on which the

269
standard rating is imposed. The right way to help churches and other such buildings is through the grants paid by organisations like English Heritage.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, surely it is not the case that exceptions are impossible. After all, there are (are there not?) already exceptions to VAT. Is it not the position that the Government cannot make the exception proposed without breaching European laws?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I was not resting on that case. However, the noble Lord is right. Under the directive on value added tax there is a list of those items which can be dealt with in that way. Historic buildings and churches are not part of that list. However, I would not make that my defence. My defence is that the Government do not believe that we should make exceptions in the case of repair and maintenance to buildings.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, can my noble friend explain the apparent illogicality of additions to listed buildings being free of VAT while repairs necessary to preserve listed buildings attract VAT?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is a longstanding feature of value added tax and buildings that new build and new construction is zero rated and that alterations are zero rated but that repair and maintenance, which can cover a wide range of items in a building, are not zero rated. My noble friend will remember that these difficult decisions have to be made in every tax system based on expenditure. I think that we do best if we make as few exceptions as we possibly can, and that is why I am not attracted to making another one in this case.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I express an interest in this matter as secretary of a parish in Oxfordshire. Most parishes have managed to keep their church buildings going, despite the VAT, by raising money. Is there not now the opportunity to remove VAT when every parish is expected to pay for its incumbent as well in the future?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that takes us down a slightly different avenue. If I have understood the noble Baroness correctly, I should say that I do not believe that money should be rebated from the tax system so that stipends can be paid. There is already an extensive range of direct tax reliefs which help churches and other charities; for example, covenants. I am sure that every church, including the one I belong to in Glasgow, is keen to encourage people to take out covenants. There is also payroll giving for some charities.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, is not the real trouble that the rate of VAT at 17.5 per cent. is much too high? When the VAT was introduced it was levied at a rate of 10 per cent. Is it not the case that every time you jack up the rate you create problems of this kind?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend makes a wider point on the subject of VAT. One has to balance a number of factors; for example, the amount of money the Government need to raise in order to meet the commitments that this House and the other place ask us to undertake. That is one factor. There is also the balance between direct and indirect taxation. It is
270
important to try to have as few rates of value added tax as possible. I should point out to the noble Lord—if I need to—that many of our friends in the rest of the European Union have much higher rates of value added tax than we do.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, in answering this Question the noble Lord has stated with considerable confidence that the scope of VAT is not to be reduced in this case. Can he say with equal confidence that the scope of VAT will not be increased?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his Answer is a great disappointment to those of us who are struggling to keep churches going? Is he aware that there are exceptions to VAT and that there is no moral or logical reason why care, particularly of churches and ancient buildings, should not be included in the exceptions?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I understand the problems that my noble friend has raised. I appreciate that they are absolutely real and difficult problems to deal with, especially for churches in the countryside with diminishing congregations. I repeat what I said. There are other ways to seek money, for example, from English Heritage. It may rather depend on the view of his church but perhaps I dare say to my noble friend that there is the National Lottery which can come into play in these matters.

Personal Protective Equipment
2.56 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they will take to ensure that farmers observe the amended Personal Protective Equipment (EC Directive) Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/3139) when they come into force on 1st July 1995.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, these regulations apply to manufacturers of personal protective equipment (PPE). Other regulations apply to the use of such equipment, including by farmers. Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive will always be happy to advise on the use of personal protective equipment.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he accept that under the COSHH regulations a farmer is expected to ensure that both he and his employees are protected from any perceived injuries or other damage to themselves? Does the noble Lord also accept that it is now recognised that OP sheep dips are dangerous to use? Is he aware that I and a number of other people have contacted the Health and Safety Executive and the manufacturers of personal protective equipment? One manufacturer provides equipment with a CE mark, but he will give no guarantee that if it is used for sheep dipping it will protect anyone who is wearing it. Will the noble Lord please say what the legal position is both for the farmer and for an employee if they subsequently suffer ill health from dipping?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Countess has asked an extremely complicated question which is essentially hypothetical. She has described in general terms, with which I would agree, the nature of the system which circumscribes the use of such sheep dips. However, I cannot make any comment on a particular analysis of what might or might not happen in the event of some injury being incurred. It would entirely depend on the circumstances of the case.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, has the Minister's attention been drawn to the recent report in the Sunday Telegraph which pointed out that it is almost impossible, if not impossible, to get hold of protective clothing with the correct CE mark because the correct CE mark cannot have been tested in the way that the regulations say that it should be?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I believe that the article to which the noble Lord refers is one that appeared in the Sunday Telegraph written by Mr. Booker. The position as described in that article is not correct. The background and research have not resulted in an accurate analysis of the position, and as a result that has caused considerable concern and distress. It is possible to obtain equipment with the CE mark. What is equally important is that, under the law as it now stands, from 1st July this year it will be unlawful for manufacturers to place PPE on the market—that is, into the supply chain—unless it has a CE mark. But any materials of this sort which are already in the supply chain can perfectly lawfully be acquired and used for as long as they are safe.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, as Ministers of the Crown are not averse to making contributions by means of letters to the leading newspapers, will the noble Lord bear in mind the necessity, in view of the accusations that have been made against Mr. Booker, for a letter to be sent to the Telegraph explaining precisely where he was wrong?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is not the practice of the Government to respond to every casual article in any particular newspaper, whether it is a weekly or a Sunday newspaper. Over the years we have taken a great deal of time and trouble endeavouring to make quite sure that the position as regards sheep dipping is entirely understood. We shall continue to do that. I understand that even "The Archers" programme has been involved in describing the position.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, would it not be better, in view of the criticisms that have frequently been made, if the use of this substance were outlawed altogether? Incidentally, we should thank the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for the diligence with which she has pursued this issue on behalf of those who work in farming. Is the Minister confident that, if it is not outlawed, the Health and Safety Executive has a sufficiently strong inspectorate to ensure that the use of this substance is properly monitored?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right to point out the service that the noble Countess has done in drawing this matter to our attention. There are certain circumstances where OP dips are the best and probably the only form of dip which can he used. In those
272
circumstances we believe, as we have always believed, that provided they are used properly, both in accordance with the law and in accordance with the principles of common sense, there is absolutely no case for outlawing them.
I have every confidence in the ability of the HSE inspectorate to monitor the situation properly. It makes something of the order of 30,000 visits to farms every year, although obviously all of those are not sheep farms. In addition, the inspectorate is currently carrying out a survey, which follows up a survey carried out in 1992–93, on sheep farms to examine sheep dipping practice in the field.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Lord said that personal protective equipment in the pipeline need not carry the CE mark. Is he aware that all the instructions for the use of OP sheep dips say that protective clothing must be in tip-top condition and that it must be destroyed if there are any faults in it? Therefore, farmers will be checking their equipment now for the autumn dipping and may want to replace it. What is their position if no manufacturer will guarantee their personal protective equipment for use with OP sheep dips? Is a farmer acting against the law if he compels his workers to wear protective clothing which is supposedly sub-standard when he dips his sheep?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the crucial point that I should like to emphasise is that the presence or otherwise of the CE mark has no direct bearing on whether a particular item is sound and suitable for the circumstances in which it is used. That is the test under the COSHH regulations at present.
As I explained, any item which is in the retail chain before 1st July this year can be sold and used lawfully by anybody engaged in this activity. I hope that that makes the position absolutely clear. In individual circumstances, it is for the people in charge of sheep dipping to make sure that they are not acting in breach of the COSHH regulations. Advice is provided in the leaflet, Sheep Dipping, sent out by the Ministry of Agriculture.

Swinden Quarry: Planning Application
3.1 p.m.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they decided not to call in the planning application for further mineral extraction at Swinden Quarry in the Yorkshire Dales National Park.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, our approach is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so. The Secretary of State for the Environment will therefore be selective about calling in applications for his determination and will, in general, take that step only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved.
I can assure your Lordships that the decision on whether to call in the application to extend Swindon Quarry, given the site's location in a national park, was taken only after the most careful scrutiny. It was decided

273
on the basis of the information before us that the application did not raise issues of more than local importance.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he recall that during our debates on the Environment Bill I tabled amendments with cross-party support to incorporate a statutory test? That test would ensure that major development would not be allowed in national parks unless there was either an overriding national need or there was no suitable alternative location. Does he also recall that my noble friend Lord Ullswater assured me that a statutory test was not necessary as the issue of national need and alternative location was covered by Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 7? Therefore, can the Minister confirm that that government policy still stands? If so, can he elaborate on why the Secretary of State did not call in this particular application?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the most important point to make to my noble friend is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State did not call in the application because in his view the proposal, which was the extension of an existing site—by deepening rather than widening the site—did not constitute a major development. Nor did my right honourable friend consider that the application raised issues of regional or national significance. I stress to my noble friend that the Government's policy remains, as set out in PPG 7, that major development should not take place in national parks save in exceptional circumstances.
My noble friend also asked whether the statutory test that he proposed during our debates on the Environment Bill might be considered further. We do not accept that the policy for major developments in national parks is so special as to justify policy duplication in statute. Planning decisions involve judgment. Putting a planning test in statute will not make it any more or less likely that some people will disagree with particular decisions.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a 100-metre deep hole is being dug in a national park in order to produce high quality limestone, 96 per cent. of which is merely going into aggregate? Is that worth while? Is it not a real abuse of the procedures, and will the Government do something about it?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, there has been a quarry on the site for the best part of 100 years. Therefore, the proposal—for the quarry to be deepened rather than widened—is not quite as controversial as the noble Lord suggests. The aggregate from the quarry can be manufactured to a very high quality aggregate suitable for high specifications. It is also appropriate for local use.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is it not seriously wrong to suggest that a development that will lead to another 26 years of excavation in a national park which is of national importance, involving something like 37 million tones of aggregate, is a local matter?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, national parks in themselves arc a national matter, but not all activities in national parks become national matters. I point out to the noble Baroness that the new proposal before the national
274
park authority will lead to significant benefits. There will be a reduction in road traffic, an increase in the amount of material sent out by rail, a ban on night road haulage movements and relocation of unsightly buildings.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, will my noble friend continue to keep in mind the importance of industry and employment in the countryside, which are just as important as anywhere else? Secondly, since the quarry is already open, will he bear in mind that the standard of restoration is now very high and enables what would have been an eyesore to be transformed into good restored countryside in the end?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I agree with those points.

Housing and Construction
3.7 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick rose to call attention to the housing needs of the nation and the ability of financial institutions and of the construction industry in general to meet these needs; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that as a result of the debate we shall have some indication of measures that may be taken to deal with the present situation. There is no doubt that all the figures produced on any aspect of housing show a deteriorating situation.
The first part of my Motion calls attention to the housing needs of the nation. The second part deals with the building industry. Noble Lords will know that over the years I have from time to time asked questions as to why in the past few years we have had half a million building operatives on the dole, building firms across the spectrum working below capacity, and huge sums of money which belong to local authorities locked up and subject to restrictions which prevent those authorities from building at the rate they would like. I do not know what the Government are waiting for.
It is not as if a bolt from the blue has suddenly caused a housing crisis—and it is a crisis. It is the result of deliberate government policy, introduced under the present President of the Board of Trade, the Right Honourable Michael Heseltine, when he took office as Secretary of State in 1979. The first thing he did was to set about removing government subsidy for council house building. The Government compounded that by making the insane decision—and I still think it is insane—to stop local authorities building housing for rent. Historically, since the early 1920s they were the biggest provider of low rent housing. I do not say that they were perfect, but they were far and away the best landlords in the country.
It is about time that the Government ceased their vendetta against local authorities and their council houses and started giving authorities the facilities and finance to enable them to eat into the problem regarding the appalling current housing situation.
Over the years the Conservative Party has claimed to he the party of the owner-occupier. Literally every owner occupier in the country has been hit by what has occurred in the house purchase industry. An enormous number of people are now trapped in negative equity. From an item

275
on the news this lunch time, I understand that the problem of negative equity is not reducing; it is increasing. Approximately 1,000 houses a week are still being repossessed. Those of us who are fortunate enough to own our own homes have a diminishing asset because of the Government's policy. It was rather naughty of the Prime Minister to suggest in a speech a few weeks ago that the problem of negative equity was people's own fault for daring to buy their houses.
Ministers always fall back on the success of the sale of council houses. That policy was a success based on enormous cuts in prices through the goodwill that the Government were able to engender and trade on. However, I have figures which indicate that in some areas of London some people received as much as a £50,000 cut in the price of their council house so they could purchase it. Yet in the same area young couples purchasing a similar type of house were being dispossessed because they owed a far smaller sum than the figure to which I referred. That does not seem to me to be equal treatment of people of the same nation.
I understand the situation now is that, if one deducts council houses from the number of houses being purchased, for the first time for many years in this country the figure is on the downturn.
What has happened over the years regarding provision of council housing or housing for rent? A number of reports have been instigated by prominent people in this country. They were not from political parties. We can go back to the Duke of Edinburgh and his commission. A group of people with expertise across the board on housing—it was in no way politically motivated—put forward proposals to assist housing in this country. Did the Government take action? There were some comments about parts of the reports with which they did not agree, but no action was taken.
We then had the report of the commission of the former Archbishop of Canterbury, the noble Lord, Lord Runcie, Faith in the City. It was a superb report for anyone to read in depth. It pointed the way forward. Once again the report was not politically inspired. But nothing happened; it just gathered dust.
The reports were supported by reports from other people—not from a political background—who took the same view. Those reports indicated, sadly, that deterioration in the housing stock of the owner-occupier section of the country is reaching alarming proportions. Between £8 million and £10 million will be required to bring those houses up to standard for the public sector. But nothing has happened and those houses just deteriorate.
I referred to costs that were first commenced by Mr. Heseltine. Figures have proved conclusively that had the Government continued with housing finance and allowed the councils to continue to build we would have gained between half a million and a million more houses available for rent in this country. There is no point in saying that an accident happened. That accident was a result of deliberate government policy. I have said this before in this Chamber, and I say it again: it was the Government's fault and no one else's.
It is about time that the Government turned away from some of their political ideology now that the number of homeless people, and those in bed and breakfast accommodation, is increasing. If the money spent on providing bed and breakfast facilities were spent on building houses it would create a considerable number of houses for occupation. That is the current situation.
I have gone through most of the major points with regard to housing problems as we see them today. I now turn to the building industry. The Government, rightly, set up a committee under a former Member of another place, Sir Michael Latham, to consider the question of reorganising the building industry. He produced a very fine document which, I believe, in the main was accepted by the overwhelming majority of people involved in the building industry—certainly the builders themselves. There were some areas of disagreement, but, basically, it was accepted that a package was available which should be in the legislation to benefit the building industry.
What has happened? Yet again, we are going sideways, not forward. It seems strange to me that a major piece of legislation dealing with the building industry has now been handed to a Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Department of the Environment. I make no criticism of that junior Minister, but that does not give a high profile to a building industry which is in serious trouble. In the circulars and correspondence from building organisations and suppliers to the building and civil engineering industry there are no projections regarding an expanding workload in this country. Having said that, there are some outstanding successes in the export field—building abroad—which I commend.
I attended a working lunch a few weeks ago to discuss the Latham Report. We were disappointed to hear the Minister state that there can be no action in the current parliamentary Session. From the way he spoke, it appears that there will be none in the next Session because the matter has now gone back for further consultation.
The Government ought to take this strong point on board—it has been raised in your Lordships' House by noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber—regarding the reluctance of some of the large building companies to pay their bills on time to the smaller builders and suppliers. Because of cash flow problems that reluctance often results in the smaller builders going to the wall. I should like to see the Government giving attention to that factor because it is a very real worry to people.
The debate gives us the opportunity to discuss the present housing situation in this country. Members of your Lordships' House will know that over the years I have led several debates in your Lordships' Chamber on housing. I have always found that the Government take not a bit of notice if they do not agree with what someone says, irrespective of party, even if the logic of the argument is pointed out. If the Government had listened a little more instead of hiding behind their political dogma on housing, many of the problems that we now face would not exist. In my opinion, enormous sums of money will be necessary to put right the errors that have accrued over the years.
We are going backwards in the housing of our people. When I was a chairman of housing in Manchester we were almost out of the tunnel. We were building houses so fast

277
that keys were going out by the hundred each week. It was the same in all areas. Then suddenly someone in the Conservative Party thought, "We can't have local authorities doing this", and it was stopped. It is the first government ever to have stopped such building. As regards previous Conservative Governments, one has only to remember Harold Macmillan when he was in charge of the housing programme. He produced 300,000 council houses a year. I wonder what he would have thought if he had seen the shambles which the present Government are observing today. About 2,000 council houses will be built this year. A few weeks ago, when I questioned the Minister, I said that we were always told that, under the Housing Corporation, the HATs were the Government's answer once they had stopped councils building houses. We were promised that housing associations would have a yearly target of 60,000 houses. What is the Government's answer? That we will be lucky if there are 30,000 this year because of the enormous cuts created knowingly and intentionally by the Government in the allocation of cash to the Housing Corporation for general distribution. Those are the actions of a Government who are supposedly interested in dealing with a situation in which housing is greatly deteriorating.
I mentioned homelessness and other speakers will refer to the details; I have had to give a broad sweep. In conclusion, I believe that your Lordships' House should send out a message in regard to a situation which will not improve. I hope that for once the Government will listen to and not ignore that message. I beg to move for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, for initiating the debate. I wish first to answer the point made by him that it was deliberate government policy to reduce council house building. I do not deny that; I do not believe that councils are the best people to build houses. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, referred to Harold Macmillan's building programme. It was no fault of Harold Macmillan's, but that programme included many high-rise flats which have since had to be bulldozed.
The rapid fall in house prices which started in 1989 and continued for two years to the level we have today is affecting many people. As this period also corresponded with a great increase in unemployment, especially among people with high mortgages, it has caused a lot of hardship. I feel very sorry for all those people who have had their houses repossessed or who are unable to move because of negative equity. Thousands of construction workers have been thrown out of work.
In the late 1980s, the housing market became a gigantic bubble which eventually burst. The absurd situation arose when a cupboard in Kensington was sold for an astronomical price. House prices were rising by incredible amounts each year and everyone who was able to scrambled to get on the ladder. The government of the day—I am ashamed to say that it was a Conservative one—allowed that to happen.
It is absurd, however, to say that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was party to the policy of neglect in high economic decisions made at that time. As
278
Financial Secretary to the Treasury, he took no part in interest rate policy, but he was quite right to point out the other day, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, mentioned, what happened in the late 1980s. He was not blaming house buyers or building societies; he was merely stating what happened then and that it must not happen again.
Anyway, it is no good looking back. We must address the situation today and look at the future. We now have low inflation with house prices lower in relation to average earnings than has been the case for possibly 20 years. It is a good time to buy houses for those who can afford to. Unfortunately, although many are doing so, it is not enough to keep the housing market moving. This is due mainly to the feeling of job insecurity. Different patterns of employment must also be a factor. In the past few years, whole rafts of long-term jobs have gone; part-time working and short-term contracts have become more common.
Of course, the Government's reductions in mortgage tax relief—or MIRAS—have not helped. However, MIRAS, even at the level of £30,000, created a huge distortion of resources towards housing, besides costing the Exchequer millions of pounds in lost revenue. It is no answer to turn the clock back and try to kick-start the housing market by reversing the reductions. I doubt anyway whether it would have much effect. Because of low interest rates, mortgages are much cheaper anyway than they were when MIRAS was at a higher rate in real terms than it is now.
I turn to protection for mortgage interest on income support. The current system is highly unsatisfactory. It leaves 70 per cent. of people with mortgages without any help if they lose their jobs. People with working spouses, redundancy money or savings, or who have part-time or early retirement income, do not qualify. As a result, about 150,000 people on unemployment benefit receive no income support for their mortgages and 50,000 people a year have their homes repossessed. The cost of income support for mortgage interest has risen from £30 million to over £1 billion in 15 years.
The availability of government support and a belief among home buyers that it is all-embracing have discouraged the growth of comprehensive private mortgage insurance. The Government have rightly said that private insurance should ensure that everyone taking out a new mortgage has proper protection, by insurance or otherwise, against the threat of a spell of unemployment.
There have been screams from the Society of Mortgage Lenders which, in my view, is entirely self-interested; the society would much rather that the Government should bear the burden. Surely, though, if someone satisfies a lender that he qualifies for a mortgage he should also be a good insurance risk. Spreading the insurance cover over many people, as all insurance companies do, would mean that the premium should be at a reasonable level.
The private lending sector must also he encouraged by the Government. Many people seem to think that renting is in conflict with home ownership. That is not the case. Many people, especially the young, do not have the resources to get a mortgage and buy a house. The Government went some way to freeing the private renting sector by passing the 1988 Act. Before that Act

279
was passed, it was almost impossible to find a privately rented house or flat. I know that from personal experience. When my daughter left university to work in London she wanted to rent a small flat. The letting agent would not countenance a rental agreement with her; it had to be with a company. The reason was that there could be no certainty that she would not become a permanent tenant because of the rent Acts. Luckily, my family had a small private company, which had been set up by my parents to buy the village post office and some other property where we live. At that time, the company owned only six garages. I was therefore able to get the company to rent the property on her behalf. The majority of people would not have been able to do that.
The rent Acts first appeared in the First World War. Labour governments in the 1960s and 1970s made them even more restrictive and included furnished lettings. That means that Britain alone among industrial nations has a tiny private rented sector. The 1988 Act improved the situation. Only recently, however, have owners of houses taken advantage of the terms of the Act. I have recently seen for the first time I can remember houses with "To Let" signs outside them. In Yeovil and Taunton, near where I live, I have recently seen construction sites with advertisement boards showing that houses or flats are being built to let. That is very good news.
However, the 1988 Act did not go far enough. Obviously, there has to be some protection for tenants. Landlord and tenant relationships are often not easy. The law is still far too biased against the landlord. Thousands of privately owned buildings across the country are empty. Because of the existence of the rent Acts for 70 years, many have been allowed to go derelict. Owners will still not go to the expense of doing them up for fear of getting a tenant whom they cannot remove and being stuck with an uneconomic rent. Even when a tenant does not pay the rent for a time, there are tremendous legal difficulties in getting the tenant out. The Government have promised a White Paper on housing in the near future. I hope that it will address the problem.
There are a great many people who cannot afford an economic rent, even if houses and flats were available. By setting up housing associations, the Government have introduced private capital to social housing needs. Council estates are often badly run. I have dealt with that matter previously.
My main message is that the present situation is not as bad as it is painted. It is true that thousands of people have had their houses repossessed, and this year many more will suffer the same fate. That is very sad, but it cannot be avoided. The best prospect for housing in Britain is offered by sustainable, non-inflationary growth. The rising prosperity that the Government's policies will bring is the best hope for restoring confidence in the housing market and the construction industry. As in so many other aspects of policy, there arc no quick fixes. Politicians arc being dishonest when they try to persuade the public that there are.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has effectively introduced a debate on an issue of fundamental and topical importance which covers many aspects. Obviously in the short time available speakers cannot cover more than one or two aspects. I propose to concentrate on the need to improve the condition of the nation's existing housing stock. I should point out that for many years I have been president of the National Home Improvement Council.
Bearing in mind the relatively small contribution that new building can make to overall housing requirements, the maintenance of as many existing homes as possible in a reasonable state of repair is essential, especially in view of the Government's own forecasts of a 23 per cent. increase in the number of homes needed in the next 20 years.
The last major surveys into the quality of housing stock were made in 1991 and 1992. It emerged from the English House Conditions Survey that there were 24 million houses, or over 13 per cent. of the housing stock, in need of urgent repair. These are the homes of nearly 6 million people.
The official survey is now four years old. A survey undertaken recently by the National Home Improvement Council, which involved detailed responses from some 75 local authorities, showed that an increasing number of homes failed to meet the fitness standards. The situation appears to be deteriorating.
A relatively high proportion of sub-standard properties represents older stock. They tend to be inhabited by people on low incomes, and particularly by older people. So there is quite a social problem. The situation has serious health and safety implications. Britain has noticeably higher relative rates of winter mortality than other European countries, much of which is attributable to inadequate living conditions. There are also safety risks, particularly where faulty heating systems and wiring could be involved.
The present structure for providing grants for improving property remains as set out in the 1989 Local Government and Housing Act. The Act defined the circumstances under which grants could be made and introduced means testing for the major grant categories. Grants to achieve basic fitness standards became mandatory for those meeting the means test criteria, and provision was made for discretionary grants in special circumstances in addition.
In spite of those clearly stated intentions, I regret to say that the Act has failed to deliver—and for the simple reason that there has been a steady reduction in central government funding towards the grants from a peak of £1.3 billion in 1985–86 to the current level of no more than £260 million. As a result, many of the grants agreed under the means test arrangements have not been met. Furthermore, there has been virtually no scope for discretionary grants.
The Government are currently considering a reform of the grant system, and are concentrating on removing mandatory requirements and increasing the emphasis on area renewal projects. I quite agree that an area approach, which was tried before, is well worth attempting.

281
However, it still leaves the question of the major backlog of people who were promised grants but have not received them and who could get into an even worse situation as a result of the proposed reforms.
Apart from the review of the grant system and measures to deal with the backlog of applications, other measures are needed if a serious attempt is to be made to deal with the progressive deterioration of the nation's housing stock. Three measures in particular require serious attention. The presence of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, on the opposite Bench makes me hesitant to mention my first proposal in view of his reaction to a Question earlier today. It is a reduction of the VAT rate to 8 per cent. on housing renovation and repair work. I hope that the noble Lord's colleague who will reply may not have quite so closed a mind as he had on the subject. My researches show that this would be permissible under European Union regulations. Householders would be encouraged to undertake repairs and improvements to their property; and it could be made much more cost-effective for owners of vacant properties to undertake the necessary repairs. The reduced fiscal proceeds could be offset by increased activity in the construction industry, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, pointed out, is sorely needed.
One of the most serious weaknesses in existing homes is the lack of adequate standards of insulation and other ways of using energy efficiently. Much is already being done by Neighbourhood Energy Action, an organisation with which I have been connected for some years, to insulate the homes of people on low incomes, particularly those of the elderly. I am glad to say that government support for this scheme was recently increased. The scheme has already improved the homes of nearly 2 million people on low incomes. It needs to be further extended and made more flexible to cope with changing circumstances. The Home Energy Conservation Bill, introduced by my noble friend Lady Hamwee and passed in this House on 8th June, should go a long way to identifying where further action will be required to improve energy efficiency in the home. Electricity and gas undertakings could play a larger part in stimulating energy efficiency by their domestic consumers. This could be done, for example, by the provision of loans on favourable terms to install energy-efficient equipment.
The use by local authorities of capital receipts from house sales for housing investment has long been a bone of contention. A suggestion which the Government might be prepared to consider is that the proceeds of future receipts (leaving aside past receipts) might be put into improving the condition of local authorities' existing housing stock. This was attempted in a limited way in the 1992 Budget but there was not enough time for it to bear fruit. The reintroduction of such a measure in the next Budget could have a positive effect.
To conclude, my Lords, there is no doubt that the condition of the nation's housing stock presents a serious problem. The fact that over 13 per cent. of the total stock, involving nearly 6 million people, requires urgent repair can no longer he ignored. But unless concerted action is Quickly taken. further deterioration will undoubtedly set
282
in. That could add immeasurably to the many other problems that beset the housing market.
3.39 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for the opportunity of debating a subject of such fundamental importance. The Church of England has a long history of concern for housing provision both in a practical way and as a matter of public policy. Parish priests throughout the country know that poor housing conditions are related to so many of the other ills of our society. Conversely, adequate, affordable housing provides a sound base from which children can develop as they ought. Without the basic security of a home, the sense of belonging and rootedness needed for personal growth is virtually unattainable.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, referred to Faith in the City. That major report produced by the Archbishop's Commission in 1985 concluded that the structure of housing in urban priority areas was "totally inadequate". The authors continued:
"It is clear to us that the prevalent housing situation of UPAs is quite unacceptable".
Five years later, in 1990, a follow-up report, Living Faith in the City, reported:
"Sadly the analysis of housing issues presented in Faith in the City remains accurate. The number of homeless people has increased, more dwellings have become unfit for habitation"—
as was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—
"and new legislation has, for many people, rendered their continuing occupation of their current accommodation uncertain".
The housing shortage in rural areas for those on low incomes has also given rise to concern. Faith in the Countryside, the report of the Archbishop's Commission on rural areas, also published in 1990, said this:
"One issue above all others—housing—has been at the centre of the evidence which we have received, especially on our regional and diocesan visits".
The figures we have already heard and will hear again in this debate show starkly that the position since then has worsened further. There is still a desperate need for more and better affordable housing. Recent research commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation emphasises in particular the need for more rented accommodation. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Harding, emphasise that.
Home ownership is certainly a desirable option for those who can afford it. But many millions cannot and it may not be suitable for the growing number of people in insecure employment and those who need the flexibility to move for job reasons. Among young people in particular there is much less confidence in the prospect of home ownership than there was 10 years ago. Renting for many is the only option and for a good many more the only realistic one. Yet today there are 1,609,000 fewer council and housing association properties to rent than there were in 1979—a 50-year low. In the past two years the Government have cut funding to housing associations by more than £600 million. Local authority constructions arc now minimal.

283
I have the honour to be president of the National Federation of Housing Associations, which represents 1,600 housing associations, which together provide low-cost rented housing for more than 2 million people. They are the only major providers of new social housing in England today. The NFHA considers that between 130,000 and 150,000 new social rented homes are needed each year between the present day and the year 2001 if the extra demand created by demographic and unemployment changes is to be met. Yet on present funding levels only 51,000 new tenants will be provided with social rented homes in 1996–97. That is well below even the Government's own projection of housing needs, which ranges from 60,000 to 100,000.
I have a table of the investment in social housing from 1979 to the present day and it looks extremely dismal. There has been a year-on-year decline, even taking into account the private finance which is available to housing associations to match grants. The cutting of grants to housing associations means that the number of new rented homes started by housing associations in the current year will fall from an original plan of 40,000 to the very disappointing figure of 17,000.
Housing associations, which have all-party support, remain the key players in the provision of rented housing. But the need is so great that only a combination of private, local authority and housing association initiatives can begin to provide the response required. I emphasise again that the millions of people on low incomes, unemployed or with little job security cannot afford to own their own homes. In 1994 37 per cent. of households in Britain earned less than the Council of Europe's "decency" threshold, compared with 28 per cent. in 1979. And the increase in low paid, part-time work, self-employment and job insecurity all highlight the need for substantial investment in the rented sector at this time.
I know that other noble Lords will stress the relationship between that investment, the decrease in unemployment and the promotion of national prosperity, all of which have been urged in recent reports and are the subject of the last part of this Motion. I want simply to stress the human need and the necessity, one way or another, for all the agencies involved to tackle this problem and to make the provision of rented accommodation in particular a high priority for government over the next five years.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I start by expressing appreciation to my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick for raising this matter. I totally agree too with the speeches of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
I had intended to begin by talking about mandatory housing grants, but yesterday the Prime Minister made some comments in that connection in regard to the city of Birmingham which I regard as quite disgraceful and I feel called upon to raise them here. I gave notice to the Government's spokesman that I intended to do so.
284
Yesterday the Prime Minister decided to libel Birmingham City Council and the members of that body. He was referring to the report on Monklands and in a throw-away line he said that the Monkland council had created,
"jobs for the boys and jobs for their families".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/6/95; col. 149.]
He went on to say, referring to wrongdoing and corruption, that it was not an isolated example. He said that Birmingham was another such city; it was on the list. That is a disgraceful slur not only upon the city council but also on the good people of Birmingham. If the Prime Minister had made that statement outside, they would be able to take libel action against him.
At the moment he was speaking the city itself was releasing the results—I am sorry that the Government's spokesman seems to think this amusing—of its internal inquiry into allegations in relation to house improvement mandatory grants. It was an internal audit conducted by the chief executive and the auditors in consultation with the district auditor. It found no evidence whatever of corruption in Birmingham but it found that it was inevitable that Birmingham had to ration mandatory renovation grants to meet the insufficient resources provided by the Government.
The time has come therefore to ask the Prime Minister to put up or shut up. If he possesses any evidence of wrongdoing in Birmingham he should publish it or refer it to the appropriate authorities, who could investigate it. The problem with housing improvement grants in Birmingham is not malpractice by the city council; it is total ineptitude and disarray on the part of the Government. The law states that applications for mandatory improvement grants must be dealt with in six months. Ten thousand such applications now await Birmingham City Council's attention—10,000—and that requires £100 million of allocation to deal with them, as required by the law. The Government are making £14 million available to Birmingham. They refuse to provide the funds that will enable the city to meet the requirements of the law. That is a duplicity or fraud on the householders of Birmingham, and I have no doubt that similar things happen in other parts of the country.
I must ask the Minister when he comes to reply—if I may have his attention again—to tell us whether the Government will provide the funds for Birmingham to meet the legal obligations imposed on it by the Government, or how they expect it to deal with the outstanding millions of pounds when it does not have the resources.
The housing situation in Birmingham mirrors the position described by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. The city council's housing stock now stands at 99,500, a decline of 20 per cent. in the past 10 years. There are 16,000 applicants on the waiting list for council housing. Nearly 23,000 council tenants want to transfer to another property. Nearly 10,000 households approached the city as homeless in 1994. Almost two-thirds of those were in priority need, meaning that the city had an legal obligation to house them.

285
So far as concerns the housing stock, we estimate that we require around £1.3 billion to remedy the problems in the council's own housing stock. More than half of the city's 377 high-rise blocks of flats require urgent attention to the external structure. We have 15,000 inter-war council dwellings which need to be modernised. In the private sector there are 47,000 unfit homes. A further 80,000 are considered to be on the borderline of unfitness. Fifty-seven per cent. of private properties in the city need comprehensive repairs, costing £370 million, but the HIP allocation to Birmingham this year is £20 million. The 27,000 privately rented dwellings in the city have an unfitness rate of 24 per cent. Many houses in multiple occupation are both squalid and dangerous. As I have said, the financial resources available to the city are totally inadequate.
We have been allowed this year to build only 40 houses. The great city of Birmingham has that problem. The housing associations have seen their financial allocation fall from £58.2 million in 1993–94 to £22.4 million in 1995–96, a reduction of 60 per cent. in two years. I could give further examples but I want to make my final point about the future of the construction industry.
I was brought up in the belief that when the construction industry was in good heart the country was in good health. That is certainly not the case today. I mention particularly apprenticeships, on which the whole future of the building industry must depend. The number of apprenticeships has dwindled from the 1988 figure of 90,000 to 1,200 over the past 12 months. In other words, even if the housing market picked up, the skilled labour necessary to build the houses would not be available. The Construction Industry Training Board hopes to get between 12,000 to 15,000 new entrants next year, but it wants to know where the money will come from to provide the jobs for the apprentices if it trains them.
I conclude by asking some questions. First, what are the Government doing to sustain confidence among employers and employees in the construction industry? Are they ensuring a stable workload for the years ahead? Secondly, what are the Government doing to encourage the take-up of modern apprenticeships? Will the TECs and the Construction Industry Training Board have sufficient funds available to them to deal with the matter? Thirdly, what are the Government doing to ensure that our construction industry workforce are properly trained and qualified?
On every front of housing finance and construction we face a disaster. I hope that the debate will provide some answers from the Government to the searching questions being asked on all sides of the House.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, first I should like to deal with the Latham Report because current news about London disturbs me greatly. One of the claims in the Latham Report—the Government have accepted the report—is that there could be savings of 30 to 40 per cent. in the building industry if certain steps are taken. That claim was made 12 months ago and the report has been in abeyance ever since. The Labour Party has accepted the
286
report completely and says that it will implement Latham as soon as it gets control. Unfortunately, it will not get control that quickly. This Government may hang on. So it is very pertinent to ask the Government what they intend to do about Latham.
It will not take long to put the legislation through. There is the question of the resolving of disputes between contractors and sub-contractors. There is the question of the savings in administration and the question of employing project managers in order to ensure that the job the building industry is starting on behalf of a client goes on in an efficient manner. I should like to ask several more questions but I am sure that the Minister is fully aware of all the questions that Latham poses and the solutions the report suggests.
What do the Government intend to do about Latham? They know what the problems are. They have had the report for 12 months. There is no reason to delay implementing it any further. I ask the Government to implement it now because we have a wonderful example of what happens when we let the private trade, without any restrictions or suggestions by the Government, go ahead and do whatever it wants. The problem is right here at home. The National Audit Office has stated that the London Docklands Development Corporation put pressure on the Treasury because Olympia & York, the developers of Canary Wharf, needed the scheme to regenerate the area. What am I talking about? I am talking about a large site. There was the Jubilee Line extension, the London Docklands railway and the road that has now cost £450 million a mile to build. That is what I am talking about. And we are talking about possible savings of 30 to 40 per cent. inside the building industry with the Government as the client. It was a scandalous state of affairs and it was the reason why at 10.30 p.m. in this Chamber I tried to stop the Government from going ahead with these proposals, especially with the proposal for the Docklands Light Railway, in order that we should give them some further consideration. That consideration was not given and now the consequences are coming home to roost.
I talk like this because I want to see the building industry become more efficient. I came into the building industry at the age of 14 and started to serve my time to be a plumber. I then found that I could not get a job. Why could I not get a job? I could not get a job because the building industry sub-contractors were going out of business because of the big boys. That was 70 years ago but it is still going on. So I am interested in the building industry and I am interested in ensuring that people like me who spent years on a pittance learning a trade and trying to contribute to the building industry at least get a job when they finish. The point has been well put by my noble friend Lord Howell. It is important that we do that, but we do not have too much time.
I do not want to sit down before I have dealt with the issue that really concerns me. I hear people say that home ownership is a good thing. The Motion itself refers to the "needs of the nation". At the moment I am not very interested in the needs of the nation with regard to housing because the needs of the nation seem to be getting served by the decisions of the money institutions. That even applies to housing associations. I am concerned about the

287
people mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford—the people who cannot afford home ownership. Why should someone on a margin of about £2 or £3 a week be compelled, in order to get a shelter, to invest in a property which he or she will never experience as an owner? We have to recognise that there are, and always will be, such people. They have been persuaded by the Government's propaganda to buy their own home.
The working classes knew that the great deterrent to buying your own home was the tremendous commitment. There was the commitment to repair and to the regular payment which was based, more or less, on interest being paid over a period of 30 years. That was all right while there was a residue from the employment market that was left behind by the Labour Government, who had a considerably better record than this one. While some people were still working they could manage home ownership. Now it has been proved.
When I hear the opposition today boasting about the success of privatisation it makes me think about where that success came from. Let us be honest: it came through the application of efficiency measures in order to improve profitability. What were they? Does one believe that the managers of these wonderful privatised industries work harder? Their only contribution is in giving themselves bigger salaries.
Where did the efficiencies come from? They came from 2.5 million people who were deliberately made unemployed in order to make profits. That is the lesson to be learnt. That caused more growth in the number of people who could not afford home ownership. That is the consequence. We cannot look at this matter unless we consider the whole economy. That is why I say that if we are going to waste millions of pounds on one mile of road and if we are to persuade ourselves to build other projects just to get Olympia & York out of a financial embarrassment (in which they involved themselves by not planning properly in the first place) then we had better look at the economy as a whole. We need to establish its relationship to ordinary people and then do something about it.
The solution is Liverpool. Because of the nature of the town itself, before the war it had one of the worst slum problems in the world. It got out of that and had reached a situation in 1960 where that problem had been solved—I do not need telling from the Front Bench that I ought to shut up. I have not taken half as long as the noble Lord opposite and I have one minute to go.
I finish on this note. One reason why we were able to get out of that problem was the assistance given by the Public Works Loan Board. Some noble Lords on the Government Front Bench and in this Chamber will not remember it. It ironed out all the fluctuations which took place in interest rates over a certain period. But that does not happen now. Local government has been made a slave to the interest rates of the financial markets in Great Britain and that is why we are not getting sufficient money to solve the housing problem. We need to go back to the
288
Public Works Loan Board and allow local authorities to do the job which they do best—that is, to provide houses for people in need.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Stallard: Follow that, my Lords. I too wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dean, on introducing this extremely important debate. If it finished now I believe that a case is established by all that previous speakers have said. Following the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, with his usually robust but accurate assessment of the situation, I shall try to flesh out some figures to make the subject a little more realistic. It has been proved in the past hour or so that this country has a crying need for affordable, rented housing. I would like a pound for every time I have raised that matter both here and in the other place in the past 25-odd years.
The cost of housing need in terms of homelessness, overcrowding, family breakdown and alienation is immense in social and economic terms and far too great even to contemplate, let alone examine, in terms of figures. We all know that. The right reverend Prelate and others mentioned Faith in the City—a tremendous document. We had great hopes for it, but it went the way of all flesh and was destroyed in this Government's hands in the same way as everything else.
There is a need for affordable, rented housing. Every voluntary organisation in the country knows what that means and knows that there is not any. It is not just a question of a shortage; there is none at all. In the district where I live there are scores, perhaps hundreds, of flats and apartments for rent. But the minimum rent for a two-bedroomed flat is between £150 and £200 per week. It goes up to between £350 to £375, and even higher, in some places; for example, Hampstead. No one can say in any language that that is affordable. There are thousands of people waiting for houses, but none of the properties I have mentioned is available to them. Therefore, there is a shortage of available, affordable rented accommodation.
The right reverend Prelate rightly quoted the Government's own figure of a need for between 60,000 and 100,000 homes. The higher figure would be the more accurate. According to the voluntary organisations it is clearly in excess of 60,000. The Housing Corporation has also recognised the need for at least that number of houses—that is to say, between 60,000 and 100,000 affordable, new homes.
But the Government have been systematically under-investing in affordable housing. In 1975 almost 175,000 new homes were started in the social rented sector: by 1980 that figure was just over 56,000. The past decade has seen an annual average of under 34,000 social homes for rent being started. It is estimated that for the current year 1995–96 the figures are the lowest for 50 years with fewer than 20,000 affordable homes likely to be built.
That is just a rough summary of the situation in terms of the numbers needed. When we consider the people who are looking for such homes, we see the gross distortion. The Department of the Environment's projection is between 60,000 and 100,000. If the Government stand by those figures they will have to concede at least two points.

289
They will have to say that the independent bodies and the housing charities are correct in calling for the provision of 100,000 affordable homes in new build and renovation, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned, and that the Government have been wrong in ignoring the warnings they have had from all those organisations.
Even now the Government would have to concede that they recognise the level of need put forward by their own department and that the Government's investment is failing to meet it. This year only around one-fifth of the new homes needed will be built. That is a dramatic problem as regards the needs of everyone concerned.
The historic shortfall in affordable homes has resulted in massive increases in homelessness. In 1978, 53,100 households were accepted as homeless by local authorities in England. Last year there were 122,660 acceptances. In other words, the figure is now running at an average of 2,500 households a week in England alone being accepted as homeless. They have fulfilled all the terms of acceptability outlined in the legislation. The number of households qualifying for the term "homeless" is now 2,500 a week. As the numbers grow, so the number of homes available has declined, and the problem of homelessness continues.
In their consultation document of January 1994 the Government had some proposals to change the homelessness legislation. One of their arguments was that the current system operates in favour of the homeless at the expense of those on the local authority waiting list. People on local authority waiting lists are just as much victims of the Government's policy of cutting back the building of affordable houses as homeless people are. Instead of setting two vulnerable groups against each other in competition for scarce resources the Government should recognise the desperate need for more affordable houses all round. The idea of "divide and rule" as a means of solving problems is no longer valid.
There is now a greater need than ever for affordable housing. It has been argued that home ownership is likely to reach its maximum level by the turn of the century. Therefore, further expansion of the rented sector will be needed. Trends in the labour market were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harding. We have moved away from people having a secure, lifetime job with a pension at the end of it, and a secure home. That has now gone. The Government have completely destroyed it. We now have insecure employment with part-time working and no security whatever. That means that people need to be more mobile, whether they like it or not. That in turn means that they will be even less willing, or able, to take on mortgage commitments. That is especially true at this time of loss of confidence in the housing market. So the needs of the economy demand far more rented and affordable homes to enable people fully to participate in the labour market.
A knock-on effect is that the disabled are suffering greatly because of a lack of adequate housing for them. There is also a lack of residential accommodation for elderly people who are in real difficulties.
As I said, there is a great need for more investment in affordable houses. The benefits of such investment are only too clear. I do not have time to explain them, but the need is for a dramatic increase in the amount of
290
investment. Economic models show that if £1 billion were invested in social housing, 30,000 new jobs would be created over two years and that between one-third and one-half of the original outlay would be recovered through increased tax receipts and a decreased benefits bill. Now that the Government have begun to recognise that, I hope that they will follow their recognition with some real investment to help solve the problem.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, one would not expect the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, sitting as he does on the other side of the House, to give undue credit to the Government for their policies or undue praise for the results of those policies. Therefore, perhaps it will be in order for me to start by mentioning one or two of the products of those policies which he did not. I refer to the facts that 2.4 million extra houses have been produced; that owner-occupation has risen from 56 to 70 per cent; and that 1.6 million council tenants have been able to buy their homes.
It will no doubt be rejoined to the last two points that the cost of owning a home is now excessive. We have already visited the field of negative equity—and a very tragic field it is. However, it is perhaps worth mentioning that, as my noble friend Lord Harding said, the cost of a mortgage has fallen dramatically. The cost of an average mortgage of £33,000 is now £130 a month less than it was at its peak in 1990. Indeed, surveys have shown that home ownership continues to be popular in spite of the risks and that houses are now at their most affordable level in relation to incomes since 1985.
However, that does not remove the problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and other noble Lords referred. That brings me to the central problem. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, that we must consider housing in relation to the economy as a whole. We cannot look at it on its own. I believe that I am right in saying that the result of noble Lords opposite doing that is that they stick to their belief that the way to stimulate and improve the housing market and make it more affordable, and the way to stimulate the building trade, would be to release local authority capital balances acquired by the sale of council houses. I can see the considerable intellectual and political attraction of that. However, if that were to be done on any scale, which would have an acceptable effect, it would have a further effect on the other half of the economic equation. I refer to the rate of inflation. The conundrum with which all governments are faced is to pull off a balancing trick between restarting the construction industry without increasing inflation. I agree that the construction industry is, and always has been, the motor of the economy. When you build and sell a house, you also give business to carpet manufacturers, washing machine makers and electric bulb suppliers. Therefore, that is highly to be desired.
There is a great political temptation at any moment of political exposure or risk to restart that engine in order to achieve an improvement in the short-term political position. I think that the Government deserve commendation for resisting that in the knowledge that the medium-term result would be an acceleration of inflation.

291
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, being an economist, will doubtless destroy my case at the end of the debate and I shall be unable to reply to him, but I might as well make my case so that he can do that. He may find it a little more difficult than he thinks.
The effect of releasing significant sums from reserves in that way would be to accelerate inflation, which would increase the level of both rents and mortgages payable, and so increase the number of people who are unable to find affordable accommodation. That is not the way to break the circle. I believe that in a period of world recession which is almost unprecedented—it is certainly unprecedented since the Second World War—to have achieved a continuous reduction in unemployment for the longest period since the Second World War and to have maintained low levels—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Elton: My Lords, the reduction in unemployment has been consistent over a long period. Noble Lords opposite are crowing because the rate of reduction is now slowing down. However, there has been a real achievement. I am glad to have the Opposition talking among themselves about this. No doubt that will enable them to have a uniform reply at the end of the debate.
In the meantime, I want to make the point that the Government have kept their heads in difficult circumstances and have maintained an economy in which it will be possible for the construction industry to return to growth. I declare an interest as a director of a company which runs the biggest building materials and handling exhibition in the English-speaking world, and I have as much interest as anybody in that industry returning swiftly to profit. However, I would not want that at the cost of the national interest. I would not want to prejudice the beating of inflation and of unemployment in the long term.
There are also less central issues. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raised one which is close to my heart. I refer to the House Condition Survey. I became interested in this area back in 1986 when there was an earlier House Condition Survey. I remind the noble Lord that we have always had a problem with maintenance. It fluctuates, and the situation is not good now. However, I commend to the Government measures which will enable both the private and public sectors, and housing associations which fall between them, to recover some of the lost ground of maintenance. Anybody who has been responsible for a house knows that if you delay spending £5 for a year, you will find yourself spending £50. Therefore, assistance to those bodies which tackle that problem is money exceedingly well spent. If there are means of assisting the local authorities to improve the maintenance of their housing stock, they should be taken.
That could be done in association with another of the Government's cherished projects. I refer to the activation of the voluntary sector. Your Lordships will have seen the document Make a Difference and the resources being put by the Government into the voluntary sector. There are voluntary agencies working in the maintenance area. I have the honour to be president of the Upkeep Trust,
292
which is a very small body which has a large effect by training housing associations and local authority officials in the diagnosis of maintenance needs and the management of maintenance. It also seeks to educate the private home-owning public in elementary matters such as emptying gutters before you start getting wet rot in the ends of your roof. That sort of effort can, at minimal cost, have a very considerable effect on the cost of maintaining our housing stock. Therefore, it adds to its value and consequently to the resources available for new and refurbished dwellings, which is what this debate is about.
I hope that my noble friend will not be rattled by the attack of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on the thesis that you have to control capital expenditure from public sources in order to control inflation. I believe the Government have got it right and I hope they continue.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, as distinct from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who observed that my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick, sitting as he is on the Opposition Benches, could not he expected to give the Government undue credit, I fully expected the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to give the Government undue credit. However, if ever a government were not due any credit on housing, it is the present Government. The housing market—housing for people in general—is in crisis in this country. I bring in support of my argument statistics of just yesterday in Scotland and of today in relation to the whole of the United Kingdom. Yesterday, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, in conjunction with Shelter, published the findings of a survey carried out on their behalf by Gallup showing that nine out of every 10 respondents put housing higher than health and education on their list of concerns. In other words, housing is now people's greatest concern. That is manifesting itself in all sorts of situations over the length and breadth of Scotland.
In your Lordships' House today we were given a response on the question of the increased number of house owners suffering from the ever-growing disease of negative equity. The number has increased, on the Government's own figures, by 200,000. When I hear the noble Lord, Lord Harding, say, "Well, some people are going to lose their house this year and unfortunately nothing can be done about it" it takes me back to my political roots. Housing is now, as it always has been and always will be, a social question. Therefore it will need a government with a social conscience to deal with the problem. I give one further statistic, published the day before yesterday by the Scottish Council for Single Homeless. Every day of every week five elderly people join the homeless queue. When, at a press conference, it was asked what was meant by elderly people, the age group given was 60 to 80 years of age.
That is a new dimension of homelessness. We have always taken the view that homelessness was a major problem among young to middle-aged people. Yet in Scotland—I do not know the figure for England—five elderly people every day of every week join the homeless queue. That is an absolute scandal: in 1995 no government should try to defend that position. The problem has arisen because the Government do not believe in social housing. Indeed their whole objective

293
since being elected in 1979 has been to remove housing from the control of local authorities. I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford is not with us now because in many ways that was the wrong reason for setting up the housing associations. The Government are using housing associations—in Scotland, through the vehicle of Scottish Homes—to remove houses from the control of local authorities. The evidence exists. The noble Earl the Minister will know that when Scottish Homes, formerly the Scottish Special Housing Association, comes to dispose of its stock it fights might and main to stop local authorities being on the ballot paper as an option for a tenant transferring a house. There is only one instance that I know of in Scotland where a local authority has been included on the ballot paper as art option.
So we have this major problem. It is easy to identify, but I share with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, the belief that we have to modernise the existing housing stock. Yes, we need new build. I leave to my economist friend on the Front Bench the job of demolishing the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, regarding the capital sums that local authorities have and how they should be used. We certainly need new build but we also need to modernise the existing housing stock. Some of that housing stock, built in a hurry for perfectly good reasons at the end of the Second World War, is now in a bad state of repair and desperately in need of modernisation and of upgrading.
We need to allow local authorities to be involved in new build. I support the housing associations in what they are doing, although I have one reservation about them. That concerns what I describe as the gap site developments. Some of the sites that housing associations have been given to build houses on are simply not suitable for the building of houses. I see that in Kirkcaldy every day as I pass a development at a busy traffic junction. The only advantage is that you can plug your standard lamp into the traffic lights. It really is not on for housing associations to be given difficult gap sites on which to build houses. That is just storing up problems for the future.
There is a serious shortage of housing for people with disabilities. We need to concentrate much more on barrier-free housing. I know of patients being detained in hospital for week upon week upon week because there is not a house to which that patient can be discharged.
My final point relates to the sale of council houses. I shall say something now that I know will not be popular, not even with some of my noble friends. I have never known anything to be so socially divisive in all my political life as the sale of council houses. I have known families who lived happily together for 40 or 50 years but as soon as one member of that family purchased a house they stopped speaking to each other. A six-foot high fence is built and they are away to the council to claim that the driveway is theirs and theirs alone. Lifelong friendships and the social cohesion of communities have been destroyed on this myth of the sale of council houses. I feel that we are talking among ourselves here, and I do not believe that the Government will attempt to solve the
294
problem. I hope, however, that when we get a change of government we can make a beginning on the massive job that requires to be done in housing.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am extremely glad that my noble friend Lord Dean put down this Motion. Apart from anything else, it gives me the opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on a quite remarkable speech. He knows that I hold him in high regard. With his interest in building materials, he gave us a marvellous demonstration of how to make bricks without straw. It also gives me the opportunity to draw attention to an impending construction disaster. It is that London Underground proposes to line the Thames Tunnel between Wapping and Rotherhithe with concrete. That is unnecessary. It is a desecration of a remarkable historic monument. It was the first underwater tunnel in the world, engineered by Marc Brunel, a British engineer, with his son, Isambard Brunel, as a site engineer. The tunnel has been listed as a Grade 2* monument. In a Written Question I have asked that there should be a public inquiry before the work is permitted to go ahead.
The planning director of the London Dockl ands Development Corporation has justified the passing to the Secretary of State of the application to do the work in the following words:
"The Tunnel requires repair and is potentially unsafe. Furthermore, it leaks. This was confirmed by the panel of independent and eminent engineers appointed by English Heritage".
That was in a letter to the New Civil Engineer, a magazine with which I have been associated for the past 20 years, as many noble Lords will be aware. But it is not true. The tunnel does not leak. What the eminent engineers appointed by English Heritage said was:
"In our opinion the Tunnel is in remarkably good condition for its age of 152–169 years and with considerable reserves of strength, even against accidental damage".
This is the important bit:
"With normal periodical maintenance, we believe that, under present usage, it can be expected to have a further life of comparable length".
That is, the eminent engineers think that the tunnel can last for another 150 years with normal maintenance and without the extravagant lining which London Underground proposes.
I shall say just one more thing about that. I said that I had put down a Written Question. About half an hour ago I received the Answer from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, who is sitting listening attentively to me. The Answer is:
"Very careful consideration is currently being given to whether the application should be called in for determination by Her Majesty's Government. It would not, therefore, be appropriate to comment on whether a public inquiry should be held".
I understand that, and I thank the noble Earl for that reply. I sincerely hope that when consideration is given to calling in the application the Secretary of State will decide that it should be called in.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's earlier remarks about myself, perhaps I may ask him whether he would regard it as a help or an embarrassment if I were to say that I agree entirely with what he has just said.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, it would not be an embarrassment to me. As the noble Lord knows, he and I have frequently agreed and we have frequently disagreed, but when we agree, we agree in an amiable manner.
Let me turn to something more general. My noble friends Lord Dean and Lord Sefton mentioned the Latham Report. It was set up some time ago by the Government to inquire into the construction industry, with the hope of making it a more coherent industry. As noble Lords will know, I am a civil engineer. I have spent a lifetime in the construction industry. It is acutely incoherent. It is a preposterous industry. It consists of a vast number of small firms (there are 2,000 firms in the industry) and a few very large firms employing the small firms, often as sub-contractors, with the problems to which my noble friend Lord Sefton drew attention.
The industry nowadays employs about 750,000 people. It used to be considerably more. And it provides something like 10 per cent. of GNP. It is an important part of our economy. But it is incoherent and inefficient. Latham thinks that construction costs could be reduced by about 30 per cent. That is one of the aims which he puts at the end of his report. He bases that on the fact that a good deal of tidying up of contractual arrangements could be made. He makes a number of recommendations as to how that could be done. There are payments, for example. A sub-contractor does a piece of work; he puts in his bill for the work that has been done and he is paid eventually. He is paid eventually—when the main contractor feels that he would like to pay him. But payment should be made when the work is done. That is one of Latham's proposals.
Latham proposes something else which is interesting. He proposes that there should be a register of consultants. As a consulting engineer I applaud that. It was, after all, one of the proposals of the Finniston Committee, of which I was a member, which reported as long ago as 1980. Needless to say, that proposal was abandoned. Latham is now making it again. He suggests a similar register for contractors and specialists. Those registers relate, of course, to public works.
The report also makes another most interesting proposal. It is that public authorities should accept tenders which offer best value for money. That is important. Noble Lords will remember that an important part of the local government Bill we dealt with a year or two ago produced compulsory competitive tendering for architects, engineers and other professional people. We argued throughout the Bill's passage that the criterion should be quality and not cost. That is what Latham recommends. It is essential that Latham's recommendations should be put into practice through legislation.
That brings me back to Finniston, because noble Lords will remember that Finniston's proposal related to the reorganisation of the engineering profession. He proposed that there should be an engineering council set up by statute. The Government left it to the profession to come together voluntarily. This is an area where voluntaryism does not work. It will not work in Latham any more than it worked in Finniston.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, it is said that confession is good for the soul. I am going to confess something now out of cowardice, because when my noble friend Lord Howie found out, had I not said it now, he would be more than outraged. I must tell him that I was a member of the planning committee which made the decision to which he has taken such great exception. I only wish that I was in such a condition for my age as is the tunnel.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Dean for giving us the chance to speak about the housing situation in this country. I hope that it will be recognised by noble Lords that I try to be as assiduous as I can about the conventions of the House, but because it is a three-hour debate I fear that at the end of it I shall have to leave because of other arrangements. I hope that I shall be excused. If it is any expiation, I am going to Docklands to try to improve housing conditions there. So it is not entirely ungermane.
My noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford mentioned the problems of an ageing population. There is one thing upon which I should like to touch. It is the growing debate about what happens to elderly people. It seems to me that we are moving away from what I have always regarded as a fundamental obligation—that one should look after one's parents when they become elderly. Indeed, I find it sad that these days there are elaborate articles in the financial press advising people on how they can arrange their affairs so that the cost of looking after their parents falls basically on the taxpayer and they can preserve their own means. We talk a lot about people earning a great deal of money, but bus drivers and people cleaning offices pay taxes. It is not fair for those who are better off in society to expect to off-load what most people would regard as their obligations.
Unlike many, I believe that lobbying is perfectly reasonable when it is done properly. I am sure that, like myself, many other noble Lords have received submissions from various groups about today's debate. That is perfectly legitimate and often extremely useful. But pressure groups and lobbyists sometimes develop a compartmentalised attitude and do not look at the wider picture. They pursue their own interests to the exclusion of everything else.
It would be extremely invidious of me to take an example of what I mean from any of the literature that I have received for this debate. Therefore, perhaps I may illustrate my point by reference to another group on which I have touched before in this House; that is, Charter 88.
In the Guardian of 14th June I saw this advertisement:
"Charter 88 Director Applications are invited for the high profile position of Director of Charter 88. the leading organisation promoting constitutional reform".
Your Lordships may recall that this group believes that we are one of the most down-trodden nations of the world and that the only way in which to regain our rights is to have a written constitution so that we have rights and

297
those rights are protected. Your Lordships may say that that is fair enough, but perhaps I may read the last paragraph of the advertisement:
"We encourage applications from all sections of the community. Unfortunately our 3rd floor office is inaccessible to wheelchairs".
That is really a case of don't do as I do, do as I say; or physician heal thyself.
People may say, "Cocks is being very unfair again" because the charity probably cannot afford to make the office accessible. But noble Lords may feel that that point is overstated when I tell the House that in the past few years Charter 88 has spent well over £½ million on newspaper advertisements.
Some of the literature that I have received has been about the private rented sector. The noble Lord, Lord Harding, mentioned that, as did the right reverend Prelate and others. That is one of the serious aspects of the problem. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation study made a number of points about the private rented sector—that it should be boosted; that most countries subsidise their private rented sectors; and that financial institutions should be encouraged to move into the private sector. Various suggestions are made as to how the situation could be improved.
However, there is a very much simpler way which I have mentioned before in this House; that is, to try to ensure that far more students take courses nearer their homes so that they do not have to move away from home in order to pursue their studies. That happens in Scotland. Most Scottish students live at home; and nobody says that Scottish education is inferior to English education. It is perfectly natural to live. at home. People say that going away to study is all part of the experience of growing up. But if that is so, it is part of the experience of growing up which working-class children are deprived of. I never hear academics and student bodies say how sad it is that working-class people cannot develop properly because they do not have that opportunity. It is a vested interest of the ablest and the wealthier children in our society.
Bristol University has been particularly bad in that regard. For more than 25 years I have pursued it to try to ameliorate its admission policy. At the moment, something like 1 per cent. of its students live at home and the rest are accommodated in the private rented sector or in halls of residence. When I was the Member of Parliament for Bristol, before a majority of my local management committee decided that I was not a fit and proper person to be a public representative, most of the problems with which I had to deal were in relation to housing. The local people were desperate for housing and yet hundreds of units of private rented accommodation were taken up by students who really did not require that luxury.
Coincidentally, this morning I received a letter from a person living in Goldney Road, Clifton asking for my support against the university. The letter refers to:
"the concerns of residents to the gradual encroachment of Bristol university on the grounds of Goldney House Clifton".
298
Some noble Lords may know that that is a beautiful house with a wonderful grotto in the gardens. The letter goes on to say, referring to the university:
"They have just completed a refurbishment of the Halls of Residence in the paddock, greatly increasing the student population and there are now fears that they intend to apply for further planning on the lower slopes of the ground, as they object to the Deposit Bristol Local Plan—October 1993".
It really is time that establishments of higher education took seriously the problem. They should realise that we do not live in compartments and that their responsibilities extend to helping the least able in society.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for introducing this subject for debate today. There are so many aspects that one could talk about but I propose to concentrate on two: first, the swing that we have had from housing for rent to housing ownership and the necessity for a swing back; and secondly, the need for proper ecological and environmental housing.
In the memory of many here, we have moved from an era in which housing to rent was almost the rule for all classes to one where it is almost politically incorrect to say that you should ever wish to live in a house which is not your own. As with all swings of the pendulum, we have gone from one undesirable extreme to another.
When my grandfather, who was a younger son, married, he rented a house and lived in it for the rest of his life. It was not a small house: it was a copy of the centre block of Buckingham Palace. He rented that house for 20 years. That ability to live in rented housing went down through the tenant farmers of all the large estates through all ranges of society. It had its drawbacks, difficulties and problems caused by powerful landlords and powerless tenants. But it was still something which was taken for granted.
We reached a stage in the early stages of this Government's regime at which it was considered to be almost not respectable not to try to own your own house. That is not suited to what most people want. It has flourished on the back of propaganda which suggests that the citizens of rich countries are home owners and those in poor countries are not. That is not true. In a list of countries ranked in order of home owning, Bangladesh has 90 per cent. owner-occupancy and Switzerland has 33 per cent. Therefore, that is entirely contrary to what most people believe.
The truth is that neither extreme is desirable and we need to look at what houses are needed for. Your Lordships' House must be one of the few places left where a large proportion of people have houses which they reckon to hand on to their children. Most of us do not and our children would not thank us if we did. But to trap a wide range of the middle classes in a myth which encourages them to borrow money which they do not have on security of jobs which they may not keep in order to own their houses is extremely stupid.
However, having said that we should now go into reverse and encourage a climate of providing houses to let

299
so that families can move easily according to their size at any given moment, I should now like to pass on to discuss what kind of houses they should be. Unfortunately, I do not have time today to go into many of the important points, but I should like to dwell on one of them. It is very simple: they should be healthy for the people who live in them and for the world from which their materials come. That means being choosy with materials, but it does not mean abandoning diversity.
To stray outside of housing for a moment, St. Albans Abbey, which I gather is still in quite good nick, was built 900 years ago with what were already 1,000 year-old bricks from nearby Roman ruins. At the other extreme, many houses in California, on the other hand, are built from "gridcore", which is recycled newspapers, cardboard boxes and timber moulded to maximise strength and minimise weight. Both of those examples have more virtue in their own way than, say, the Fawlty Towers of Marsham Street.
First, we must build to last. It is a fallacy to think that we must build only to last a short time because new technology will make our old houses obsolete. It is the solid buildings which for the most part can be adapted. The standards which we use for building today are unlikely to produce buildings which are acceptable in 30 years' time, let alone 300.
We must build to last and we must build to the highest standards. At present, we do neither. The energy conservation requirements of the latest building regulations just about reach the level adopted in Sweden 60 years ago. If we adopted current Swedish standards we could reduce the amount of domestic heating to a quarter of the current average in this country.
We must concentrate on building in such a way that we can save energy without ruining the poor. Where in northern Europe housing standards are much higher than ours—and where are they not?—energy taxation which is essential if we are to shift taxes from labour to resources (which is essential for a sustainable economy) is feasible without making the poor suffer.
A whole new climate of opinion is needed before those matters can become mainstream in this country, but we have made a start. Among other things, we have made a start with the recent Home Energy Conservation Bill brought through Parliament by people from all parties but chiefly, I am proud to say, by the pertinacity of Alan Beith, Diana Maddock and my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who is to speak shortly. Let us build on that start and move in that direction, remembering that to build cheap and nasty now is to lay up disasters for the future.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I too am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Dean for giving us the opportunity to debate housing. My noble friend is a very lucky chap because it is such a topical matter. Indeed, it was very good of him to suggest such a topic at this time. Fifteen years ago home ownership equalled security. It was encouraged because it was right to give people a stake in society. But good things abused become disasters. That is what happened with housing. It became a lottery.
300
Financial deregulation and the favourable point of the economic cycle allowed households throughout the UK much greater access to credit. This, and tax incentives, fuelled a rapid rise in house prices. With house prices rising inexorably at the beginning, it was a one-way bet. You borrowed from the banks; you bought a house. The value of your house rose without any action on your part. Although it helped, you did not actually have to look after your asset—the value went up faster than it depreciated. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, government policy during the 1980s did not ensure that there was more and better housing. What it ensured was that the price of houses went up and up.
Unlike the National Lottery, everyone won or appeared to win at the beginning—home owners, banks, the Government (they won votes), the estate agents, the builders, and the DIY suppliers. Everyone benefited. Many people sold their houses and took profits. Some £20.4 billion of equity was withdrawn at the peak in 1988—certainly a boost to consumption but, I would ask the Minister, what additional resources were being created? Much of the economic boom of the 1980s was based on house price inflation. People withdrew equity on the increasing value of their houses to fuel a spending boom. But what new capital was created? Where is the new wealth now? Where are the new factories, services and infrastructure?
Nothing was created. Prices simply rose and some people won. Now it is the loser's turn in that lottery. As my noble friend Lord Dean said, repossessions are running at nearly 1,000 a week. Moreover, 117,000 plus households are more than 12 months in arrears with their mortgages. Negative equity is estimated at some £8.5 billion and rising.
It does not take much imagination to appreciate the human misery caused by the distress of either losing or being close to losing your home. Homes and jobs are the two pillars on which the lives of most people rest, and repossessions are increasing. There are thought to be nearly 1 million home owners whose houses are worth less than the mortgage taken out on them. Last week we learned that the building societies, insurance companies and banks are adding to the problem by levying extra charges on those in trouble. Measured in human misery, they are very high numbers indeed.
What are the Government doing about it? They seem determined to make a bad situation worse. We have had reductions in mortgage interest tax relief from a high of 40 per cent. to 15 per cent. now but that overlooked the fact that mortgage interest tax relief was built into the price of a house. The reduction in that benefit is reflected in reduced house prices. Added to that is the reduction in income support for mortgage interest payments for those who are unemployed from October. That means that mortgage lenders will be faced with either insuring themselves or making insurance a condition of lending.
The initiative by the Skipton Building Society is helpful but once it ceases to be a competitive advantage and all firms do it it will simply be added to the cost. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Harding, who called for compulsory insurance, that insurance companies estimate that it will add some £22 a month to the cost of an average mortgage. Even so, the Minister knows as well as I do that

301
insurance for mortgage risks is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to define. I am therefore not surprised that two-thirds of the people who have taken out the insurance found, when they came to claim, that their claim was rejected. Let us not forget also that insurance premium tax has to be added.
I am not criticising those actions. I am criticising the timing. When a company or an industrial sector is in trouble, government should not add to the difficulties. Yet at the very time when we need to sustain housing the Government have chosen to add to the problem. In doing so they have turned a problem into a crisis. The situation is made worse by Ministers, and some noble Lords opposite, giving uninformed or biased opinions about whether now is or is not a good time to buy a house.
It seems to me that the Government could do a number of things. The first is to remember the wise counsel of my noble friend Lord Healey. If you are in a hole, stop digging. They should therefore stop playing around with mortgage interest tax relief. The next thing they could do, which is part of Labour policy, is to allow a phased release of the housing capital receipts in the possession of local authorities. I disagree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, but I do not have time today to explain my reasons to him. The money could be spent on affordable rented accommodation. Private sector building for rent is not replacing public sector housing which has been discontinued. The resources are available; they simply have to be harvested. A further action the Government could take is to help first time buyers on a limited scale and for a limited time.
I hope that the Minister will not be blinkered to the usefulness of Labour proposals in solving the current problems. Our policies are designed to promote a stable housing market, not a lottery, and a real choice for people in the rented sector. That is what we call social justice.
5 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, one of the advantages of being almost the last speaker in a debate is that practically everything one wanted to say has already been said. I am not an expert on any practical matters, unlike many of my noble friends, and therefore I shall stick to theory. Indeed, the housing tragedy that we are currently facing, as my noble friends have pointed out, is very much a sad story of dogma and half-baked economic theory.
I first arrived in this country in 1965. Until then I had lived mainly in rented accommodation, some of it in the public sector and some of it in the private sector. It was only when I arrived in this country that I realised there was a great belief that to own a house was somehow better than to rent it. If one wants housing services, a shelter, comfort and accommodation it should make no difference whether one buys a house or rents it, or whether the house is in the public or private sector. One should have choice in that respect and one should get on with it. But already by the early 1960s the tax structure was being badly manipulated to subsidise ownership relative to renting.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, became Prime Minister in 1979 that bias was twisted further and deeper because she was convinced, first, that home ownership was absolutely a sacred goal of public policy,
302
if not a virtue in itself, and, secondly, that in order to aid it interest rates had to be so manipulated that home owners would always feel cushioned and protected.
At the same time, mortgage relief was not seen to be a subsidy to the home owner. Home owners were not considered to be scroungers on the public budget—oh no! However, council tenants were considered to be scroungers on the public purse because it was thought the subsidy to council tenants was a great distortion. That again is a fallacy but we shall deal with many fallacies as we proceed. Through the 1980s the subsidies to council tenants were reduced mercilessly and the subsidies to home owners were increased. Indeed, by the time the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, embarked on his 1987 and 1988 budgets the distortion to home ownership was so exaggerated that double mortgage reliefs were being given.
The double mortgage relief given, I believe, in the budget of 1988, was the single most important case of almost criminal folly in economic policy making because that pressed people into buying when they could not afford to do so. It pressed people to buy property at prices which they could not afford. At that time Government policies were fuelling inflation, regardless of all the talk about monetarism and all that sort of thing at that time. Inflation was accelerating and many people entered contracts which any prudent government would not have let them enter into.
Anyone who really believes in the market would have said long ago that these kind of distortions constitute a major diversion of economic resources away from what not just a country needs but what individuals need. To that was added the sale of council houses. People who had never before been in a position of indebtedness became indebted, little realising that even after concessions the prices they were paying for their council houses were inflated. In the late 1980s after having had two bouts of double digit inflation in 10 years—when finally, and quite prudently, it was decided that the country had to put its economic house in order and join the exchange rate mechanism—it should have been known by anyone (as I said publicly) that what occurred was a great deflationary shock and that the country was not used to deflationary shocks. The negative equity which we are witnessing now is, in a sense, basically the simple consequence of trying to adjust to a much lower level of inflation than we had before.
In a world like we have today, home ownership or renting makes absolutely no difference, or should make no difference. Of course the Government will say, "But that is our current policy" forgetting that all the previous policies were also their policies. The Government will say, "We are going to encourage a private rented sector"; but where is the private rented sector? It has not arrived on the scene. While they have wrecked the public rented sector quite badly by selling off council houses and not allowing the building of new council houses, the private rented sector has not arrived on the scene. People with negative equity cannot sell their property and cannot move. People with incomes which are not rising very fast cannot afford to buy, even while prices are stagnant, because mortgage interest relief—quite rightly in my view—has been severely cut. That is why the problem of

303
homelessness occurs with the old and with the young. The old are becoming homeless because they have negative equity or they cannot service their mortgages as their incomes have fallen. They are being thrown out. The young cannot afford to buy houses because mortgage interest relief has been so drastically cut.
It would be easy in the circumstances—if sense prevailed—to say, "OK, let us build for the time being a sufficient amount of low cost housing, either through the public or the private sector". There is no question of resources. I will not go into the fallacy mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, as regards the PSBR. Even if it were true that releasing council receipts would add to the total demand, given the excess capacity of the construction industry which many noble Lords have referred to, it would not cause inflation. But let us not go into that. As I said, there is no shortage of resources but there is a shortage of good sense. We ought to be able to say, as my noble friend Lord Ewing said, that housing is somewhat special. It is not like hamburgers; it is a commodity which has special social consequences. It is society's duty to provide decent housing for everyone at a price that people can afford. After that one can discuss choice, variety, the provision of big or small houses, good architecture and other such matters.
The population of this country is by and large stagnant—it is not galloping—and it should not be beyond our imagination to provide housing in sufficient quantity for those who need it. People are living longer and people want more sophisticated housing, but there are not that many extra families to house. What we need is good sense in this matter. Given the record of the present Government, good sense would require a new government.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, this is the third or fourth time over the past two years that the House has been grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, for having raised this important question. One rather hopes in view of the very factual speeches that have been made on all sides of the House that we can have reasonable replies to the questions that have been raised. It will no longer suffice to be informed that in real terms it is the intention to spend a billion over the next five years or that the position since 1987 has vastly improved. Serious questions have been raised which need rather more than the ambiguous reply that we customarily receive at the end of important debates like this.
Noble Lords opposite were not assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, who rather admitted that the Government had been seriously at fault in encouraging home ownership by a sustained campaign in the 1980s. He suggested that we ought to put that behind us and move on to better things. We entirely agree.
As for the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who gave us a dissertation on inflation, he really ought to examine his facts again because he talked complete nonsense about inflation. I am very glad that the noble Lord has now resumed his seat. He was obviously completely unaware that during the period immediately following the war,
304
until 1974 and the quadrupling of the price of oil, the rate of inflation in this country, under all governments, averaged around 2½ per cent. It was the quadrupling of the price of oil that gave the initial boost to inflation. Until that time, despite the great difficulties, every government, including those of the noble Lord, exceeded the miserable record in house construction that has been achieved by this Government over the past 15 years. They have not really tackled the problem at all.
Those are problems that have been dealt with more than adequately by my noble friends. I observe that there are 11 speakers from my own Benches, three from the Government Benches and three from the Liberal Democrat Benches. We have already heard an important speech by the right reverend Prelate, who brought the fundamental issues before the House.
I want to address myself to one matter on which the Government may themselves be able to act now. Even if they had a wholesale reformation of thinking, even if they had a sudden access of intellect and even if they were prepared to abandon their prejudices, the Government could not influence in the next three weeks or so the rate of increase in the construction industry or in housing in the United Kingdom. I have not consulted my noble friends on either Bench on this issue, but there is one thing that they could do if they were so minded. They could deal with the whole question of repossessions.
According to the Department of the Environment's own figures, repossessions are likely to increase over the next few months. Already there have been 300,000 repossessions in the UK, affecting some 700,000 individuals. There is a way of stopping that. The building societies and banks do not have to repossess. Nobody forces them to. They could wait without any great difficulty. Indeed, if they had the same degree of faith in the Government's economic policies as the Government themselves affect to have, they could lay off for a year without any difficulty until the long-promised recovery, if it ever materialises, takes place. It is not as though the banks were forced to seek repossessions: it is in the control of the banks themselves.
Perhaps I may refresh the memories of noble Lords on this subject. Immediately following the oil glut in the Middle East, the banks rushed to compete with one another to lend money to developing countries, followed hard on their heels by arms manufacturers. They were only too pleased to supply those countries. That situation speedily deteriorated to the point where the banks themselves had to write off billions of pounds owed by other countries.
There is nothing stopping any bank writing off loans that are due to them here, or part of them. The Government could lean on them if necessary. It is not as though the banks do not help other people. I see that the banks stepped in to prop up Barings, particularly the directors and shareholders. They will prop up anybody provided they have sufficient funds already or belong to those particular strata of society with which the bankers have something in common. Therefore, there is nothing to stop the banks and building societies holding their own moratorium on all repossessions.

305
Instead, at the moment where arrears occur, building societies and banks levy what they call administration charges on those who are already suffering negative equity. Those charges may amount to £140 to £112 a year extra. They also charge interest on interest. That was prohibited as long ago as 1927 by the passing of the Moneylenders Act. Therefore, it lies within their own power.
Surely the Government, who are always busy putting forward the value of guidance and codes of conduct, could lay down codes of conduct for banks and building societies indicating how they should behave during what the Government believe will be a temporary period. Surely they could do that. If they do not do even that, they might as well say "Goodbye".
5.16 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for introducing this debate on housing needs, and on financial institutions and the construction industry—matters on which we have sometimes touched peripherally.
I was privileged to introduce a debate on housing and homelessness a year ago. I thought that I would remind myself what the Government had to say then on the topic. On that occasion the then Minister said that:
"the broad aim of our housing policies is that a decent home should be within reach of every family. We have taken steps to increase the supply of housing where it is most needed, by securing better value for money in the public rented sector and by promoting the private rented sector".—[Official Report, 8/6/94; col. 1284.]
My noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank asked the Minister during the debate whether the Government had a housing agenda and challenged him by suggesting that there was no housing agenda. The Minister's answer was that the Government had such an agenda—they had the Housing Corporation.
The Government may have a vision, but it is not my vision. It is certainly not translated into any kind of agenda or plan to do anything but reduce spending without tackling the causes of the problem. It seems to me that all sectors are suffering at the hands of the Treasury and its short-term thinking—housing associations, local authorities, private landlords, mortgage lenders and all those who occupy their own property. To use current jargon, I suppose it is a level playing field.
A year ago we also considered a report by the National Housing Forum—Papering over the cracks—on housing conditions and the nation's health. It was an excellent report. It reminded us why housing conditions matter, posing a serious problem for society as a whole as well as for individuals. It reminded us that housing is a capital asset which should be preserved and that investment in housing renewal could be an important component of economic recovery, renovation work being labour intensive and the majority of materials used being made in Britain.
The report made a number of recommendations to the Government. It proposed that,
"Within the next twelve months"
—that is the 12 months which have now expired—
306
"the government should develop a broad strategy for private sector housing renewal and set national targets for tackling the backlog of unfitness and disrepair in the housing stock over the next ten years".
It suggested that,
"Financial institutions…should take on a responsibility for local communities by promoting and stimulating investment in housing renewal in a range of ways".
It also suggested sponsorship of home improvement agencies and the provision of finance to housing associations for renewal projects.
I welcomed that report because housing is not just a numbers game. It raises the question of what has been achieved over the past year. The fact that the forum felt it necessary to report on the connection between housing and economic renewal speaks for itself.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation—as your Lordships know, it does splendid work in the area of housing—has reported extensively on the connection between housing renewal and construction expenditure. Among other reports, it has made important points about the local connection: that very few local businesses have been created or enhanced; that training programmes are inadequate; and that therefore if there is an amount of work its effect does not last. The work is undertaken but the jobs do not remain.
That is particularly sad given that the physical regeneration of disadvantaged areas, in particular urban areas, involves the expenditure of millions of pounds. This is a major opportunity not only to undertake a specific scheme of work but to invest in the area for generations. It seems that little sustained economic benefit results for local residents.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has also reported extensively on a matter which, with other noble Lords, I feel is one of the most urgent: the supply of privately rented accommodation. The study stated that,
"Private renting … is a small business; over half of privately rented housing belongs to small-scale individual landlords; only a quarter is owned by companies".
Your Lordships will recall the Business Expansion Scheme. Through the BES, 903 companies raised £3.4 billion and provided 81,000 dwellings at a cost to the Exchequer of only £1.7 billion of tax foregone. I say "only"; I recognise that these are large sums, but the prizes are large, too.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation study—it was a study by academics at the Universities of Sheffield and York—asked the financial institutions about private renting. Those institutions responded that the political risk and the image were major deterrents. Pension and life funds said that even if returns were good, political risk and image would deter them.
"If returns were enhanced through subsidy, this would not necessarily induce investment, because subsidies were too subject to change over an investment's lifetime".
In other words, they were asking the Government to consider the whole grant regime.
Banks, too, were cautious. Building societies were more positive. Provided that financial assistance, particularly in the form of grants, was available—I make the point again because it is an important issue for the Government to take up and act upon—they would he willing to lend.

307
What are the Government doing to develop ideas for stimulating the sector? Organisations such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation do splendid work, but we cannot leave the whole area of ideas to the private sector. If the Government have no ideas of their own, I am sure that they would be welcome to plagiarise the ideas of the private sector. But they must get on with the work.
Other noble Lords have said that we attach too much importance to ownership. I so much agree with my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley. We attach importance as a society to ownership. The Government certainly do so. But there must be many families in this country which wish that they had not owned their homes. Over a quarter of a million homes have been repossessed since 1988. That gives only the smallest indication of those families which are teetering on the brink, or those people whose jobs have been affected because they cannot move. One has to couple that with the fact that public housing investment has fallen by 37 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80. In the past year total investment in social housing was at its lowest level in real terms for several decades.
I am not just interested in government research. I should also like to know what the various government departments have to say to one another; and in particular what the Department of the Environment has to say to the Department of Social Security regarding plans for housing benefit, the results of which, it seems, we shall experience shortly. I believe that the Department of the Environment must share the concern of many of us that the greatest effect of the changes will be to depress the private rented sector.
We have heard views on the use of capital receipts held by local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, spoke of the restriction in order to hold down inflation. I doubt that that argument would attract those in housing need. It does not attract me. I confess myself to be of the tendency which thinks that a good use of resources is indeed a motor of the economy. I thought that the restriction was because central government were determined to reduce the capital base of local government.
Finally, we talked of the "motor" of the economy. We know how other motors—new motor cars—drop massively in value the first time that they are driven away. But the purchaser of a car knows that that will happen. The purchaser of a car has options. Many who are buying housing—I refer to buying in the broadest sense—those who are acquiring housing, find that they have paid for a high performance item and are left with something far more modest. I do not suggest that it is at the level of a clapped-out Mini, but it cannot be resold. Those people have no opportunity to acquire on HP or lease purchase. The Government need to explore all the options.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick for introducing the debate. Perhaps I may say at once, I hope not impertinently, how impressed I was with the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. If I may say so, he put his finger absolutely on the problem.
308
The facts which have come out of the debate—they are facts to which we have to pay attention—are that home owners have endured about six years of crisis marked by falling house prices, negative equity, mortgage debt and repossessions. The housing market itself is depressed. Housing sales in April, a key month in the house buying season, were the worst ever recorded. New house building has been badly hit. Starts in the latest quarter are 14 per cent. down on 1994. The rented housing programme has been drastically cut. Housing association starts in the latest quarter are 35 per cent. down on 1994, and the output of rented homes is expected to fall below 20,000 this year. That is the worst figure for 50 years.
At the same time, tenants of councils, housing associations and private landlords have been faced with disproportionate rent increases forcing ever larger numbers into dependence on housing benefit which is also now being targeted for cuts. In England alone, 1.5 million homes are unfit for human habitation and a further 3.5 million need urgent repairs. Home renovation programmes have almost ground to a halt. A decade ago over 200,000 grants were being awarded each year. The total is now down to 40,000. Long queues are forming in most areas. One hundred and sixty thousand households were accepted by local authorities in Great Britain as homeless last year and there are many more mainly single and childless people whose needs are not reflected in the official statistics. In terms of national expenditure on housing investment, Britain lags 21st out of 22 OECD nations spending just 2.9 per cent. of gross domestic product at the latest count. That contrasts with Germany spending 6.1 per cent. of GDP; France, 5 per cent.; and Italy, 5.3 per cent. Those are the facts.
As many noble Lords know, the construction industry is flat on its back. Latham has not been implemented and there is no sign that it will. As my noble friend Lord Bruce said, the banks and building societies joined in a chase for assets, jumping into the housing loan market. As he rightly said, they do not have to repossess. They can adopt what my noble friend Lady Hollis suggested when we were debating the ill-fated leasehold enfranchisement Bill. It was not a rents-to-mortgages scheme but a mortgages-to-rents scheme. If my noble friend will forgive me, his idea was not original. It came from my noble friend Lady Hollis some time ago when we debated that Bill.
The Government have gone even further and seem to wish to talk down the whole housing market by the business of removing income support. The point here is not just that they are attacking the most vulnerable people. We know that; it is normal for this Government. It is that by introducing such a measure, they are talking down the house price market and therefore talking up negative equity.
There are a number of wild fantasies about remedies for the situation. As my noble friend Lord Haskel pointed out, mortgage protection insurance is a hopeless idea. According to the Association of British Insurers, no serious insurance company would adopt such a scheme and I personally cannot see a market for it. We have now heard about the Skipton solution. The Skipton Building Society has 0.5 per cent. of the house financing market. It

309
has suddenly apparently come up with a scheme that will cost money, if indeed it works. I doubt very much that it will.
The situation is one of crisis, and we must consider carefully what we do about it. I shall not join in the debate with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about capital receipts and inflation. I am sorry that he was not in his place when my noble friend Lord Desai seemed to swat that one aside. He was followed by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. Rather like Jonah Lomu running through Tony Underwood last Saturday, my noble friend marched straight through. So I do not believe that I need worry too much about the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
If we are to restore any confidence in the housing market, we must insist on the immediate withdrawal of the damaging plans to withdraw the income support safety net. We must insist on a phased release of some £6 billion which councils are currently prevented from reinvesting in housing in one form or another. We must build on a framework of public/private partnership such as local housing companies to attract additional private investment within a framework which ensures local accountability, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out.
In those circumstances, we must examine what the government reaction is. We are told that there is to be a housing White Paper. Of course, at the moment we do not know what will be in it, but, as always with government documents, there have been a number of leaks. We must assume that the leaks are genuine and that what appears in the leaks will appear in the White Paper.
The first point which I understand is under consideration is the removal of existing statutory safeguards for homeless people and their replacement with a weaker framework in which local authorities may be able to discharge their responsibilities simply by offering a short-term insecure letting in the private sector. I understand that that will appear in the Government's White Paper. If so, I can assure the noble Earl that he will have a fight on his hands because it is unacceptable.
We also understand that in the White Paper the current framework for home renovation grants, about which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, spoke, introduced by the Conservatives themselves only six years ago, will be changed in favour of a discretionary scheme with few incentives to achieve an effective renewal policy. The extension of housing association grant, we hear, is to private developers which will spread an already inadequate budget even more thinly and thus risk depressing standards.
There will be a scheme to allow some housing association tenants to buy their homes, to get the Prime Minister off the rather nasty hook he got himself on by insisting on the right to buy for housing association tenants. The measures may include the distortion, if I may put it like that, of a perfectly sensible idea for local housing companies, simply making it a vehicle for privatisation rather than a positive measure to encourage public/private partnership. The introduction of probationary tenancies is another proposal which I understand is under consideration in the White Paper together with a token scheme for tackling fire hazards.
310
In none of that, apart from the most offensive parts, do we see anything like a long-term strategy. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in saying that the housing crisis cannot be solved by short-term palliative measures. First, we must recognise that housing is a social need; it is not just another market. Secondly, we must recognise that the fundamental problem facing us, which we must solve as quickly as possible, is the problem of the most vulnerable in our population, particularly the homeless. That must be done. Thirdly, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, pointed out, we must recognise that demographic changes are taking place in the population. We must plan for them on the basis of a seriously constructed housing budget.
Instead of that, what we get from the Government is panic. I understand that; I should be in a panic if I were in their situation. However, that is not a proper response to housing policy. It may be a response to the opinion polls, but it should not lead the Government simply to try to stitch together things which they think might tomorrow win them a few marginal seats in this, that and the other part of the country. We need a long-term, properly constructed, sensible policy and strategy to combat our housing crisis. If the Government will not do it, then we shall.
5.37 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I wish to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for bringing to the attention of the House important issues concerning the demand for housing and how it should be met.
I have listened carefully and with great interest to the points made by noble Lords. Many of them spoke with as much experience as perhaps prejudice—I am not sure. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, was so keen to talk down some of the more positive points made by my noble friend Lord Elton that he forgot that his noble friend Lord Bruce apparently does not like the ambiguity of figures being thrown about on how much money is spent, how the figures are decreasing and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has thrown down that gauntlet and I shall reply with some of the commitments that the Government have and some of our achievements.
Most people find their own home with no help from the Government. The construction industry and financial institutions ensure that demand for new homes can be met. The role of government is, on the one hand, to create the right economic circumstances for the market to operate effectively and, on the other, to ensure that help goes to the people who need it.
Despite what the noble Lords, Lord Ewing and Lord Beaumont, said, most people prefer to own their own homes, and there can be no doubting the success in expanding owner-occupation. It has increased from 56 per cent. in 1979 to 68 per cent. today. Research shows that the overwhelming majority of people are pleased to have bought their own homes under the right to buy.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Desai, addressed some of the fundamental issues of home owning. The Government remain committed to promoting sustainable home ownership. Buying a home remains a sensible investment for most families. It is an

311
investment not in a speculative, get-rich-quick sense but an investment in choice, independence and control. It is an investment in security, particularly later on in life when the mortgage has been repaid. As some of my noble friends pointed out, now is the time to buy. House prices are at their lowest in relation to incomes since 1985, which is good news for first-time buyers.
A lot of concern was expressed—it was initiated by my noble friend Lord Harding of Petherton—about those households in negative equity. The Government, of course, share this concern. However, the problem is a direct result of past unsustainable house price inflation and is a painful reminder of the reasons why the Government are determined that there will be no repeat of the late 1980s. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, referred to that period. Negative equity will decline as house prices edge upwards in line with price movements in the economy as a whole. The number of households affected by negative equity is now significantly lower than it was in 1992.
It is pointless pretending that income support offers an all-encompassing safety net for home owners in difficulty. It does not and it was never intended that it should. There has to be a balance between state and private insurance. What is needed is comprehensive, reasonably priced insurance products for the benefit of all home owners. Despite the cynicism of some, there are signs that a positive and innovative approach is now emerging from the insurance industry and that the services that the industry will be able to offer will provide protection for most home owners. The proof is perhaps in the fact that repossessions are now falling. They have fallen by over 36 per cent. since the 1991 peak. Arrears of six months or more are down 21 per cent. year on year. At the moment, average mortgage repayments are £130 below those that existed in October 1990. A lot of that has to do with the Government's economic policies. The little exposition of my noble friend Lord Elton in this area underpins much of the success.
The right reverend Prelate and others spent much time discussing rented housing concerns. The Government realise that not every household will want, or be able to afford, owner-occupation. The Government are committed to increasing the supply of homes for rent and to providing new opportunities for such households. In particular, the Government are keen to expand the role played by the private rented sector. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, paid particular attention to that area. A healthy private rented sector is a vital partner in promoting sustainable home ownership. Young people should not have to rush to buy a home because no rented homes are available. Private lettings can also provide homes for people who have to move for their job. They can also provide good quality homes for those in particular need.
Apart from the initiatives in this area, I point out to the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Williams, that the situation in regard to housing renovation grants is not nearly so dire as they stated. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, gave an inaccurate figure. I know that over 90,000 renovation grants, including disabled facilities grants, were approved in 1994–95, representing
312
£433 million worth of public expenditure. I also point out that the present means tested grants system introduced under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 was to target resources on the most needy households and on the worst condition housing. If there is any adjustment in the terms and conditions of such grants, it is in order to target those resources that are available in the most efficient manner.
The noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Beaumont, were both concerned about energy efficiency and the general improvement of the condition of housing. Both noble Lords know very well that the Government are committed to improving both those features in housing. The range of programmes and measures in place to improve and promote energy efficiency across public and private housing sectors are numerous. Both noble Lords must be aware of the home energy efficiency scheme, which pays for basic insulation, draught-proofing and so on for housing for low-income, disabled and elderly residents.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, painted an unnecessarily gloomy picture about the condition of the housing stock. There have been considerable improvements in the past few years across a wide range of features, with many people being generally better housed than they were in 1986, with improved levels of amenities, a wider use of central heating, more homes with double glazing and less overcrowding.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is it not a fact that the resources available for home improvement have fallen very substantially—by three-quarters over the past 10 years? Even though the 1989 Act provides for mandatory and discretionary grants, the resources available to local authorities have fallen to such a low level that very few of those can have effect.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the Government continue to commit significant resources to home renovation grants and other improvements in this area. As I have already stressed, even if the width, as it were, and quantity of this stream had been better defined, the accuracy with which we are delivering the benefits is considerably better. In terms of cost-effective delivery, the situation is much better now.
With continuing constraints on public spending, the Government are aware that they must consider carefully how best to use the resources at their disposal to ensure that maximum benefit is being obtained for those in need from every penny of public money spent. That is why, since the mid-1980s, the balance of subsidy has shifted away from "bricks and mortar" to suppliers, and has moved towards personal subsidy of rents in the form of housing benefit. That means that resources are targeted on those individuals who need them most.
Social rented housing, with rents set below market levels, will continue to play a vital part in housing people on low incomes. Affordable rents help people escape from the poverty trap and give them stronger incentives to work and save. They are also the right answer in public expenditure terms. We make resources available to the housing associations, the main providers of new social housing, through the Housing Corporation, which allocates the resources in its capital programme on the

313
basis of the Housing Needs Index and on the value for money offered by individual housing association schemes.
I stress that the budget for the housing association sector is some £1.2 billion in 1995–96. The Housing Corporation confirmed that during the period 1992–93 to 1994–95, housing associations will have provided homes for 178,000 households—that is 25,000 more than the target in our manifesto. Over the next three years, it is expected that Housing Corporation and local authority expenditure together, and the private finance that they will attract, will produce a further 180,000 new lettings.
A number of contributors to today's debate questioned why the Government do not allow local authorities to spend all of their capital receipts. The noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Haskel, both suggested that one of the options would be a phased release of capital receipts. However, the Government believe that it is right that when local authorities sell assets they should use part of the proceeds to pay off old debt and so keep their council tax down. With local authority debts totalling some £37 billion at the moment and costing almost £4 billion per annum to service, it is quite right that the Government have that priority. As I said, the Government's long-term policy is that there should be prudent management of debt and optimum targeting of available resources.
I should like to touch on the very interesting observations made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford on the shortage of housing in rural areas. Since 1988, the Housing Corporation has run a special rural housing programme targeted at villages below 3,000 in population; 60 per cent. of the programme is targeted at villages of 1,000 or less; 40 per cent. at villages between 1,000 and 3,000. This programme is working well. Between. 1989 and 1990 and the end of 1994–95, over 10,800 units were approved in rural areas; that is some 1,600 above target. The target for the 1995–96 rural programme will be some 6 per cent. of the Housing Corporation's new development programme.
The construction industry exercised a number of noble Lords, notably the noble Lords, Lord Howie, Lord Sefton, Lord Howell and Lord Dean. The Government recognise that the industry is an important part of the economy, accounting for 10 per cent. of the gross domestic product and also for an increasing share of exports, as was mentioned. It has an essential role to play in the creation of the nation's wealth and, to quote another noble Lord, if it contributes to the nation's wealth, it contributes to its health. Lower levels of investment are naturally of concern to housebuilders as well as other organisations not directly involved. However, no one can seriously question that the best answer for the construction industry in the long term is to deliver steady, sustainable, non-inflationary growth. Reductions in the number of spending programmes have been necessary to help us to achieve that. But we continue to have a substantial programme of housing investment—over £2 billion in England alone—providing work for the construction industry.
The construction output increased by 3 per cent. last year after three-and-a-half years of decline and the fall in employment has halted. New orders held up well after their strong resurgence in 1993, and sustained though
314
modest growth is set to continue. British firms are also doing very well abroad. I would also point out that there have been major boosts for construction from private finance on transport projects. The noble Lord, Lord Howie, covered some of that area. It is now coming through elsewhere, particularly in health and education. Private finance initiative contracts worth up to £5 billion should be signed this year. New rules from 1st April have extended PFI to local authorities, providing over £75 billion worth of opportunities. In addition, the volume of private house building output was 7 per cent. higher in 1994 than in 1993 and the first quarter of 1995 was 2 per cent. higher than a year earlier.
Many noble Lords referred to the Latham Report. Perhaps I may update your Lordships on the progress achieved by it. The construction industry board is chaired by Sir Michael Latham and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is its president. It was established to oversee working groups set up to take forward Latham recommendations and to provide a channel for industry and client comment on any proposed legislation.
The Government have repeatedly said that they are in principle prepared to legislate and support Sir Michael's recommendations. However, legislation is subject to a number of provisos. Briefly, they are that we need to know what is wanted in terms of consensus. We need to know what practical legislative solutions can be devised to achieve what is proposed. A consultation paper on proposals for post-dated legislation in the area of latent defects liability and build insurance was published on 12th April. A second paper on fair construction contracts was published on 17th May. Responses to these are awaited or are being analysed.
There are plenty of initiatives in response to the Latham Report. There is plenty of progress and commitment from all the players involved, not least the Government. But I remind all noble Lords who touched on this matter that the majority of the recommendations contained in the report are directly addressed to the construction industry. I do not accept therefore the inference of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, that the Government alone are responsible for pursuing the Latham Report.
The noble Lords, Lord Howie and Lord Sefton, touched on training in the construction industry. I remind them that the Latham Report acknowledged the importance of training and indeed the points they raised. The Government agree with that. We work with the industry to help sustain a professional workforce. The general enabling response that the Government are producing to the initiatives required by the sport are helping in that direction.
Homelessness attracted wide and often inaccurate comment from noble Lords taking part in the debate. It is an extremely important topic and most of the Government's housing policies are directed to reducing it. I am pleased to inform noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that the latest homelessness statistics have reinforced some encouraging trends throughout the UK, not solely in England. The first three months in 1995 were the 12th successive quarter to show a reduction in the number of households accepted by English local authorities as statutory homeless over the same quarter 12

315
months earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, suggested the contrary. The statistics also show that there was a fall of 11 per cent. in the number of households placed in temporary accommodation over the previous 12 months. The situation should improve further as more homes are made available through government grants to enable those local authority and housing association tenants who cannot at present afford to do so to move to a home of their own, releasing their existing home for a family in housing need.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, painted a dire picture of Scotland which is a long way from the truth. Sheltered housing has quadrupled since 1979; over 300,000 new houses have been built in Scotland since 1979. The total gross capital provision for investment by local authorities, Scottish Homes and Scottish new towns amounts to nearly £1 billion. On current plans, over the next three years a further £2.8 billion will be made available. The Scottish Homes development programme has been maintained at around the same level in cash terms this year as last year, at £320 million. Resources of over £540 million will be provided to local authorities in 1995–96; nearly £424 million will be available for investment in council housing in 1995–96. Scottish Homes attracted some £500 million in private investment over the past five years through its development programme. Its target for 1995–96 is £175 million. I did not recognise the country the noble Lord was talking about, though we both live in the same county up there.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, was equally misleading about the proposals to reform the homelessness legislation. He admitted that he was picking up fag ends on this point. But, first, I encourage him to be patient for the White Paper to be published shortly; and, secondly, to take note of what I am able to tell him at the moment.
The Government's proposals to reform the homeless legislation are designed to achieve a fairer approach to the allocation of local authority and housing association tenancies. Under the proposals, local authorities would continue to have a duty to secure accommodation for families and other vulnerable people who have nowhere suitable to live through no fault of their own. The then Housing Minister, my right honourable friend Sir George Young, made clear in July 1994 that there is no question of vulnerable people, which includes families with children, not having a home. There is no question of families having to sleep on the streets or children being separated from their parents and taken into care. The Government are clear that the new legislation must continue to provide safety nets for families and other vulnerable people in need of accommodation to tide them through a crisis. The new provisions would ensure that those in real need would have a satisfactory and settled home for a reasonable period. The aim of the proposals is simply to secure fairer access to social housing.
There are no easy answers to many of the issues raised today, whether we are talking of homelessness, rented housing, the private sector, local authority housing or the fabric of housing itself. The Government must decide where the frontier should lie between state initiatives, private sector initiatives, owner initiatives and so forth.
316
The Government have already achieved a revolution in redefining the role of the state, and housing has been at the heart of that revolution. Four million more households have become home owners. The right to buy has given millions of public sector tenants the chance to become home owners. Local authority tenants enjoy a significantly improved service from landlords, and the private sector has become a major partner in the Government's efforts to ensure that decent homes are available.
The Government do not intend to stop there. They continue to look closely at their policies and programmes. Indeed, many noble Lords will be aware that the Department of the Environment is currently preparing a housing White Paper which will be published before the Summer Recess. What matters most to this Government is that maximum benefit is being obtained for those in need from every penny of public money spent.
Lord Howell: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, can I take it that he does not intend to say a word upon the matter about which I gave him notice, which was the outrageous attack by the Prime Minister on the city of Birmingham in respect of these matters? Surely we should have an explanation.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, if the noble Lord feels that what I have to say to him on Birmingham is insufficient, I can always write to him after the debate. I can say that local authorities must comply with the law. The local ombudsman has found that Birmingham is not guilty of maladministration for operating a queue, but he has found maladministration in various aspects of its arrangements. That is a matter for the city council, which I understand it has in hand. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.
5.59 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate because I think it has possibly been the best housing debate we have had in your Lordships' House for a long time. I thought I would hear from the Minister some transfusion into the housing situation to deal with the legitimate points that have been raised from all points of the Chamber. But the noble Earl has not even produced a tourniquet to stop some of the bleeding taking place.
In fact, I have to do something now that I regret. I am sorry but I have to challenge most of the figures the Minister has given as the Government's achievements. They are in complete contradiction to the figures that we have from such organisations as the National Federation of Housing Associations. The figure the Minister has given of the number of homes that will be built is absolute nonsense. It is nowhere near accurate. The Minister will recall that some weeks ago there were exchanges on the shortfall in the housing associations' programme and he apologised to me after the debate for the fact that he had been given incorrect information. I was in fact right. This is the first time I have had to say it in your Lordships' House but I do not think the figures the Minister has been given are right and fair.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Lord does not recollect our conversation accurately. I was summing up a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The noble Lord was unhappy with the figures I gave him on house build in the previous year and projected home provision in the next three years. I stood by my figures when we spoke outside the Chamber.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord McIntosh received a form of apology by letter from the senior Minister. I do not accept the figures. But, having said that, I hope that the Government will realise that they stand alone on the path they continue to go along. They are not solving the housing problem. The figures we have on homelessness are far higher than the ones the Minister has quoted. Who is giving him the figures? I do not know. I am not accusing him of misleading the House, but someone is providing him with inaccurate briefs. That is to be regretted.
However, having said that, I think enough points have been made by distinguished Members of your Lordships' House on the housing situation that the Government will ignore them at their peril. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Town and Country Planning (Costs of Inquiries etc.) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

The Labour Market: Casualisation
6.3 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden rose to call attention to the casualisation of the labour market, including all aspects of pay and conditions; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I believe that this is one of the most important debates that we have had this Session in your Lordships' House and I am very glad to have the opportunity this evening of opening it. The terms of the debate refer to the casualisation of the labour market—but in fact the debate is much wider than one simply concerned with employment, as I hope to show in the course of my remarks. I am sure that that will be followed up by some of my noble friends who are due to speak later.
Everyone now seems to accept that the days of a job for life are over. Indeed, it seems almost indecent for anyone to expect such a thing. The Government, of course, refer to this as labour flexibility. They have been instrumental, both by exhortation and through legislation, in encouraging greater flexibility, which they appear to think is good for both employers and workforces. It is felt that greater flexibility gives the workers more "choice" and it seems that the Government have women particularly in mind, since women make up a large proportion of the workforce which is in part-time employment.
Last July, the official journal of the Department of Employment, the Employment Gazette, published an interesting survey on flexible employment. Its key
318
findings were that some 9.7 million people—38 per cent. of all UK workers—are working part-time, in temporary employment, are self-employed, or on government training schemes. That is an increase of 1.25 million since 1986. The proportion of men who are part of the flexible workforce has risen from 18 per cent. in 1981 to 27 per cent., whereas among women it has remained relatively stable.
There are, as the Employment Gazette has pointed out, a number of definitions of "flexibility". There is wages or earnings flexibility, which generally speaking involves systems like performance-related pay rather than fixed wage rates. This, with government encouragement, has been introduced practically everywhere, even in sectors where once it was unknown—in public sector enterprises, the NHS and among skilled and professional people. If anyone claims, as the Government may do, that these systems have led to greater efficiency, I must say that from my point of view I do not think that that has always been the case.
Then there is labour mobility, which describes the movement of workers to different jobs, occupations or areas according to changing economic conditions. That has been going on for a very long time, but there are plenty of reasons nowadays which render such movements simply not practicable for large numbers of workers; including, of course, the housing situation which your Lordships have just been discussing.
Then there is functional flexibility, relating to the absence of job demarcations. That used to be talked about a lot years ago and was supposed to be the main reason for the UK's poor economic performance. Well, that has long since disappeared, without the benign effects on economic performance predicted. But mostly, what we are thinking about when we talk about flexibility is what I have described in the title of the debate as "casualisation of the labour market".
Those of us who joined the workforce in the years immediately after the last war were perhaps extremely fortunate. In the main, the fear of unemployment had gone. That was something that had happened in the 1930s—to our fathers and grandfathers. We had jobs. If we lost one job, it was not too difficult to find another one. If we went into public service or one of the service industries, such as insurance or banking, as I did when I left school, we could confidently expect to stay there, if we wanted to, until retirement, when we could in many instances have earned a pension related to our final salary. I am, of course, talking fairly specifically about white-collar employment. Manual work, even skilled manual work, always tended to be less secure, although there was a fairly strong feeling among working class people, at least as far as sons were concerned, that the thing to do was to get the boy an apprenticeship in some skilled trade and that would lead to a reasonable degree of security for the future.
I need hardly say that these expectations no longer exist, either for white-collar, middle-class people or for people who would perhaps have described themselves as skilled working class. The work scene has changed very dramatically and some of the change has been positively due to government encouragement. Until 1979 or thereabouts, even Conservative Administrations accepted

319
that the maintenance of a high level of employment—and high standards in that employment—was a basic government priority. Since 1979, however, there have been a whole series of government initiatives which have had the deliberate effect of loosening up the labour market.
There have been numbers of employment measures designed to undermine the strength of the trade union movement and therefore to rob working people of whatever collective strength they had to oppose measures being put in train which they perceived to be to their disadvantage. In addition, of course, we have had the revolution in information technology, which in an unregulated market has invariably been disadvantageous to a large section of the workforce unable to cope with it.
The Government, however, have boasted to overseas investors that if they come to Britain they will not have to recognise unions, employment protection standards are low or practically non-existent, wages are low and there is plenty of available labour because of unemployment. So, in many ways, what we see now is the result of deliberate policies.
But, as with such ideologically motivated policies, side-effects have happened which I do not think anyone, including the Government, anticipated. The result of what I believe is now known as "down-sizing" by companies—what a previous Prime Minister has described as becoming leaner and fitter—has been that a sense of gross insecurity has now begun to affect not only working-class people, who to some extent have been used to it, but white-collar employees and middle managers as well. Moreover, those who are left in work are themselves beset with anxieties and are often having to work much harder than they should in order to make up for the fact that staff numbers are being reduced.
My own union recently undertook a survey of members working in both private and public sector jobs. Forty-four per cent. of respondents working in financial services, for example, reported that they felt less secure in their jobs than they did a year ago. The survey also showed that stress is now a major problem for those in work, with 60 per cent. of the sample saying that they suffer stress as a result of not enough time to do the work they are given, poor relationships, general lack of security and so on. That survey was conducted among people working in substantial firms where there is union recognition. It is our belief that the situation is a great deal worse where the work is non-unionised and the people concerned have far less security. According to some recently published research, 44 per cent. of British workers arrive home feeling exhausted.
The new post-industrial culture, if effectively managed, could have given people more time off to use for themselves. Instead, we are seeing a great divide between those in jobs who are working themselves into the ground in order to keep them, and those without any jobs at all who are becoming increasingly subjected to pressure from the Government to comply with further requirements in order to qualify for the new jobseeker's allowance which will be less, of course, than
320
unemployment benefit and may carry with it the obligation to take on any sort of job irrespective of rate of pay or qualifications.
In addition, there has been a large development of part-time employment and also of what I believe is known as "zero" employment where individuals commit themselves to be called in at need by a particular company and are paid when needed and not otherwise called for. I remember several years ago in this House we debated the demise of the dock labour scheme. We were unable to prevent its demise, but I well remember the debates we then had when noble Lords with experience of those times explained why the scheme had originally been introduced. I particularly remember the contribution at that time of my noble friend Lord Callaghan.
Before the last war large numbers of men would assemble at the dock gates. The boss would come out and say, "I'll have you, and you, and you, and the rest of you can go". Those not chosen had to go back miserably to their families to say there would be no money that day. It was to prevent that kind of casualisation that the dock labour scheme was first introduced. What we are now seeing is the casualisation of a large segment of the UK labour force.
Moreover, pay and conditions tend to be very poor. The wages councils have disappeared. They did at least set a minimum standard in some services and industries. According to a recent TUC survey, the lowest 10 per cent. of part-time workers, mostly women, earned only £2.49 per hour; the median was £3.98 per hour. The Government believe that many workers choose to work part-time, but often that is all the work that there is available, particularly for women. There has been a growth in the practice of hiring staff, even quite skilled, professionally qualified staff, on short-term contracts with, of course, the lack of employment rights consequent on such arrangements. In many respects, that is a rather short-sighted policy on the part of the employers who do it, since why should there be any loyalty to the company if the employer on his part does not show any commitment to the staff who have been hired?
As I said earlier, these developments had a down side, which I do not believe the Government anticipated. If people have no sense of security they will not take on long-term commitments. The former Prime Minister was anxious that we should all become property owners. Everyone, including council house tenants, should be able to buy their own home. Noble Lords have been debating that earlier this afternoon. But as we know, such decisions have often been disastrously unforunate for some people. Trapped in what is euphemistically called "negative equity", their houses will fetch less on the market than the amount they borrowed to pay for them, and they need to sell because they no longer have jobs which will enable them to meet repayment obligations. The idea that the next generation would inherit their parent's home and thus be better off than their parents has also ceased to have much validity.
Local authorities are expected to shoulder the burden of caring for the elderly and disabled in their areas, but in many instances lack the resources to do so, so the homes of elderly people are increasingly having to be sold in

321
order to meet the costs of residential care. Everyone knows that housing policy is in a mess and at the root of it lies basic insecurity of employment.
I was talking recently to a former colleague in the insurance industry. He told me that life insurance sales are at an all-time low. The reason is not only the scare about personal pensions and what that has meant generally in the insurance market. The main reason has been identified as the refusal of people to make long-term commitments. That is because many of them do not know whether they will be in employment in 12 months' time and will not take on a commitment to pay insurance premiums which they feel they may not be able to afford in the future.
Law and order is a major issue for all political parties. I certainly would not seek to maintain that the cause of it is deprivation alone—of course, the whole matter is much more complicated than that—but the fact that young people, particularly young males, now have such a low expectation of employment and, indeed, doubts about their role in society as a whole, must play some part in the growth of violence among this particular group.
What I am saying is that the general insecurity that clearly exists is undoubtedly the reason for the lack of the "feel-good" factor which Government spokespersons are clearly concerned about and which, in my view, is likely to lose the Government the next election. It is really no use saying that unemployment is going down; that the claimant figure is lower than it has been for some time. Yes, of course, I have seen the figures.
I have to say to the Government that they have a credibility problem. No one believes them any more. It is impossible to open a newspaper without seeing that one or other major institution is about to cut thousands of jobs; whether it is banking, milk marketing or even the Post Office—despite, incidentally, the latter's record profits.
People know that redundancies have been taking place where they work; or their children cannot get jobs and their neighbours are out of work, and so on. Everyone also knows that the claimant count underrates the numbers of those actually without work since the method of calculation has been changed so many times, and will undoubtedly be changed again as a result of the Jobseekers Bill recently debated in this House.
The Government will undoubtedly say that the solution is simply more of the policies we have already had; fewer protections for workers; opposition to the social chapter and to EU directives like, for example, the hours of work directive, which would surely help to create a little more employment throughout Europe.
Frankly, I do not believe the Government's case. We have had these policies now for over 15 years and the results have not been good. There has to be a determined effort by the Government to bring in policies designed to ensure investment in jobs and in the UK economy. I am sure that a number of my noble friends who are to follow me in the debate will elaborate on that point.
I do not deny that there is an international dimension, but our future, and the future of our workforce, should not depend on driving our conditions down to third world level. Steps must be taken to restore a sense of security to the large mass of UK workers who at present do not have
322
it. They lack it directly because of some of the policies initiated by the Government and in particular by policies associated with the name of the previous Prime Minister.
I believe that a Labour Government would indeed have the commitment and zeal to embark on such policies and would use their best efforts to ensure that our European partners joined with us in a concerted attempt to reduce the levels of unemployment throughout Europe and restore a sense of stability and security so much lacking at the present time. I beg to move for Papers.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, we all owe the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, a debt of gratitude for having introduced a debate which takes us right to the heart of current problems of employment, of social cohesion and of the welfare state. When about 18 months ago, on 10th January 1994, we debated in your Lordships' House the question of flexible working, I took the opportunity to say:
"We must beware that the notion of flexible working does not become an excuse for a return to casual working on a large scale".—[Official Report, 10/1/94; col. 42.]
Today we have casual working on a large scale and the question is what can we do about it.
Let me start with one basic principle. In my view, a flexible labour market is a necessary condition of competitiveness in a global market-place which can be very cruel. A flexible labour market is one which takes us away from the rigidities which have come about as an exaggerated form of the security for which people are rightly and justly looking. However, flexibility can be taken to an extreme in which its cost is almost higher than its benefit. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, pointed out some of the costs in terms of insecurity, disorientation, fear, short-termism and even the effect on law and order. We have to find a balance between flexibility and security. It seems to me that that is the key issue with which we are faced in this area and perhaps with regard to employment in general. But the question is: how?
Some of us have a preference for a course which is expensive and which is not likely to be implemented in the near future. I refer to having a basic income guarantee or a citizen's income. I, for one, should not be surprised if my noble friend Lady Seear at least hints at the fact that she and I share that preference, although we have found it hard to persuade even our friends of its immediate implementation.
However, we have to start somewhere. One important idea that I should like to reiterate is that there is a case, in order to provide more reliable employment for more people, for topping up low wages to take them to a decent level. Because this is my main point, I say deliberately "topping up low wages for employees" rather than providing employers with so-called "incentives" to employ more people. The principle behind that is that in a world in which there is an inevitable degree of casualisation, individuals have to be placed in a position in which they can deal with the flexible world in which they are living by having some degree of security.
That leads me to one conclusion. When it comes to the balance between flexibility and security, we must rethink some of the principles and some of the practices of the

323
welfare state. We may even have to rethink the very name "welfare state", which may not be appropriate. By that, I mean that we have to find a method of enabling individuals to get through the insecure world in which they are living with a security that they can carry with them. We have to find methods of making benefits transportable and a new way of relating contributions from individuals, employers and the taxpayer through government.
Perhaps I may give two examples. I shall call the first "individual learning accounts". Looking at all the relevant studies, there is little doubt that the right education and training are still one of the best roads back to the kind of employment which provides at least some steadiness. However, education cannot, and must not, be a one-off. Education must be a lifelong opportunity. In order for it to be a lifelong opportunity, people have to be able at any time in their lives to return to courses of education and training. I think that that can best be achieved by having learning accounts which are attached to individuals and fed by employers, by the individuals themselves and, where the need arises, by the taxpayer. In other words, those learning accounts will not simply take the form of vouchers, but will be something on which a man or a woman in the course of their career can draw when they find it necessary to switch career and when they need some training to improve their job opportunities. Incidentally, such individual learning accounts might well also be fed from redundancy funds whenever people are made redundant. Indeed, redundancy is part and parcel of the problem that we are considering.
I shall have to give my second example far too briefly to be able to do justice to the importance of the issue. I refer to the way in which pensions are financed. They, too, must be transportable. They must be a combination of, on the whole, compulsory contributions from individuals, employers and, where necessary, the taxpayer or the state. I can envisage a compulsory and in many ways private pension system which would provide a certain degree of security to people who would otherwise be left totally exposed as a result of their form of employment.
Those points raise enormous questions with which we shall not be able to deal satisfactorily here. I certainly shall not be able to deal with them satisfactorily now. However, what I am saying is that casual work is just about bearable for quite a few people if there is a safety net. In the decades ahead, the safety net is not likely to be the state. It is likely to be a more complex contributory safety net, to which individuals and employers contribute as much as the taxpayer. There will probably have to be a compulsory element. Unless we rethink what we have come to call "the welfare state" along that dimension, together with losing regular lifetime work, we shall lose a whole set of values which are crucial for a society which is truly wealthy and not just rich.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I must first apologise to your Lordships for the fact that I shall have to leave the House just before eight o'clock. That is to fulfil an engagement which made me reluctant to put down my
324
name to speak in the debate although I very much wanted to. I was persuaded to do so only at the last moment this morning.
I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for raising this deeply important and interesting subject. However, I thought that she painted a rather black picture. We do have a problem with casualisation, but I am under the impression that this country still has one of the lowest percentages of workers in temporary employment. That does not make us good, but we are not among the worst.
I cannot help but mention that for the first time in my lifetime we have an economy which is highly competitive. We have rising exports, rising productivity, rising employment (although from a low level) and controlled inflation. In my lifetime, whatever the government, I have never known our economy to be so strong and so potentially fruitful. So there is a good side to the present position as well as a bad side. Having said that, I understand what the noble Baroness said and I sympathise with her feelings about the problems being experienced by many of our fellow citizens.
However, I do not agree with the remedies—or at least the implied remedies—which the noble Baroness and her party are putting forward. Twenty years ago—certainly 30 years ago—I might have agreed with a great many of them, but I doubt whether the noble Baroness or her party as a whole have yet fully adjusted their ideas to the degree of economic change that has taken place not only in this country but throughout the world. In the first two or three decades after the war, the labour market was based on a relatively small number of fairly well-defined industries, usually employing relatively large numbers of people on single sites of an average and increasing size, with centralised hierarchical systems of control both on the employer's side and on the union side and with a high percentage of those employed being relatively unskilled production or administrative and clerical workers. All that has changed, and it has changed in a frighteningly short time. Companies as a whole, or in their separate parts, now wax and wane much more quickly and unpredictably than they did in the past.
Decentralisation of decision making, flexibility and innovation of products and processes, as well as methods of management, are now the order of the day. They are in fact essential requirements for survival, let alone for prosperity and success. Above all, of course, from the point of view of our subject tonight, the demand for unskilled and even semi-skilled staff in factory and office has collapsed rapidly and alarmingly. The labour market has thus changed very radicall; indeed. Some, perhaps much, of the change is unwelcome, frightening and unpleasant for large numbers of our population of all classes, and it is not easy to deal with.
So what do we do? I want to be clear that what I require personally of our labour market is that it should function in a way which maximises the number of people we employ. That seems to me the first vital function of a labour market. I have always believed, and still do, that long-term unemployment is a terrible cancer in our society. So how can we go on increasing the number in employment and move back towards what we might once again reasonably call full employment—something

325
which, in our innocence, we believed 20 or 30 years ago we had achieved and could sustain, not foreseeing the nature of the changes which were shortly to hit not only this country but every country in the world?
One cannot go deeply into the matter in an eight-minute speech but I should like to outline what I regard as five vital spheres of action. The first, and most obvious, is education and training. I believe that the new infrastructure for both education and training in Britain is now better than it has ever been. The new structures in both fields still have to be refined. They are still creaking in their early stages. They have to be worked on and become more widely understand. I believe, however, that we now have a far better platform from which to jump forward in education and training in this country. The Government deserve some congratulations on the basic changes that have been made, although much still remains to be done. I urge on the Government and any future government the high priority, in terms of attention and money, that should be given to developing training and education in this country if we want to improve the level and quality of our employment. Money spent here, providing it is well spent, is genuine investment in wealth producing and income producing in the future. It is not expenditure on consumption.
The second need is to tackle the poverty trap in its many forms. This was a point which the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, very interestingly opened up in his speech. The division between benefit and income suddenly has to be changed. It is not easy. However, we have got into the trap of feeling that if you have benefit you must not earn and if you earn you cannot have benefit. One understands that, but one realises the danger and difficulty of changing it. There are some signs, I am glad to say, that the Government are beginning to make that change, but I believe that much more thinking needs to be done in terms of the need for a minimum total family income and less in terms of benefits and minimum individual wages. All this requires a very deep and very difficult re-thinking of the national insurance system and the welfare state in order to meet the needs of a society so very different from 50 years ago when the Beveridge scheme was introduced. I hope, perhaps in my elderly innocence, that it is a problem that we can tackle on a much more all-party basis because there really is some fundamental rethinking to be done and ya-booing at each other frankly gets us nowhere.
The third need is to remove a large number of people from the income tax net. I may be alone in thinking this, although I hope not, because it is closely linked to my last point. In my view, the single most important change required to income tax system is to remove a large number of people from it altogether. That is more important than fiddling about with rates of tax, much as many of us would like that so long as the fiddling was in a downward direction.
The fourth need is to try to keep to a minimum the oncosts of employing people. Let us make sure that as much as possible of the cost of employment actually goes into wages and not into labour oncosts. I fear that this requires the minimum of regulation, and it is probably where I part company most obviously with the party opposite and the noble Baroness. We must remember that
326
regulation is often unenforced and virtually unenforceable just where it is most needed. It is most burdensome and costly where it is least necessary. I doubt very much the validity of more regulation in relieving in practice many of the problems from which we suffer.
That is why I, for one, have opposed the rigidity and cumbersomeness of the European Social Charter. I made my maiden speech in Parliament way back in April 1950 on the subject of joint consultation in industry. I want to see that, but I do not want a rigid system applied to all industries and all companies. Each company, each industry, must develop its own informal methods which are best suited to worker participation and participative styles of management. We cannot have a rigid system.
My last point is that we must not forget something which had a high priority in the 1980s but has rather sunk now—the need for urban regeneration. We must encourage small firms in the old cities, because it is the old cities which have the largest concentration of dangerous poverty and unemployment. I believe that action under those five headings is necessary if we are to tackle the problems that confront us.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, I, too am grateful to my noble friend Lady Turner for enabling the House to debate this important issue this evening. The Motion implies, and my noble friend has spelt out, that work patterns are changing, that permanent and full-time jobs are giving way to part-time and temporary jobs and that the United Kingdom labour market is becoming more casualised, with unfortunate consequences for working people and disturbing implications for Britain's competitiveness in the world economy.
In many places we have a world of work where fear of losing the job is ever present: a world of peripatetic part-timers, hopping from one job to another, often having two jobs in the same week—a world in which workers, to use one of Professor Galbraith's memorable phrases, are "abundant, redundant and poor". It is a world in which part-time and temporary workers cannot say "no", because to do so would mean risking the wrath of the boss and probably getting the sack.
This view that work is becoming more casualised has recently been called into question by David Shonfield of the independent industrial relations body, Incomes Data Services. No less a figure than the industrial editor of the Financial Times gave Shonfield's challenge an airing in the pink pages. Shonfield makes three points. First, that part-time jobs grew faster in the 1960s than they have done in the 1990s; that the recent rise in temporary work is typical of this stage in the economic cycle; and that the proportion of people who have been with the same employer for 10 or more years is lower now than 25 years ago.
In my view, this analysis is outweighed by three further factors. First, the proportion of people doing part-time work in the 1990s is three times what it was in the 1960s; so part-time working is widespread today, whereas it accounted for fewer than one in 10 jobs 30 years ago. Secondly, a mounting minority is emerging in the secondary sector of the world of work: people are being

327
forced into low paid temporary jobs. Even managers who previously held jobs in the premier league of the labour market are experiencing relegation to the lower divisions, where rewards, status and security are poor when compared with their former positions. That is a kind of 3D world of the middle manager who has been downsized, delayered and devalued.
The third and most compelling of the factors that the FT analysis understated is the experience of redundancy and unemployment, which is much more common today than it was three decades ago. Between a quarter and a third of today's regular workforce may have gone through a period of unemployment in the past few years, and 80 per cent. of people say that they know someone who has lost their job in the past five years. In short, the reassuring message that casual work is still the exception to the general rule rings increasingly false.
Professor Galbraith introduced another phrase into the English language a few years ago. He talked about "the culture of contentment". What we are witnessing today is not a culture of contentment in the labour market, it is a widespread sense of insecurity at work. Human resource management consultants talk about empowering the workers and higher rewards. But very many employees live a life of no say and low pay at work.
The legal changes that the Government introduced in the 1980s had a dramatic effect on employment security. At a stroke they cut from 56 per cent. 20 years ago to only 36 per cent. today the percentage of the population of working age who enjoyed rights to protection against unfair dismissal and to statutory redundancy pay. Casual workers are left with rights at work which are threadbare and limited. They also face the poorest prospects. Not for them the feel-good factor.
In a world in which companies increasingly stand or fall by the quality of the product they sell or the standard of the service they provide, nothing matters as much as the skills and motivation of their workforce. Our skills gap is worrying. In German manufacturing industry, 64 per cent. of foremen hold higher intermediate qualifications—in the UK, the figure is 3 per cent. In Germany, 90 per cent. of supervisors possess formal qualifications—in the UK, it is under 50 per cent. In the USA and Japan, 90 per cent. of managers hold degree qualifications—in the UK the figure is less than 25 per cent.
A well-trained workforce whose morale is high holds the key to competitiveness. Yet the recent CBI report on flexible labour markets sidesteps the question of who will pay to train Britain's increasingly casual labour force. No training means no skills, and that means further downmarket drift. Part-time workers do not lack loyalty to their employers. Many of them have long-service records that would stand comparison with their full-time colleagues, but they get short shrift when it comes to training. That is where they lose out, and industry's failure to invest in its people erodes Britain's competitive base.
The Government passed up the chance to support those important members of Britain's workforce when they opted out of the European Social Chapter. They did so arguing that industry opposed any idea of bringing employment rights in Britain into line with standards elsewhere in the EU. That is an untenable position. It is
328
becoming more and more so as days go by. The evidence is there for all to see. In February this year the Government were obliged to bring UK law into line with EU rules in respect of the employment rights of part-time workers.
Equally significant has been the increasing readiness of British business to enter voluntarily into agreements with the trade unions to create European works councils, despite the UK opt out. Trade unions, including my own, have signed European works council agreements with, for instance, United Biscuits and Coats Viyella. There are many more voluntary agreements in the pipeline. What is happening in British industry is different from the rhetoric that we hear from the Benches opposite.
There is a school of thought, which is articulated mainly by politicians rather than industrialists, that believes in insecurity; that believes—it is called freeing up the labour market—that it keeps people on their toes; it gives employees a sharper edge; it makes companies more competitive, more dynamic.
I do not accept that view. In my experience insecurity creates an inward looking, unproductive environment, where employees are resistant to change, and change—sometimes rapid change—is essential if British industry is to be and remain competitive. Therefore I am glad that some of our major industries and services have recognised the need to train their workforce in modern transferable skills; to guarantee employment for those who want to stay with the company; to achieve manpower reductions by natural wastage, voluntary redundancy and early retirement; and to work with the trade unions rather than shut them out or derecognise them altogether—in other words, to create a secure environment where training, and retraining, are a constant, where ideas and talent can flourish, where change is positive and welcome, and where transparency and co-operation replace secrecy and conflict.
6.46 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I should like to look at two different but overlapping aspects of our discussion. The first concerns the growing participation of women in the labour market, bringing with them their different needs and patterns of work; and the second is the growing casualisation of the labour force as a whole, affecting both men and women. I would remind the House that there are over 10 million women in paid employment, comprising almost 50 per cent. of the labour market, and set to exceed that by the end of the century. Of those, 45 per cent. are part-time workers.
For all sorts of reasons, part-time work has been increasing over the past 30 to 40 years. So it is not a new or temporary phenomenon. Part-time work suits many families with young children. It is mainly mothers who opt to work part time, but not necessarily so. Where parents want to spend more time bringing up their children they should be accommodated in doing so as a recognised feature of the labour market. That is not a one-sided benefit. Companies too are advantaged by part-time employment, because it gives them the flexibility to meet their labour requirements.

329
What is new in the situation is the growing involuntary part-time work involving largely men. It is important to emphasise that part-time work should be a matter of choice, and should not be forced upon those who are seeking full-time work.
There have always been problems with part-time work. Historically it has been less well paid and is regarded as being more peripheral. That affects not just pay but, with honourable exceptions, it affects also employment opportunities, promotion and access to training.
During the past decade, the gap between full-time and part-time pay, at all levels in companies, has widened, with those at the bottom end of the market suffering most. For example, the 1994 Summer Labour Force Survey found that 2.2 million part-time and 170,000 full-time workers earned less than the national insurance threshold, which is £57 a week; and 2.9 million part-time workers, including 290,000 full-time workers, earn below the tax threshold of £66.50 per week. The price of that is that those not paying national insurance contributions forfeit the right to retirement pension, full maternity pay, redundancy and sick pay. They are the low-paid and insecure of today who become tomorrow's pensionless elderly underclass.
Not all part-time workers are women but the majority are. However, during the past 10 years there have been other changes in the labour force. As my noble friend Lady Turner indicated, in the summer of last year some 38.6 per cent. of workers were so-called non-standard workers. But, taking the analysis further, earlier research published in the Oxford Economic Policy Review, showed that in 1993 only 35.9 per cent. of all in full-time employment qualified for all employment rights.
Given the growth in part-time, temporary and self-employment, the position will not have changed very much in the two intervening years. That is a very serious situation. A number of trends have contributed to those changes in the labour market. A decade ago, in the light of new technologies, we were encouraged to believe that we should have a shorter working life in all its aspects. But somehow that does not seem to have happened. More people are working consistently longer hours and more people are not working at all or are working for a pittance.
Secondly, the Government's policies in relation to the deregulation of the labour market have left workers with less protection. Those two trends have in themselves encouraged more companies to restructure or down-size; in effect, that means to shed labour either through redundancies or splitting jobs. Splitting one job into two part-time jobs can mean savings in relation to national insurance contributions, sickness and holiday pay.
The effect of that has been to bring about a general sense of insecurity and, as my noble friend said, a lack of the feel-good factor about which the Government complain. That psychological effect is not without foundation. Unemployment is still high; redundancies are occurring at all levels; and new jobs that are being created are non-standard jobs.
That is not the way to build a healthy economy capable of meeting the long-term competition created by the new information technology era. For example, I heard on the radio last night that Trusthouse Forte has again begun to Mink of the advantages and savings involved in
330
maintaining a loyal, well-trained and highly motivated workforce. That is significant. The noble Lord, Lord Carr, indicated that some of the problems which we are facing need an all-party approach. I suggest that, first, the Government need to rethink their own labour policies so that we might then begin to build on that.
6.55 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I too welcome the opportunity to have this debate today. In preparation for it, I looked at the debates which have taken place in your Lordships' House. January 1994 was the last occasion on which we had a major debate on this subject and that was on flexible working. Sure enough, in that debate the whole area of the casualisation of the labour market was a key factor.
Of course, casual labour is not new. It has been with us more or less ever since work has been with us; for example, in the agricultural sphere, seasonal work, covering for people who are on holiday and, more recently, covering for women who are on maternity leave. But what is new is that the incidence of casual labour has increased by something like one-third in the decade 1984 to 1994. I suggest that we are now dealing with an area of shifting sands in the structure of employment as we have it in Britain today. I suggest equally that government policies have done very little to help to maintain some kind of stability in the employment field and it is absolutely essential that such stability should be maintained.
Despite the fact that we have seen an increase in casual labour, in that same period we have also seen workers in Britain working longer hours each week than those worked by any other European Union countries. Indeed, we are not only working longer but our hours have increased in that decade rather than decreased compared with the hours worked by individuals in the other member states of the Union.
I do not suggest to your Lordships that all the jobs in the casual labour field have been created as casual jobs because I know that that is not a fact. My experience is that we have seen a shift from full-time employment, permanent employment, into casual employment in the same jobs in companies which previously had a static labour force and whose employees had many years of employment with them.
That has brought with it a shift for individual employees from independence to dependence. I suggest that that is where we start to see the breakdown of an agreed set of values between employer and employee in work and in our society at large in relation to what we regard as the basic rights and responsibilities of our citizens.
Casual workers do not qualify for pensions. Who will pay for those in future? Casual workers do not qualify for holiday or sick pay or for training in most cases. Therefore, to become a casual worker all too often means that it is the seal of fate on your existence and that of your family.
I was extremely concerned to read some figures published by the TUC a short while ago which showed that in the autumn of last year 90 per cent. of the new jobs

331
created were temporary jobs—jobs of a very short duration. I take the point which the noble Lord, Lord Can, made about deregulation. The Government introduced one aspect of deregulation which I suggest has encouraged casual work; namely, to extend to two years the period before which an employee has any kind of protection. Therefore, in industry we now have 23-month contracts. Short-term contracts are brought about deliberately so that the employer does not face employer responsibilities. Of course, that trend means that there is a price to be paid. That is paid not only by individual casual workers but by their families because they suddenly find that they are dependent, whereas previously they were independent. It affects our social cohesion. As my noble friend Lady Turner said, the feel-good factor will never return while we have that pool of workers within our community who feel alienated from the mainstream of society, because that is its effect.
The taxpayer must also pay the price of that. As I said, who will pay the pensions in the years ahead if the individuals cannot contribute, as they cannot if they are casual workers? Who will provide their sickness benefit? Who will provide the support that they would normally generate for themselves? Of course, it is the taxpayer who will have to do so. Moreover, in many instances, the employer will get away with it.
If one looks at successful companies in Britain—and there are many of them—it will be seen that they are successful because they have a good relationship with their employees and usually with their trade unions; that they value their employees; and that in return their employees give loyalty. But what loyalty can any employer who gives only casual labour expect from his workforce? An individual's loyalty cannot be expected and should not be demanded. Such individuals are, therefore, not part of the growth and the wealth creation which are so terribly important to the success of our nation.
In 1994 a survey was carried out in the health service called Workloads, Pay and Morale of Nurses. The figure in 1991 for nurses who felt insecure about the future—I am talking about qualified, trained nurses—was 20 per cent. However, just three years later, in 1994, it had jumped to 53 per cent. I do not believe that we can over-emphasise the insecurity factor which is felt generally because people cannot plan their futures. How can a young couple decide to buy a home if they cannot get a mortgage because they do not have the permanent or regular employment that one would normally have expected them to have?
Dr. Barnardo's published a report only in the last week in which over a thousand adults were questioned. Predominantly, those who said that they did not think that their children in the future could expect full-time permanent jobs were actually in full-time work. Roger Singleton, who is a senior director of Dr. Barnardo's, said:
"The findings of this survey paint a depressing picture of adults' perception of the future for today's children. It is widely believed that children no longer grow up in a secure environment with the prospect of a permanent job if they do well at school. The confidence and optimism of previous generations has been replaced by a feeling of powerlessness".
What an indictment of our society today.
332
The Royal Society of Arts recently published a booklet entitled Tomorrow's Company. It was refreshing, it was welcome and it called for what all good employers want. It declared that companies which sustain competitive success will focus less exclusively on shareholders and financial measures of success and instead include all stakeholder relationships. It also declared that companies should clearly define their purpose and values and that those which deepened their relationships with their employees would succeed. The debate is important, and I suggest that it is important not just because of the casualisation of labour; it is important for our community as a whole.
7.3 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for bringing the subject to our attention. It is a most important subject and one which has developed over the years. My own experience has been in manufacturing industry. However, there is one thing that I should like to bury before I go any further—the word "casualisation". It is 75 years old and, please, can we today consign it to the incinerator because, as a word, it is not a compliment to our rich language. In fact, it is a noun which has not derived from a verb and for which we had to find a verb to make it work.
As I said, we are discussing a most important subject—even more so today as we emerge from a recession and are faced with falling unemployment and a demand from industry for skills that at present are not readily available in our labour market. Faced with that reality, it is essential that we should strive to maintain a very high degree of flexibility in responding to market needs. That means that we should welcome part-time working, particularly as regards encouraging women who have taken a break from the labour market to raise families to return to work. We should also encourage adult retraining schemes and programmes of "continuous improvement" within the labour market.
There are many statistics which can be bandied about the Chamber on the subject. Just looking at a couple of them which have already been quoted this evening one sees the suggestion that the average worker in the United Kingdom is working more hours in comparison with EC countries. That is not correct because the average United Kingdom hours were 38.9 and the average EC hours were 39. That is not much of a difference but, nevertheless, I am sure that it is statistically important.
So far as concerns the United Kingdom's comprehensive framework of protection rights, all employees, regardless of their hours of work, have rights which apply from the very first day that they walk in through the factory door or wherever they are going to work. That includes protection against unlawful deductions from wages; discrimination on grounds of sex, race, trade union membership or non-membership; and the right to maternity leave.
There is a question which always appears; that is, the national minimum wage. I believe that it requires rather more thought than it has been given to date. With it goes the roll-on effect of the differential—the differential

333
between the pay demands of the skilled versus the unskilled worker. One man's pay rise is, sadly and frequently, another man's redundancy.
What we must avoid at all costs is over-regulation. It is essential that we fight to retain the opt-out negotiated at Maastricht by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister for the so-called social chapter. The key to success for our country as we approach the next millennium will be the maintenance of the competitiveness of our industries. That will be achieved only by nurturing a well-trained, highly motivated and, above all, flexible workforce. If flexibility leads to an element of casual working, then so be it.
Let us look at practice as it is in some manufacturing companies. Survival of a company in these last years of recession has been vital and it is only through the use of casual labour that many have been able to pull through. Let us look at an industry in which I have had some experience—the manufacture of fork-lift trucks. Much of the componentry is made up of welded sub-assemblies. If such a factory is operating at 50 per cent. of its capacity or less, the use of casual welders is vital as a tool for survival. It is better that we use that casual skill in such a way than risk the jobs of the other employees at the factory, numbering many hundreds, being put in danger.
The overriding necessity is, and will be, to accelerate the growth in our gross national product. We must create wealth and hence build a society in which the standard of living for the whole population can be raised. That will never be achieved by over-regulation; it will only be achieved by flexibility.
If we seek a role model we should look not to continental Europe but to Singapore, which is not really a third world nation as some people tend to describe it but one of the most growing and thriving markets and producers in the Pacific Rim. A visit to Korea might also stimulate views on the subject of energetic and effective work. Our 19th century greatness was achieved by nurturing a flexible labour market and I genuinely believe that we must not forget the lessons of the past, particularly as we have to look to the future.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, the pressure on time in this debate is an indication that we should have more debates on this and allied subjects. This is not a subject; it is a survey of the national problems, their ills and the dangers and opportunities at this juncture in our long history.
The speech that we have just listened to represents the authentic voice of some points of view about the present state of our economy and conditions of employment. It deserves to be examined, and so do other aspects of this matter. I rise in the short time that is available to raise a question which I doubt whether other noble Lords will bring forward, and that is the problems of the public sector, where the Government, as a matter of deliberate policy, are introducing insecurity, uncertainty, redundancy and lower pay. They are in fact injecting the evils of society and employment into the range of public service.
334
The Government are still by a long way the biggest employer in the land. Think of the National Health Service, the teachers, local government service, the Civil Service generally and taxation. There is a philosophy with regard to public service which has been long built up as regards the protection of those who work in it from much of the insecurity and devastating distractions that frequently arise in outside employment. What are we to do about the injection into this vast public service of a degree of insecurity which, happily, it has not suffered up till now? This is a deliberate attempt to bring the public sector into line with the private sector and subject it to the infections of private employment and private enterprise with which we are all familiar.
I can do little more than sound an alarm that what is happening in the public sector is creating a state of mind which I think is a danger to the quality of our public services. We do not really need to go to the United States to discover how to introduce new principles into our public services. We have a country of our own and we have standards of our own but the way we are going we shall probably be forced, either willingly or otherwise, to introduce competition and cost-effectiveness into service to the public, into service to patients in hospitals, into service to the public in education and into service to the public in other branches of important service that can come only from the state.
The other day I was talking to a doctor who said, "In our practice we can do very little more than talk about money". Are we soon to talk about cost-effectiveness in the treatment of patients? In the Civil Service one cannot talk about anything now except to ask when people's work will be put up for sale. The Civil Service is going into the slave market because the Government want to reduce the size of it and they want to introduce deliberately a degree of uncertainty in the public service generally which they think will stimulate people to further effort.
Look at the disaster of the Child Support Agency, whose work we have been discussing for the past two days. That has come from a Government who think they have the prescription for a more successful Britain but they fail when it comes to big questions of organisation and management. The Government do not understand the problems of size and what is needed to keep a large body of people under one employer and on diverse tasks in conditions of relative contentment and with a devotion to the work in hand. A discontented public service is a danger to the nation and it is the duty of government to try to bring the public sector into reasonable relationship to conditions generally without subjecting it to the same devastating consequences which, unhappily, are occurring elsewhere.
I think that it will be necessary for your Lordships' House very shortly to give more attention to what is happening in the Civil Service and in the public services generally. What are the principles of public service? What is the ethos of the public sector and what are the standards of service to the public? What I fear is that, in order to save staff, the Government will reduce standards of application and enforcement of the law. Bear in mind that the public services are administering the law and that is where the ethos of the public sector comes in. The law must be

335
administered fairly, with understanding and without bias. Attention must be given to cases which require a good deal of attention but which, from an economic point of view, will be pretty expensive. But that is what the public service is about.
There are signs already that part of the savings which the Government wish to make will have the effect of reducing pressure as regards enforcement of the law. Taxpayers not worth pursuit may not get pursued and the laxity will spread into the system where one pays if one likes or one pays what one wants. Bear in mind that in the immediate offing there is the self-assessment of income tax. The Government are going to shift the work of thousands of tax officials on to the shoulders of the taxpayers themselves. They are all going to sign their own little death warrants and send them in to the Inland Revenue to be told whether or not they have their sums right. But, when it comes to the point, one will find there is mail-fisted enforcement. Penalties will come into it. The spread of automatic penalties in the public sector is disgraceful. The courts are being deprived of the power to administer justice. A code of automatic penalties is growing up in the taxation system. It is dangerous to the ethos of public administration.
That is my warning, my Lords. I hope that before very long your Lordships' House will spend a little time on a subject which we need a Royal Commission to study—namely, the future of the public sector in today's changing society.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, this debate will have been significant if only for the important contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. He issues a clarion call which we shall ignore at our peril.
I should like to quote a few examples of the effect of casualisation, touch on some lessons we can learn from history and suggest some ways forward.
My first example is of an 18 year-old man in Manchester who recently got his first job working at McDonalds. He worked first from three o'clock to one o'clock on Saturday night. He then worked from four o'clock to one o'clock on Sunday night. He thought that he would then be working the next Sunday, but on Sunday morning he realised that he should have been working on Saturday. He phoned up and said "I'm sorry I didn't come in". They told him to come in the next Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday. When I heard that story I wondered what kind of lesson that young man was learning. It illustrates exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, mentioned—the fact that employees feel no responsibility towards their employers nor employers towards their employees in a casual and temporary labour market.
The next example is the case of a highly skilled professional property services manager who works on the basis of a three-month contract. He is on his second three-month contract. He looks after a very complex building, which should have his attention over a long period of time. He should have a long-term perspective, yet he is employed on a three-month contract. How can he
336
be expected to take a long-term perspective on the rational utilisation and maintenance of the building if he has only a three-month contract?
My third example is the Child Support Agency. Other noble Lords have already referred to it. Its record of abysmal administration is appalling. Only last night I heard of the case of a man who received on the same day three different assessments from the same office. That is public administration gone mad. It is the bureaucracy of the anarchist state. I do not know whether it is true, and perhaps the Minister will either confirm or deny it, but I have heard that a third of the Child Support Agency's staff is temporary. If a new bureaucracy is being set up and a third of the staff is temporary, how can you build in the training and achieve the long-term continuity and commitment of your staff that is necessary to work effectively? Whether or not one agrees with it and whether or not one thinks the rules are right, the Child Support Agency does not seem to work effectively. It is a fundamental problem for our society if we cannot set up a new bureaucracy that will work effectively. It is only by a saving grace that our older bureaucracies, such as the income tax and VAT systems and the public administration of our universities and polytechnics, manage to carry on. If we impose too much change on those bureaucracies—and they are suffering change—will they crumble? Serious problems are caused for our society by the process of temporary, casual and short-term employment.
What can we learn from history? I am proud to be a member of my union, which started as the Association of Engineering and Shipbuilding Draughtsmen. That trade union began on Clydeside in the shipbuilding industry because of the casual nature of the employment of draughtsmen. Shipbuilders who had a ship to design and build would hire draughtsmen to draw the necessary drawings, and once the ship was built they would lay off the draughtsmen. That created all sorts of problems for the workers. Through their unionisation they told the employers that they would no longer accept that. They forced shipbuilding managers to run their industry more effectively so that there was continuity of employment. Not only were the shipyards utilised more effectively but, because there was continuity of employment, they could build in the training and other positive attributes that result from continuity.
I was very interested in the contribution by the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird. I hope that his noble friend, Lady O'Cathain, will explain to him that it does not make sense to run manufacturing capacity at around 25 per cent. It is nonsense. I hope that she will be able to explain that to him when she next sees him.
Looking at another historical element, the casual dockworkers' employment system gave rise to what is now known as the Transport and General Workers' Union. The union has a proud record of fighting for the rights of dockworkers and the creation of what became the dock labour scheme. That contributed greatly to the stability of employment and was part of the mechanism which ensured the full employment to which the noble Lord, Lord Carr, referred and which we all assumed 20 or 30 years ago was here to stay because it was so beneficial. It was an article of political faith.

337
I touched on the question of full employment. It is the key. It is only when you have full employment and effective trade unions that you can develop a scheme of employment rights and protections that ensure that casual workforces are not tolerated. Other noble Lords have suggested that we should change the law to encourage decasualisation and give employment rights from day one rather than after two years. That is important. We should also encourage and support trade unions and what they stand for. It is only by working with the representatives of organised labour that we can ensure that the prospects for people in employment in this country are improved to the extent that we lose the detriments and problems for our nation as a whole which result from the casualisation of employment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the term "casualisation" which my noble friend Lady Turner described so well in her impressive opening speech has a much more euphemistic, more polite name—flexibility in the labour market. Under that term it can be held to be the "exploration of new patterns of employment" which allows employers to contain costs and improve productivity. In the face of economic recession, firms have shed workers, but if firms have survived, they have often "downsized", as has been described by a number of noble Lords, leaving a core group of employees, usually full-time, indirectly employing temporary employees. They can take them on or drop them according to demand. Those workers are either part-time or on short-term contracts. Alternatively, they are workers for other firms with which sub-contracts have been made. Often those workers are supplied by agencies which specialise in one or other skilled or professional category of worker. Some of those agencies have become quite prosperous recently.
Perhaps I may give one example of the use of agencies. I refer to the use of agency nurses by the National Health Service. I consider that to be a costly and sad example of flexible working. It is only slightly improved upon by the nurse bank system. Both undermine the continuity of care which both patients and nurses need. To have a continuous job at which they can get to know their patients and to learn their craft in a more satisfactory way gives nurses proper work satisfaction.
The downsized firm, cushioned by the ability to contract to a minimum size in adversity, has been dignified by the title the "flexible firm" by the Institute of Management Studies, for instance. However, that approach is seldom the result of rational planning, as it is often made out to be. It is usually caused by knee-jerk responses—ad hoc responses might be a better term—to short-term changes in demand or workload. After a recession, firms which have had their fingers burnt take on workers whom they can shed without pain. Thus many of the jobs which unemployed people accept are not as secure as jobs which they may have held originally; and those coming in to the labour market for the first time have to take part-time jobs for want of anything else.
As almost every noble Lord has hinted or described, it is perfectly true that the skills required for today's labour market are changing rapidly. A well educated and skilled Workforce will meet those requirements best. I do not
338
think that anyone disagrees with that. But the increasing predominance of part-time and short-term jobs is surely not best calculated to achieve that flexible range of skills which we need.
It is said by too many people that the industrial world now has institutional unemployment. However, as my noble friend said, part-time work for millions of people represents a further tranche of concealed unemployment which is not reflected in the official statistics. It is true that many people, in particular women, welcome the increased availability of part-time work. However, many more would much prefer secure full-time employment if they could achieve it. Many women are in part-time work not because they want it but because their partners who may be unemployed or in low paid work have insufficient income to sustain more than a basic standard of living, which is not acceptable in today's high-tech, high consumer society.
In March of this year we debated the Rowntree Report on income and poverty. It indicated that inequalities in income and wealth are increasing. Many of those in poverty are either unemployed or in the type of low paid work that we are discussing today.
Parallel with the findings of that report is the increasing evidence that people's health status is directly related to their relative income. Those in casual work are doubly disadvantaged; they have low wages as well as low prestige and lack of control over their working conditions. It is hardly surprising that their health is worse.
The United Kingdom has perhaps the lowest labour costs among the major industrial nations. However, I suggest that that is not something to be proud of, as noble Lords opposite sometimes suggest, but something to be worried about. It is perfectly possible to have a successful, high wage, high skill economy. Other noble Lords have pointed to the example of Japan, the United States and Germany, with an educated workforce and an up-to-date industry. The need to retrain and re-equip is recognised by all parties. An under-employed or unemployed workforce should surely act as a stimulus and even provides the opportunity for a much more active training and retraining policy. I believe that the ideas of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, are well worth following up.
Industry, which includes not only manufacturing but also service industry, must be encouraged or required by a mixture of carrot and stick methods—perhaps regulations but also rewards—to take on a far larger share of responsibility for training. There are good examples, but I suggest that there are not enough of them. Coupled with incentives to industry and to the City to invest in Britain, that concept is the way forward. Casual employment without training and retraining may seem better than unemployment, but it is leading not only workers but the whole country up a blind alley.
7.37 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness most sincerely for the opportunity to debate this important issue. I am probably not the only one among your Lordships to be confused by the terminology that we use. My noble friend Lord Oxfuird has already suggested that we should consign the word "casualisation" to the

339
incinerator. It is a nasty sounding word. However, I believe that there are three categories of non-full-time employment: casual labour; temporary labour; and part-time labour.
No one has mentioned the total number of people employed as casual labour. The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, stated that the number of casual workers had increased by a third in 10 years. But from what base? She also stated that successful companies treat workers well—not as casual labour. We ought to send a message out from this House that all companies must do likewise. A company with which I am involved has almost 130,000 employees, of whom 60 per cent. are part-time and 10 per cent. are temporary—to cover maternity leave, and so on—but there is no casual labour. I believe that that is the way forward.
I suggest that we should also update our views on what the labour market actually is, and how it works now. It is a market in the true sense of the word—buying and selling of labour. What it is not, and should not be, is a slave market. It should not be an arena of confrontation; it should be an arena of co-operation.
There are no jobs for life not because an organisation does not wish to have a long-term employment policy but because no company can honestly and confidently say that it has a long-term future. Takeovers, mergers, management buyouts and company failures all affect the labour market. That is not a uniquely British phenomenon; it is happening worldwide. Employers are also employees now. We are always confused about this. Managing directors and chief executive officers are "hired hands", like the rest of the labour force. There is no great divide, no "them and us". That has largely evaporated. It would be nice if we could drop the term "working class": those of us who have worked all our lives regard ourselves as workers, from whatever class. Let us do away with the term; we are trying to get Britain mobilised to go ahead and be competitive in the international world, not messing about with unnecessary class distinctions.
Most people in the labour market will have several different jobs requiring different (and in some cases very different) skills, which puts the emphasis on continuous training—both on-the-job and specific training modules provided by seminars, training courses or further education projects.
People in the labour market are increasingly demanding interesting jobs; their expectations have been raised and if they do not have them all fulfilled they will move jobs. The labour market exists on the basis of mutual dependence; organisations need employees and employees need and want jobs in organisations. But there is a huge demand for part-time flexible working in most organisations. Ironically, relatively recent legislation such as maternity leave provision has created a demand for part-time and temporary jobs. I do not believe that that is a bad thing.
With increasing international competitiveness, we must ensure that we have flexibility in all the activities of business, not just flexible labour but flexible finance, to mention but two essentials. Not only is there increasing international competitiveness but there is also a tragic
340
world-wide problem of unemployment. How to balance the need for flexibility in the labour market with the genuine, heartfelt wish to reduce unemployment is a problem which no one, no country has yet completely solved. There are schemes to keep people at work, there are measures taken by national governments to keep people at work—only last week I referred to one such, state subsidies in aviation for failing airlines—but in the long term neither works without seriously damaging the competitive position of the country.
Fortunately, new ideas are constantly resulting in new markets, new products. Production processes have been transformed by new technology, resulting in huge increases in productivity. All those require labour, but it must be skilled labour, labour that can command high earnings because the product of that labour has the competitive edge. Refocusing, downsizing and increasing flexibility are now common features of business. We must meet the challenge to employment posed by that trend.
Several noble Lords have referred to education and training, and I too wish to do so. I believe that the greatest challenge lies in skills improvement. I suggest that it should be tackled on a tripartite basis. The organisation should produce the on-the-job training and, even if people are involved in it only as part-time workers, they should have additional skills by the time they leave which can lift them up further into another category in another organisation.
The second partner should be the Government, who should offer training schemes for the unemployed, even training vouchers, or something that I am keen on—expanding further the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. On many counts, it is brilliant and we ought to examine it again.
The third party is the individual himself or herself. The onus must be on the individual in some cases to become involved in distance learning, to try to "upskill" himself or herself, to use a horrible expression.
In order to be in the forefront of international business, it is vital that no measures should be taken which affect competitiveness—for example, increased employment costs through the social contract. Interestingly enough, I believe that, if Britain opted for the social contract, the casualisation—and that is the last time I shall mention it—process would increase. The statistics show that Britain has the third lowest share of temporary employment in the European Union (after Luxembourg and Belgium) with 5.7 per cent. in temporary employment. I do not know whether that is casual or temporary labour: I suspect both, according to my definition. However, the European Union average is 10.5 per cent., of which Germany has 10.2 per cent., France 10.7 per cent., and Spain 32 per cent.
My noble friend Lord Carr referred to on-costs. Sometimes we allow our hearts to rule our heads about the legislation we debate here, which results in on-costs. Flexibility in the labour market also demands flexibility in institutions. Institutions such as insurance companies and building societies are aware of the changing nature of employment trends and moves are being made to ensure that people have adequate insurance cover for periods of unemployment. For example, the Association of British

341
Insurers stated recently that new products are likely to be developed quite quickly or existing products refined to provide mortgage protection insurance.
Let us not think that part-time work is a desperate last-ditch choice. People have said how many workers want it. There is a demand for it from employees to keep their minds active, to meet people, to finance extras such as holidays, but also to give proper care to children in out-of-school hours and to be able to be with children during school holidays. It also enables some carers to have other more agreeable activities which are good in getting them out of the house. There is a demand for part-time work from businesses for meeting peaks in customer demand, for meeting employees' wishes, as has already been stated, for protecting full-time employees from future downsizing, for cost effectiveness and for efficiency.
All those are important and unfortunately in the time we have available we cannot really explore them. A minimum wage will add to the costs of industry in some cases, but it will have an even more serious effect—namely, a significant increase in unemployment. Recently, the CBI held a discussion and issued a press release which indicates that:
"hundreds of thousands of current jobs would no longer be economically viable—particularly in the service industries but also in agriculture, textiles and clothing, where job opportunities for part-time women and younger workers would inevitably be adversely affected".
It is such a shame that we are time-limited in the debate. However, the exposure and examination of the subject this evening has done a great service to the imperative for all of us to consider further this most important subject.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we are agreed on a number of points: there are full-time jobs, part-time jobs, temporary jobs and permanent jobs. My noble friends on this side talked about casualisation, but they do not mean that the jobs are part-time, nor do they necessarily worry about jobs being temporary. They are worried about whether being in a job—part-time or full-time—on a casual basis somehow gives a worker an abbreviated set of rights compared with someone in a full-time job. That is one issue. I am being a pedagogue and trying to clarify the issues. When people talk about casualisation, they feel that someone who is a casual worker has fewer rights than a permanent employee.
My second point is associated with the first. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that there is no way of finding out about the casual labour because the Labour Force Survey does not give casual labour and non-casual labour. It could be that being employed as a casual labourer either subjects a person to being paid a lower wage for the same job than if the person was not a casual labourer or that the other perks like holidays and pensions do not come into the wage packet as they do for non-casual workers.
Noble Lords opposite say either that casual workers do not exist or that they are a good thing and there should be more of them. I believe that they have not made up their minds about it. If casual workers exist, they are insecure their jobs and they probably receive a lower wage per
342
hour. They feel that they certainly do not get the extras such as pensions and holidays that non-casual workers get. That is the nub of the argument and it is a pity that we have no reliable statistics to sort the matter out. It is in the nature of the behaviour of both employers and employees to hide the fact that a worker is casual.
Some people on the opposite side would like all workers more or less to be casual because it gives more flexibility. There is plenty of evidence about that. I commend to noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber the forthcoming World Bank development report called Workers in an Integrating World. It will be released next week. The World Bank is no friend of ours on this side but it takes a balanced view on matters such as trade union rights, job security and even the minimum wage. The report states that it is not possible conclusively to show that minimum wages lead to a loss of jobs. There is plenty of research on that. We on this side feel that taking the strategy that noble Lords opposite want, namely the casualisation of the whole workforce, flexibility—
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. That is the second time that he has made the statement that noble Lords on these Benches would like the casualisation of the whole workforce. I have certainly not heard that from anybody here today. I believe that what he says is wrong. None of us wants that. But at the moment it is the reality of the labour market worldwide.
Lord Desai: My Lords, perhaps I was too provocative in my words. I shall be more sober in my content. If there is labour market flexibility, there lurks the question of non-wage costs. By pointing to the social chapter and so on, it is implied that such things as holidays, maternity leave, paternity leave etc. are basically just frills. If those "frills" are taken away, and if hours and conditions of work are not necessarily regulated, of course flexibility in the labour market is increased. If you want the labour market to be like the market for bananas, then of course you do not want workers to have any rights at all. A good neo-classical economist would more or less not see the difference: anything that treats workers differently from bananas is an interference with the market; that is not a problem. The issue is: does it help efficiency, productivity and long-run growth if workers are treated well? Some of us feel that it would be a great help if the word "flexibility" and the concept itself were not used in relation to universal casualisation. Perhaps it is not true; but the way in which people continue to attack the social chapter as if it were a great burden on the country, when practically every other country in Europe manages to have the social chapter, leads me to think that there is that sort of desire.
I recognise that the labour—
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way again? There is a misconception that Germany is such a wonderful place for production and the structure of its workforce. Its position is such that I now know of a British company that benefits greatly from the German so-called social chapter in that it has just received a very large contract for the entire engine production to be

343
used in Germany, as opposed to the cost of German engines. Our products are finding great favour, even in Germany.
Lord Desai: My Lords, there are always such episodes, and one cannot comment on every one. I have only eight minutes in a time-limited debate. It is not kind to interrupt me several times. However, I see that I have been effective in eliciting a response from the opposite side. That is very good.
I recognise that production conditions are changing. We live in a post-1940s technology. I am sorry that I have not had time to comment on the very interesting remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. The noble Lord asked us to suppose that labour market conditions in the world at large will cause us to move more towards what I call episodic employment—it is in fact the feminisation, rather than the casualisation, of work: men having labour experiences similar to those that women are used to having. If that is the case, can we sustain the welfare state on today's basis? That is a very important question that we have not had time to consider. If you complain a lot about the burden on taxation of providing employment, on the one hand, all that happens is that such costs are not borne by wages, and you end up paying in general taxation, through unemployment, sickness or other adversities. In a sense the Government have admitted as much by expanding the role of family credit. If employers are allowed to pay low wages, the taxpayer is asked to make up the difference. It is a matter of choice.
I am an economist. If you want to have the burden of low pay being borne by general taxpayers rather than by employers, that is one kind of income distribution. We do not like it. To the extent that these forces are worldwide and unavoidable, we have to meet the challenge. Our only request is: please do not add to the burden by further worsening the situation.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I welcome this debate. I too believe that there are many misunderstandings regarding flexibility and the deregulation of work. As I understand it, the Government argue that more flexibility is required because increasing competitive pressures and accelerating technical change are producing a more uncertain business environment. The Government think that the rational response to such uncertainties is deregulation, increasing the use of part-time labour and placing a greater reliance on short-term contracts, outworkers, home workers and sub-contractors in order to reduce a firm's dependence on full-time labour. Central to this approach are new forms of individualised payments and ways of making hiring and firing easier—all done in the name of flexibility. The attitude was summarised by my noble friend Lady Turner as the casualisation of labour. I too am most grateful to her for the opportunity to discuss the matter.
I should like to examine some of these terms and concepts I have mentioned as they apply to manufacturing. I believe that there is confusion between employers and government over what they mean by flexibility in the labour market. Many noble Lords
344
opposite, I believe, think that industry needs a casualised workforce—which means a pliant workforce—in order to compete with low-cost labour countries.
Faced with international competition, what have the leaders of our manufacturing companies done? They have introduced new products, new equipment and new working methods which have led manufacturing firms towards continuous production. Much of that continuous production increasingly entails shift work. They have committed themselves to continuous improvement and the raising of standards to ever higher levels. They are committed to a programme of quality management. Their customers require them to invest in more and more, and better and better, information technology. They have cut costs by introducing information technology and eliminating layers of management. All this demands more skill, more training, more versatility, more commitment, more education and more initiative from management and from the workforce.
How do industrial managers release these qualities? Certainly not by fear, and certainly not by casualising work. I disagree totally with the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird. A strategy of labour flexibility involving the extensive use of casual part-time labour or sub-contractors is quite irrational in manufacturing. The facts do not support his thesis—
The Viscount of Oxfuird: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Haskel: No, I will not. This is a timed debate.
Production can be organised efficiently only with the use of full-time permanent shift workers in-house. The cost and managerial effort required to co-ordinate an alternative strategy of casual labour is totally counter-productive. People today recognise that no job is guaranteed for life and that they must continually upgrade their abilities and skills and adapt to new processes and products and the demands of a company. Employers would much rather adapt and train their existing workforce to meet new circumstances than hire a new one. I agree totally with my noble friends Lord Gladwin and Lady Dean that these practices send a positive message to the staff and encourage loyalty so that the best people stay with the company. That is what a business means by "flexibility". It is a kind of internal labour market within the company which adapts to change. What the Government understand as flexibility—easy hiring and firing—is entirely inappropriate and indeed is probably damaging to the ethos of the company. The objective is not to reduce wages to the level of those in China or Indonesia; it is to reduce our unit labour costs to the level of those in Germany and the United States.
An adversarial workforce, cowed by years of deregulation and unemployment and easily hired and fired, is only of value to a company with poor management and low investment. Is that the kind of company the Government are trying to encourage? Such policies may be applicable to service companies like supermarkets, but I am doubtful even of that. Most firms today are committed to a policy of continuous improvement in all sectors of their business. Does one achieve that with a casualised workforce? No. In those circumstances I suspect that flexibility means flexible

345
hours which are adaptable to the lifestyle of the employee, as my noble friend Lady Lockwood explained, and the working of the company but managed with the same rigour needed for continuous production and shift working.
My noble friend Lord Houghton reminded us that the main area where casual employment seems to flourish is in the public sector and in the recently contracted-out sector. Zero-hour contracts, 51-week contracts, year-to-year contracts are now on the increase in those sectors. Because they face little international competition the hourly rate of pay is important and many think that insecurity at work makes for a pliant workforce which will work for low wages. That old-fashioned view only helps poor employers and stands in the way of progress and the introduction of new technology. It does nothing to help the introduction of continuous improvement in those sectors.
Perhaps the Minister will say that the Government's policies are vindicated because of our recent export performance. In response I would say that most of our successful exporters would reject those policies. That has certainly been my experience in industry. As to the example given by the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, of the company in Germany, I am sure that devaluation of the pound had a considerable effect on that transaction.
Leadership in a business encourages best practice to drive the organisation towards ever higher standards. That means creating a workforce which is well educated and adaptable to changes in skills and circumstances. It does not mean a casual workforce which is easily replaced when circumstances change. Like most people in industry, we on these Benches believe that success in a modern economy does not come from a casualised workforce but from a confident, secure, well motivated and loyal workforce.
8.3 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for introducing this subject. I have a considerable amount of sympathy with many of the points she raised, in particular in relation to insecurity and the low rewards given to many part-time workers. I, for my part, accept that there will continue to be a considerable number of part-time workers. Professor Handy may not be entirely right, but there is a good deal in what he says about a future in which a relatively small proportion of people will have traditional careers and a larger number will have what he called "portfolios" made up of part-time work and other ways in which one's income is earned.
To make the situation for part-time workers tolerable they need to have the same rights pro-rata as full-time workers. They need to be treated in all respects as though they were full-time workers, but working under different conditions. That means the same kind of holiday and pension entitlements; the same kinds of opportunity for training and so forth. They should be on all fours with full-time workers.
I do not know if the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said this, but I am confident that she will agree with me that in an industrial world in which change is happening rapidly
346
and inevitably, as it is at the present time, it is extremely important that the modern reformed trade unionism, which has been so much put forward and helped by John Monks at the TUC, is brought into the discussions of how to handle the changes. We on these Benches agreed with many of the early changes in trade union regulation brought about by this Government. They were needed and overdue. But the Government have gone too far and it is important that trade unions be involved in the discussions on the changes which need to be made and in finding solutions to the difficult problems we are encountering.
However, I fear that that is the point at which I part company, regretfully in many ways, from the noble Baroness. What I felt from her speech and the speeches of nearly everybody else on the Labour Benches until we came to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, (who greatly cheered me) is that it is all the fault of those wicked people opposite. I go along with a good deal of the criticism of them. It was said that if we went back to how it was in the 1970s, when there was a Labour Government, all would be for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that there were quite a few flaws in the situation in the 1970s. For instance, 40 per cent. of our school leavers received no training at all. If they had received it, the situation today would be a great deal different than it is at present. It must be remembered that we had a winter of discontent; there was overmanning in industry and a number of other features which were holding us back. Our world trade had fallen to 6 per cent., and if it had gone on further it would have had a devastating effect on this country.
It is not simply a question of turning back the clock. We must look at what we are encountering and how we can meet it. Listening to the speeches from the Labour Benches I felt that they shrank from facing the horrible difficulties we are facing in the global economy of today. We are meeting heavy competition from around the globe. We are facing in the developing countries, with their vastly increasing populations, difficult challenges. We must face those challenges and work out co-operatively the best ways of doing so.
That is why I welcomed the suggestion—I believe it came from the noble Lord, Lord Carr—that we need to deal with what I see as an overwhelmingly difficult problem; that is, how we can maintain and improve our standards in a global economy when we are ill equipped to meet the competition facing us. I wish we could do it on the basis of consensus; that we could have an all-party approach to recognise the dangers and then to work out the changes which need to be made and the way in which they can be brought about.
As many others have said, the real issue is that we can only compete if we have a highly skilled, highly trained labour force which is extremely flexible in the sense that it is capable of turning its hand from one kind of demand to another, meeting the change successfully and confidently. That will be difficult because other industrial countries do not stand still while we are catching up on all that we failed to do in the past. They are advancing at the same time and that increases the competition.
We do not have that workforce; we do not have anything like it. We have an appalling backlog of untrained, under-educated people who are going to find it

347
extremely difficult to fit into the global economy in which it is going to become increasingly more difficult for us to compete. We must put more money into training and re-training. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, made a useful suggestion as to how people could be financed through that continuous training.
In terms of the way of which we allocate resources in this country, I would put education and training way ahead of everything else because I think everything else depends on them. All the other services that we want depend on our being able to earn our living, and being able to earn our living depends on having the kind of labour force which we simply do not have at present. That is why putting back the clock is no good at all.
On my next point I am not speaking for my party, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, indicated, he and I are very much at one. The noble Lord, Lord Carr, suggested—we had not in any way discussed this with him—that his mind was moving somewhat in the same direction. Part of the changes we need to face are changes in the whole way in which we run our welfare society or welfare state—"welfare society", as Beveridge once said he preferred to call it. Although I believe that the term has been somewhat besmirched of late, it would indeed be a much better way of expressing what we really want to do. The changes we now encounter mean looking at our system of employment and our system of welfare and social benefits. The two things are tied up very closely, as we saw when we discussed the Pensions Bill which recently passed through your Lordships' House.
I am a strong supporter of introducing something along the lines of a citizen's income, even if it is quite a small one, which gives people some basic fallback on which they can rely absolutely and which does not have the effect of discouraging them from getting into the labour market. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, would agree with me on that point. Do noble Lords realise how ridiculous our social benefits system is? If a man and wife are both unemployed and they have two children of school age, if they want to increase their family income by £20 they have to earn £170. Which of us in this House would go out and work to get £170 if we would get only £20? People are driven into the black economy. I do not blame them. That is where I would be under those circumstances. But that is what our ridiculous system is undoubtedly doing.
We all know that the income of the bottom 10 per cent.—the money they are supposed to have—has fallen in relation to what they had previously. But, according to figures which have recently been produced their expenditure has gone up. That can only mean one of two things. If their income has fallen but their expenditure has gone up, something very odd has happened. Either they have used their savings—but it is not really to be expected that people in the bottom 10 per cent. have a lot of savings—or else they are earning money somewhere else. That falsifies all the figures that we are quoting. We need a radical change, based on a citizen's income, and we need a radical change in the tax system. The noble Lord, Lord Carr, was surely right in saying that we should take the lower earners right out of taxation.
348
I would also say that the burden—here I am with the Government: no, I am not, because they are going back on what they themselves have said—of social benefits should not be put onto employers. We as taxpayers should be prepared to pay through taxation for the decent society we want. We are not doing it at the present time. It is ridiculous to lay charges for maternity onto employers. How many employers are responsible for maternity? I suggest a very small percentage. We have to review the whole thing. We have to review our attitude towards training. We have to review our attitude towards employment. We have to review our attitude towards our whole welfare society. And we need to do it on a co-operative, all-party basis.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I very much welcome today's debate and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for initiating this wide-ranging discussion and all other noble Lords who have made such a noteworthy contribution. They will, I am sure, appreciate that I may not be able to cover every detailed point made but I shall endeavour to touch in very general terms on all ground covered and I shall concentrate, perhaps inevitably but not exclusively, on labour market matters.
What we are discussing matters very much to ordinary people. The need to have a job and to have one which gives satisfaction, security and self-esteem is something to which every Member of this House can subscribe. What is at issue is how that is best achieved.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking last week at the Mansion House, acknowledged that there is an unease in Middle England about apparent job insecurity which casts a shadow across the land. The world is changing around us, and changing fast. Change engenders uncertainty and concern. That is not unique to Britain. Across the developed world people feel insecure about their jobs.
The pace of change in technology is rapid and shows no sign of easing. It has created vast new industries which even a few years ago would have been undreamt of. Interestingly, countries like the United States and Japan, which have the fullest use of high-tech, have the highest proportion of their populations in work. With these changes in industry and technology the pattern of world trade is changing too.
This year is the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. Since then there has been a growth in prosperity unparalleled in the history of the world—a prosperity built on trade. We welcome this prosperity, not only at home but abroad as well.
When GATT was formed, tariffs averaged 40 per cent. They are now down to 3 per cent. We are now not just in a European but a world market-place. Trade has grown, prosperity has grown, and it has brought new jobs with it. However, two parallel trends have emerged as trade has grown and the pace of technological change has accelerated. First, there has been a massive upsurge in prosperity. Average real earnings for married male full-time workers, for example, are now 46 per cent. higher than in 1979. Real take-home pay has risen for all earnings deciles since 1979. But, secondly, the rapid pace

349
of change has brought about a sense of insecurity. People recognise their growing prosperity but worry about whether it will last.
These worries are very real. We must not dismiss them, and the Government do not do so. Neither should we play on people's fears. It is quite wrong, as some are inclined to do, to make out that insecurity is worse than it really is. But, above all, we should not actually put jobs at risk through policies which really do destroy them—policies such as the national minimum wage in force in France, where unemployment among young people has now reached 28 per cent., and in Spain, where more than 40 per cent. of young people are now out of work. We do not want that here, do we?
Any policy which puts jobs at risk adds to insecurity. It is a cruel deception to pretend that policies such as those flowing from the social chapter and the national minimum wage which would raise the cost of employing people and reduce the competitive position of British firms will not put jobs at risk. As my noble friend Lord Oxfuird said, costs of employment have a major bearing on this. We must not have a system of labour relations and a business environment in which, instead of exporting our goods, we export our jobs which are so much wanted by those out of work here in our country.
There is one way, and one way only, to create security of employment and that is to create in Britain enterprises which thrive and prosper in the world as it is. Firms with the skills and knowledge to compete with the best in the world will win. Britain still has some catching up to do. In the 1970s we came close to terminal decline. Productivity was low, industrial relations were the laughing stock of Europe. That was symbolised across the globe in the Winter of Discontent in 1978–79—an uncompetitive Britain, with unemployment rising rapidly, inflation heading for 20 per cent. and uncollected rubbish piled in the streets of our cities. How much job security was there then? How could our citizens have top-class education, health and welfare services supported by such a gimcrack economy?
Perhaps the most stimulating part of our debate was that which was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, on the future of the welfare state. As we all know, we are now 50 years on from the Beveridge Report. What we have as our welfare state now is perhaps not exactly as he anticipated it would be. It is interesting that right across the political spectrum, and indeed completely outside of politics, there is considerable discussion about this very point. On the side of the Benches opposite has been the report of the Commission on Social Justice. From the perspective of the Benches on which I sit we have seen the Mais Lecture by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. I should like for a moment to touch on one or two of the themes that arise from this.
In the context of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, about education, we welcome the comments of my noble friend Lord Carr. We are already seeing from this Government proposals for career development loans and we are considering that learning credits may have attractions.
350
Reference was made to poverty and supporting families on low incomes. Over recent years we have seen the development of family credit. I accept many of the problems which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned, but I wish to make one particular point. As regards the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, in that regard, it seems to us that he has got the cart and the horse the wrong way round. If there was not family credit there would not be the job. The person concerned would be entirely dependent on the state. Let us not forget that the nature of the system of family credit is to focus on the needs of individual families and to run that in parallel with the working of a flexible job market. It is interesting that the European Union has recently commented that the lack of a job is probably the largest single cause of low living standards and that low pay is a relatively minor cause of poverty.
The debate went further. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, spoke about what the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, referred to as "employer responsibilities". In the future how should we deal with people's pensions? Should individuals have insurance to cover various problems? These are issues which go wider than the perspective from which the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, approached the subject. She described them as employer responsibilities, and I do not gainsay that. But we ought at least to ask ourselves this question: in the world in which we are moving, how should these matters be dealt with? We should look wider than the employer as the source of everything.
I can assure the Benches opposite that we are quite prepared to take a leaf out of their book. If we find any policies emanating from publications on their side of the spectrum, we shall be delighted to incorporate them into our policies.
I was also very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for speaking about education and training. That was a topic, she may recall, which we debated briefly in the Statement on the White Paper regarding competitiveness. As she said then, there is a great deal of work that the Government have to do to catch up with the problems they inherited in the late 1970s. We have made a start. Fifteen years ago only 24 per cent. of our young people obtained five good GCSEs or better. It is now 43.3 per cent. Nearly 90 per cent. of 16 year-olds are now in full-time education. Britain now graduates more of its young people than any other country in Europe. The Government guarantee a youth training place for every 16 and 17 year-old not in further education or employment.
The Government are spending £1.9 billion in England on training and vocational programmes in 1995–96. In parallel, employers are spending about £20 billion. Caring about young people is not enough. There must he an economic framework capable of paying for the first-class education and training which our young people need and deserve. That will provide a first-rate workforce for the future. We have made a start but there will always he more to do.
Britain is steadily getting rid of the legacy of the 1970s. We now have one of the best industrial relations records in the world. Productivity growth is as good as or better than anywhere else in Europe. Unemployment is already lower than the European average and falling. It is down

351
over 650,000 since recovery began. I must firmly refute the suggestion that the figures have been fiddled—a refutation which has been underscored by the Royal Statistical Society. Inflation is once again under control and down to levels last seen over 30 years ago.
We are very well placed to prosper in today's global economy. We export more per head than the Japanese and our exports are rising. Last year Britain exported more than at any other time in our nation's history. Some of our major industries are world players—pharmaceuticals, banking and finance. Sixteen out of the 25 most profitable companies in Europe are British. British Airways is the world's largest international passenger airline; and only yesterday we all read in The Times that British Steel has become the world's most profitable steel company.
We must encourage enterprise and self-employment. In the past 15 years the number of self-employed people—and in discussing the labour market we must not overlook them—has increased by over 1 million. Between 1979 and 1991, 900,000 new businesses were founded. It is from these new enterprises that most of the jobs of the future will come.
It is successful enterprise in our existing large and small companies throughout the kingdom which is the only real source of job security. Efficient, world-beating firms, large and small, create jobs not just in their own industries but, as the income they generate is spent in Britain's high streets, they also create jobs in other activities. On top of that, they pay the taxes which fund the public sector, in which one job out of five in this country is to be found. We must not forget their place in the labour market. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I was going to mention them.
Equally, the taxpayer is entitled to expect his political leaders to insist on quality in the service delivered with his money. That is in accord with the great traditions of our public service. The noble Lord referred to it. It will, of course, continue, as has been underscored in the recent White Paper Continuity and Change which confirms the Government's commitment to maintain the Civil Service as a good employer.
Two-thirds of the industries once in public ownership are now in the private sector. In 1979, those industries cost the taxpayer billions of pounds in subsidies. Instead of receiving subsidies, the privatised companies now pay taxes (£2.5 billion a year) contributing positively towards the cost of our National Health Service, education and the social services.
Of course, productivity changes have led to some reductions in employment. That is part of the necessary evolution for survival. But that is precisely why the Luddite route followed in the 1970s was so misconceived. Billions of pounds of taxpayers' money was poured into uncompetitive industries in order to save jobs. The jobs went anyway and the taxpayers' money was squandered. Subsidies, protectionism, all the artificial ways of keeping jobs and businesses alive in Jurassic Park simply postpone the evil day, as my noble friend Lady O'Cathain pointed out. Privatisation and competition create jobs and businesses which have a future because they are based on selling goods or services which real people want to buy with real money.
352
Let us for a moment turn to the facts about job security. First, as I said a few moments ago, the worst insecurity of all is the fear of losing a job and not being able to find new work fairly quickly. Rightly, government must help people facing the uncertainty of unemployment. Last year, for example, the Employment Service placed getting on for 2 million unemployed people in new jobs, over million of whom had been out of work for more than six months. I am not pretending that being out of work is easy, but it is worth remembering that, with the help of the Employment Service, two out of three people who lose their jobs leave unemployment within six months.
But the fear of unemployment—and it is a real fear—affects every country in the European Union. About 20 million of our fellow European citizens are out of work, which is 11 per cent. of the working population. The United Kingdom, of course, is not exempt. At over 2 million, unemployment remains high—far too high—but at around 8.5 per cent. it is well below the European average and falling.
The main reason for falling unemployment is, of course, that Britain, with its flexible, deregulated labour market, has been far more successful in creating jobs than any other major European country. That is why the European Community, the OECD, the IMF and the G7 all see a flexible labour market as an essential precondition for significantly reducing unemployment. Let us be clear about it: flexibility is not synonymous with Mr. Gradgrind. I hope that that will reassure the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Haskel.
Here in our country 68 per cent. of the population of working age have jobs, which is more than in Germany, where it is 66 per cent., France, with 60 per cent., or Italy with 51 per cent. Of course, I accept that some of these jobs are temporary and that the number is rising. But surely that is what we would expect in the early years of recovery. Employers, as they always have, tend to look to overtime, part-time staff or temporary contracts until they are more confident that sales and output will continue to rise. Around 7 per cent. of Britain's workforce is in temporary work—not much higher than 20 years ago—and that is one of the lowest figures in Europe.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, commented on the recent claim from the TUC that UK workers worked the longest hours in Europe. However, it has elected to make selective use of the figures. It has concentrated on one particular area of full-time employees to make its case. It also tends to restrict its analysis to regulation-bound Europe rather than extending it to Japan and the United States where long hours are more common.
Equally, it is not the case that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with part-time working—86 per cent. of part-time employees have permanent jobs. Indeed, within the European Union only Belgium and Luxembourg have lower figures. As one would expect, it is the more regulated economies which tend to have the worst figures. After 14 years of Socialist presidency, one French worker in 10 is on a temporary contract, and in Socialist Spain the proportion is nearly one in three, which corroborates the point that my noble friend Lady O'Cathain made. There is an inherent contradiction between the form of excessive rights and the substance of actual well-being.

353
Choice is important because we are talking in this debate about people, each with his or her own individual personality, ambition and aspirations. It is people who create wealth and achieve things, either as individuals or working together in successful enterprises. It is self-indulgent narcissism to think we can simply give out new rights and forget about the consequences. But excessive regulation and heaping costs on employers deter them from recruiting staff as sales and output rise.
We must get the balance between social protection and job creation right. The Conservative Party has a long and proud tradition of social concern and reform unsurpassed in British politics. We are proud of our history but must not rest on our laurels. No one advocates poor standards of social protection. As my noble friend Lady O'Cathain said, the labour market should not be a slave market.
But where it matters, we have high standards in the United Kingdom. Our health and safety laws are as tough as anywhere—and they will stay that way; so will our legislation on sex discrimination and on equal pay; and, unlike many European countries, Britain has tough laws, enforceable laws, on race discrimination.
What we must do, however, is to balance those bedrock rights with the need to preserve individual choice and let businesses grow. It is only by letting businesses grow that we shall create jobs and a sense of security based on real economic foundations and pay for the public services our fellow citizens expect.
We must not follow the kind of policies that mean that we shall rush like the Gadarene swine towards a world in which we have fewer and fewer jobs as we become less and less competitive, creating an ever-contracting industrial and commercial base. It is seductive to some indiscriminately to apply the maxim that it is more blessed to give than to receive, but it does not add up—and when it does not add up (as it did not in the 1970s), that destroys lasting prosperity and secure jobs.
The purpose of economic policy is to create prosperity and jobs. The test of those policies is whether they help business people to build up their businesses, expand sales and output and recruit more staff. That is the basis of this Government's policies—policies which add up to more jobs and more security for those in work and a greater likelihood of finding it for those without.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, as this is a timed debate, there is not sufficient time for me to reply to all noble Lords who have contributed, much as I would have liked the opportunity to reply to many of the points made, especially by the Minister. I am sure that the noble Lord will not be surprised to know that we on this side of the House do not agree with many of the claims that he has made for his Government's policy. However, there is not sufficient time for me to do that, and no doubt there will be other opportunities to deal with the subject in a great deal more depth.
It therefore remains for me simply to say to all those who have participated in the debate, "Thank you very much for your contributions". I am glad to note that there is some degree of consensus between us. We accept that there is a problem and that solutions to it will have to be found, although we may differ among ourselves about
354
those solutions. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Bill
8.33 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Nicol) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Tenancies to which the Act applies]:
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, after ("Sections") insert ("(Transmission of benefit and burden of covenants), (Transmission of rights of re-entry),").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 13 and 88. Apart from apologising for the fact that I kept your Lordships waiting a little time, perhaps I may begin by asking your forbearance in the face of the large number of amendments which stand in my name, and also to put on record my gratitude, which I am sure your Lordships will share, to the Law Commission and parliamentary counsel for their full and unstinting assistance in the preparation of these amendments. The amendments standing in my name are aimed at ensuring that the Bill gives full and proper effect to the Law Commission's scheme which, notwithstanding the amendments which my noble friend Lord Courtown is to move, forms the backbone of the reforms. The Law Commission's recommendations which the Government accepted for new leases are very full and detailed, and the amendments themselves have also had to be very full and detailed.
Amendment No. 1 has the effect of paving the way for Amendments Nos. 10, 13 and 88, and with your Lordships' leave I should like to speak to those later amendments now. I believe that it would also assist your Lordships if I were at this point to give an outline of the scheme of which these amendments form part. The essence of the scheme recommended by the Law Commission is that all covenants and obligations between lessor and lessee should be enforceable between the landlord and tenant for the time being, with no distinction being drawn between covenants which "touch and concern" the land and other covenants. When the landlord's or tenant's interest is assigned, the assignee should become bound from the assignment by the whole package of rights and obligations as it bound his predecessor (and so including any variations), but should not take on any rights or liabilities in respect of any breach of covenant occurring prior to the assignment.
Concomitantly, the assignor should cease to have any rights and obligations as from the assignment, but should

355
not lose any accrued rights in respect of a breach by the other party prior to the assignment, and should likewise remain liable for any breach on his own part occurring prior to the assignment. This is subject to slightly different provision for landlords, requiring them to go through a notice procedure which gives the tenant the right to object to their ceasing to be bound if that would be unreasonable in the circumstances. This difference was recommended by the Law Commission because, unlike landlords, tenants have no way of vetting the landlord's assignee and preventing the assignment, and the assignee's ability to perform the landlord's obligations might in some cases be very important.
In the case of assignments of part of the landlord's or tenant's interest, the assignee should become bound by the package of rights and obligations only to the extent that it relates to the part assigned, and should not take on any rights or liabilities in respect of any breach of covenant occurring prior to the assignment. The assignor should similarly cease to have prospective rights and obligations in respect of the part assigned, but should retain any accrued rights to the extent that it related to that part, and should also remain liable for any pre-assignment breach of his own in relation to that part. The assignee should remain bound by the package of rights and obligations to the extent that they relate to the part retained by him. Where there are covenants which do not clearly operate separately in respect of separate parts of the interest there is to be special provision for apportionment of the rights and obligations.
The group of amendments to which I am now speaking is necessary in order to avoid potential problems arising from the interface of the new regime with the existing law governing the transmission of the benefit and burden of covenants and their enforcement under privity of estate, which the existing text of the Bill does not do effectively. The existing law is contained in a mixture of statutory provisions and common law rules which are not always consistent, clear or certain. The approach of the amendments is to provide a complete and self-contained framework for new tenancies giving full effect to the principles of the Law Commission's recommendations and simply to disapply the existing law for new tenancies, rather than to attempt the extremely difficult task of amending the existing law consequentially.
Amendment No. 1 is needed as a consequence of Amendment Nos. 10 and 13 because Clause 1 sets out which provisions of the Bill are to apply only to new tenancies and which are to apply to both new and existing tenancies.
Amendment No. 10 inserts a new clause after Clause 2 of the Bill. This is at the heart of the scheme recommended by the Law Commission to ensure that the changes to the rules on privity of contract can be properly integrated into the law on covenants. The amendment is intended to restate and clarify, for new tenancies, the present rules for the transmission of the benefit and burden of leasehold covenants (some of which date back to the 14th century) with a simple statutory code, the basic
356
principle of which is that the benefit and burden of all landlord and tenant covenants of a new tenancy are annexed to the whole and each and every part of the lease and reversion as appropriate, irrespective of whether they "touch and concern" the land.
At the risk of over-extending my speech at this stage, I believe that it might be helpful for me, in the light of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, to give a simple example of how the provisions which my noble friend would amend will work in practice. The provisions in question are purely aimed at assignments of part. In such a case, the basic rule is that the assignee will be bound by all the covenants which bound his assignor, except to the extent that the covenant falls to be compiled with in relation to the part not assigned. Sometimes a covenant may fall to be complied with in relation to one part of the property that has been let, but not in relation to another. For example, there may be a lease of both a house and an adjacent field. Under the lease the tenant covenants to repair the house. If the tenant assigns the lease in so far as it relates to the field, the burden of the repairing covenant will not pass to the assignee because it falls to be complied with in relation to
"demised premises not comprised in the assignment"
in the words of subsection (2) (a) (ii); that is to say, premises which are part of the demise to which the part assigned belongs but which are not themselves being assigned in this particular transaction.
The new clause includes provision presently contained in Clause 7 of the Bill and your Lordships will note that, as a consequence of this, I shall in due course be opposing the Question that Clause 7 stand part of the Bill. The clause also embodies those parts of Sections 78 and 79 of the Law of Property Act 1925 as are to be preserved for tenancies. Together with the clause to be introduced under the next amendment, it replaces Sections 141 and 142 of the 1925 Act, which will not apply to new leases. Amendment No. 88 accordingly carries through the approach by providing for those statutory provisions not to apply to new leases.
Amendment No. 13 introduces a second new clause after Clause 2, corresponding to subsection (1) of the first new clause. This will ensure that, in the same way as the benefit and burden of covenants in new tenancies are to pass on the assignment in whole or part of a lease or reversion, the benefit of any right of re-entry which may be reversed by the landlord will pass on an assignment of the whole or any part of the reversion. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Meston: I did not seek to oppose the Question that the House should resolve itself into a Committee, but I think it should be recorded that we are embarking on consideration of amendments to this Bill in frankly less than satisfactory circumstances. This Bill has passed through another place and arrives here as a Bill with some 12 pages of print. At Committee stage we are presented with amendments running to some 20 pages. Most of those amendments were printed in the latter part of last week. They are substantial and complex and, frankly, not easy to digest even if more time had been allowed.

357
The main body of the amendments, those to be moved by the noble Earl, are described as a package of additional changes agreed between the British Property Federation and the British Retail Corporation. The original Bill had the benefit of being the result of widespread consultation by the Law Commission. We understood at Second Reading from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that there has been, very properly, further consultation by his department, and furthermore that the Bill passed through another place in the knowledge that there would be alterations and additions in your Lordships' House. But this House cannot do its job properly and those outside the House who can assist its Members, and the Members of this Committee in particular, cannot give that assistance unless they have the ability and the time to consider what the noble and learned Lord has described as full and detailed amendments. I would hope that certainly before Report stage there will indeed be more time allowed for those of your Lordships who are interested in this Bill to take a properly informed view about these very detailed amendments.
Having said that, in the brief time available to me, at any rate, to consider these amendments I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I have only one specific point to make on one of the amendments he has spoken to; that is, Amendment No. 10, which is to be found on pages 2 and 3 of the Marshalled List. After Amendment No. 10 has been printed, page 3 of the Marshalled List appears to refer to Amendments Nos. 16 and 27. I think those two numbers have to be disregarded. Most of what appears on page 3 is in fact all part of Amendment No. 10.
The question I have concerns the drafting of the proposed new subsection (4) which refers to:
"any waiver or release of the covenant which (in whatever terms) is expressed to be personal to the assignor".
I wonder what that means and whether it is really meant to say that it is simply a personal waiver or release. Surely it could be expressed in that way. A waiver or release is presumably personal, or can be construed as such, and does not need to be described in that somewhat convoluted manner.
The Earl of Courtown: I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for having explained the situation and arrangement of his amendments, and I therefore support them.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I would say that there has been considerable debate and agreement between the interested parties. This made the amendments rather late in being tabled but there has been agreement and discussion over a long period and I hope that he will accept the majority, if not all, of the amendments.
Lord Coleraine: I should like to associate myself more or less word for word with the general observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I believe this Bill was originally the work of my noble and learned friend's department and I find it very difficult to se why it is now before us in the form that it is rather than in the form in which it is now proposed to be amended.
358
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Courtown on having taken the Bill so far but, with the greatest respect, I do not think that the answer he has given to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that this Bill has had the approval of two of the participants in debate outside the House is really any answer to the claim that this Bill should not be brought to us in this form tonight.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: It is the fact that a very large number of amendments are before us tonight, and indeed at short notice. My particular concern is not with the generality of that, because I think that the overwhelming majority of the amendments, once properly considered, are substantially uncontroversial. However, I would say—and what I am really doing is putting down a marker for points that I will make in relation to Amendment No. 61 in the name of the noble Earl—that my current impression is that Amendment No. 61 is controversial because of the extent of its amendments to Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927. That is something to which we shall obviously come later.
But I would say, as a particular, in relation to the general observations of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that that amendment is a heavy amendment with broad implications. It was first printed, I understand, on Monday—just two days ago. The noble Earl refers to the industry interest, but there is of course also a tenant interest. It is critical that in this place we are in a position to give full consideration to, and to debate, provisions by way of amendment which are far-reaching and potentially controversial.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I may say first to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and my noble friend Lord Coleraine that we looked again at the Bill which the Law Commission drafted giving effect to the policy intimated by the Government as our policy; namely, that the Law Commission's proposals should apply only to new tenancies and not to existing tenancies. The Committee will remember that the Law Commission report proposed that all this doctrine should be set aside. On consideration of the matter, and in the nature of the property market and its general circumstances, the Government's view was that the doctrine of privity should be innovated upon in respect of new leases only. That was intimated as policy.
The Bill gives effect to that. I think it is agreed on all hands that that is probably the wise policy in the circumstances but it was not accepted by everyone that it was right to go ahead purely on that basis. The Bill which was introduced previously fell because it was not sufficiently agreed. Since then, as I explained, the major elements in the property and tenancy sides of the industry agreed. We then consulted. I put out for consultation the terms of that agreement. The amendments which my noble friend Lord Courtown will move are to give effect to that agreement.
The amendments I am moving are purely technical amendments designed to give proper effect to the Law Commission's proposals as originally put forward and modified as regards policy in the way I have described. I am greatly obliged to the Law Commission for the work that it has done since the Bill came to this place to try to

359
express matters in the most coherent and technically satisfactory form. That has involved a good deal of work. I am sorry that it was not possible to complete it earlier.
The Bill is one that proceeds by consent, and only by consent. Unless we can have consent, it is clear that the Bill cannot go forward to the statute book. So I have tried to put forward amendments which make the Bill technically a good, comprehensive and self-contained provision. I hope that it is reasonably plain in that connection. There will obviously be time between now and Report stage—obviously my door and that of the department is open—for any further consideration. We have had some consideration with others while the amendments were being prepared, but I am happy to see anyone who has any concerns with the parts of the Bill that I am amending tonight.
Perhaps I may take up the point on Amendment No. 10 to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred. Subsection (4) is in effect saying that the covenants that bound the assignor immediately before the assignment are to be the binding covenants, but we have to except from that any purely personal release or waiver. That is said in as short and simple terms as I can devise. In other words, we are saying that the covenants which bound the assignor immediately before the assignment are to be taken as the ones that are binding but any waiver or release which is purely personal is to be disregarded. That is the best that we have so far been able to come up with. I believe it sets out accurately exactly what the noble Lord said. I hope therefore that the Committee will accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 7, after ("13") insert ("and section (Restriction of liability of former tenant where tenancy subsequently varied)").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 58. I should like to thank those whose hard work has enabled us to reach this stage and to express the hope that the spirit of compromise which has propelled the Bill as far as this Committee will take it to the statute book. It falls to me to bring forward the amendments to give effect to the property industry agreement, representing a most important compromise which has won support on all sides. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I take some time to outline the elements of the agreement.
The first element comprises the amendment to Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 to enable landlords and tenants to agree in advance the terms under which future assignments can be made. That is aimed at ensuring that landlords will be able to preserve covenant strength which underpins an investment folio and will apply only to new commercial leases.
The other three elements of the agreement are aimed at extending further protection to former tenants. They will apply to both new and existing tenancies of all types. The first element will reduce the nine-month period in Clause 13 to six months to give former tenants earlier notice of potential liabilities. The next will stop a former tenant's liability being increased by certain types of changes to the lease. The final component will allow a former tenant who
360
is made to pay for another's default to call for an overriding lease so that he may have some measure of control over his position.
Amendment No. 2 is a simple amendment which makes it clear that the further element of the agreement which I have just outlined dealing with liability in respect of subsequent variations of the lease is to apply both to new and other tenancies; that is to say, existing tenancies. The amendment, in effect, paves the way for one minor amendment and one substantial amendment.
The minor amendment is Amendment No. 4, the purpose of which is to ensure that the verb in subsection (2) agrees with its subject, because more than one provision will apply to both new and other tenancies where at present only one provision so applies.
The substantial amendment is Amendment No. 58. The amendment introduces a new clause immediately after Clause 13. That provides that where a former tenant is under a liability in the same circumstances as described in Clause 13, and the terms of the lease have been varied after he has signed the lease and after commencement of the Act, the former tenant shall not be liable to pay any sum to the extent that is referable to the variation, provided that the variation is one which the landlord had the absolute right to refuse to make when it was made.
The clause covers also the position where a variation of the lease has taken away what was an absolute right to refuse a subsequent variation. In such a case, even though the landlord did not have the absolute right to refuse the subsequent variation, the former tenant shall not be liable to pay any sum referable to it. The landlord's right to refuse to make the variation must be absolute, not only under the lease but also as a matter of law generally so that certain tenant's improvements which the landlord is, by virtue of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, unable to refuse to allow, cannot be said to be variations coming within the clause even if the lease absolutely prohibited them. The clause will accordingly cover such matters as variations to the nature of the premises, user, extra space for an increased rent and so on but not the increase of rent on a rent review except to the extent that the increase refers to a variation of the kind covered by the clause.
Taking the new clause subsection by subsection, subsection (1) sets out the circumstances in which a former tenant may find himself liable under a lease which he has assigned. In the case of a new tenancy, that will be because he has entered into an authorised guarantee agreement under Clause 12 or because the assignment was in breach of covenant or by operation of law and therefore, in accordance with the Law Commission's recommendations, he was not released by it.
In the case of an existing tenancy, it will be by reason of privity of contract. Subsection (2) sets out the principle that the former tenant is not to be liable to pay any amount referable to a relevant variation—a term which is defined later. Subsection (3) extends that principle so that any guarantor of a former tenant shall not be so liable either. That subsection also makes it clear that that falls to be considered only when the variation has not already resulted in the guarantor's discharge because of the technical rules relating to guarantees generally.

361
Subsection (4) defines the relevant variation, which is either that the landlord had an absolute right to refuse or did not have an absolute right to refuse only because that right was removed by an earlier variation made after the former tenant assigned.
Subsection (5) ensures that the landlord's right to refuse must be absolute by reference to the general law as well as to the lease. Subsection (6) makes it clear that the new clause covers only variations made after the Act comes into force, which is an integral part of the industry agreement. Subsection (7) makes it clear that the clause covers informal or implied variations as well as those made by deed. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support these amendments but I do not believe that they go nearly far enough to protect people who, many years later and after many variations of the lease, find themselves in an invidious position. But, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, the only way that this will become law is by agreement. Therefore, this is a very good first step and I support the principle of the Bill. But I should like to see the amendments go further.
The Lord Chancellor: My noble friend has explained the basis of the agreement. As I said on Second Reading, the result of the consultation with the industry generally was that the agreement is supported. I agree with my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes that one wants to go forward in this matter as urgently as possible. The only way that that can be done is in accordance with the agreement.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 7, after ("13") insert ("and sections (Right of former tenant or guarantor to overriding lease) and (Overriding leases: supplementary provisions)").
The noble Earl said: Once again, this amendment paves the way for more. It paves the way for one minor amendment, Amendment No. 6, and for two substantial amendments, Amendments Nos. 59 and 60.
With the leave of the Committee, I feel that it would be helpful to speak to all four amendments together. Amendment No. 3 does the same as Amendment No. 2 but in respect of a different element of the property industry agreement. It makes it clear that the element concerning overriding leases is to apply to both new and other tenancies.
Amendment No. 6 is intended to ensure that the provisions for overriding leases do not cut across the agreed policy that privity of contract liability is to be abolished prospectively only. It makes it clear that the definition of a new tenancy is to be subject to the rule which is part of the overriding lease provisions that an overriding lease will not be a new tenancy if the tenancy under which the former tenant finds himself having to pay is not a new tenancy. Without the amendment, Clause 1 and the overriding lease provisions would be inconsistent.
The two substantial amendments are Amendments Nos. 59 and 60. They introduce two new clauses after Clause 13 and immediately after the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 58. The challenge which this part of the property industry agreement set out to meet
362
was to find a way to give a former tenant or guarantor who has had to pay for the breach of a defaulting subsequent tenant a way of regaining control over the situation and, if necessary, the property. That will be achieved by making it possible for the former tenant or guarantor who has had to pay to have an overriding lease granted to him so that he can pursue remedies directly against the defaulting tenant, if he is still in occupation, or to take possession and make use of the property so that he can set off the return against his liability. That will go some way towards addressing the helplessness so often felt by former tenants when they find themselves liable in that way.
Amendment No. 59 introduces the first new clause, which sets out the former tenant's right to an overriding lease, the circumstances in which it arises, its terms and the mechanics of the granting of an overriding lease. Amendment No. 60 introduces the second new clause, which makes supplementary provision covering such matters as whether an overriding lease is a new or existing tenancy; what happens if the landlord is dilatory in granting it; and the effect of mortgages on the landlord's interest and land registration.
Subsection (1) of the new clause sets out the basic principle of entitlement to an overriding lease. Any person, whether former tenant or guarantor, who has paid in full an amount which he has been duly required to pay in accordance with the notice under the provisions of Clause 13 is to be able to call for an overriding lease to be granted to him.
Subsection (2) defines an overriding lease. The essence of the overriding lease is that it is a tenancy of the landlord's reversion which puts the former tenant in the position of the landlord in relation to the defaulting tenant and in the position of the defaulting tenant in relation to the landlord. The former tenant could be said to be slotted into the hierarchy of interests. The overriding lease is accordingly to replicate as far as possible the tenancy of the defaulting tenant, which the new clause calls the "relevant tenancy". It cannot replicate it exactly as to the length of term remaining since it is in reversion to it and must be notionally longer. Subsection (2) (a) requires the term to be fixed as equal to the length of the term remaining plus three days or the longest period less than that which will not entirely displace the landlord's interest.
Subsection (2) (b) provides for the overriding lease otherwise to contain the same covenants as the relevant tenancy, as they have effect immediately before the grant of the overriding lease. That will include all variations to the lease and all sums to be paid which are referable to them, so that the former tenant may well have a choice between not taking up an overriding lease and paying less by virtue of the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 58, and taking up the overriding lease and regarding the extra that he will have to pay as the price for regaining a measure of control. The landlord and former tenant may agree that it would not be appropriate to replicate certain terms, or the particular effect of certain terms, without some modification, and the possibility of agreed modification is preserved.
Subsections (3) and (4) make specific provision for the overriding lease not to reproduce certain terms, or the effect of certain terms, which the property industry bodies

363
were agreed it would not be appropriate to reproduce or reproduce without modification. Subsection (3) provides for any covenants which were purely personal as between the defaulting tenant and the landlord not to be reproduced. Subsection (4) provides for any covenants which were time limited and which have become spent not to be reproduced, and for any matter in the relevant tenancy which operates by reference to the commencement of the tenancy to be reproduced in the overriding lease in such a way that it operates by reference not to the commencement of the overriding lease but to the commencement of the relevant tenancy.
Subsection (5) sets out the procedure for requesting an overriding lease. The former tenant or guarantor must make the request in writing to the landlord, specifying the payment which he has made and which qualifies him to make the request. He may do that by post. He is required to make the request within 12 months of making the payment, which will introduce an element of certainty for both the landlord and the defaulting tenant or any assignees.
Subsection (6) sets out the duties of claimant and landlord following the claim. The landlord must grant and deliver the overriding lease to the claimant within a reasonable time. The claimant must then acknowledge its covenants by delivering a counterpart to the landlord. Sanctions for failure of either party to fulfil the duty are set out in the second new clause. The claimant must also pay the landlord's reasonable costs in connection with the grant and the landlord will be able to sue for these if the claimant does not pay.
Subsection (7) makes it clear that no overriding lease can be granted when the relevant tenancy has come to an end. It and subsection (8) also deal with the position where more than one person has made a payment qualifying him to request an overriding lease. The rule is essentially "first come, first served", so that, where an overriding lease is already in force or another person has already put in a request, no further request can succeed.
Subsection (8) deals with the possibility of simultaneous requests, in which case a former tenant will take priority over a guarantor and an earlier covenantor will take priority over a later. Subsection (9) deals with the possibility that, because the former tenant who takes up the overriding lease takes over the landlord's position, he may be in a position to exercise remedies against others who might, in their turn, make payments which would qualify them to seek an overriding lease. In such a situation, the new clause shall apply between the overriding tenant and the new claimant just as it did between the overriding tenant and the landlord.
The second new clause contains supplementary provisions concerning the effect of the first new clause. Subsection (1), for which Amendment No. 6 paves the way, provides that an overriding lease is to be a new tenancy only if the relevant tenancy was a new tenancy. Because every overriding lease will be granted after the date on which the Act comes into force, this presents the possibility that the overriding lease might be transferred to someone who is unaware that it is not a new tenancy.
Accordingly, subsection (2) makes it a requirement that the overriding lease should state that it is an overriding lease and whether or not it is a new tenancy.
Subsection (3) provides sanctions in the event of a failure by either party to perform the duties in subsection (6) of the first new clause. In the case of a landlord, he may be sued for breach of statutory duty if he is dilatory and, in the case of a tenant, he will not be able to exercise his rights under the overriding lease until he delivers the counterpart.
Subsection (4) covers the position where the landlord's interest has been mortgaged prior to the request for an overriding lease. In such a case, the general law would make the overriding lease subject to the mortgage on the landlord's interest which would bear hardly on the claimant. This subsection provides a special rule which mirrors the provisions of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, providing for the overriding lease not to be subject to the mortgage and for the mortgagee to he treated as having consented to its creation.
Subsection (4) also provides for the case where the mortgagee is entitled to possession of the documents of title relating to the landlord's interest. In such a case, the landlord is under a duty to deliver the claimant's counterpart to the mortgagee within a month of executing the lease. If he fails to do so, the mortgagee may treat that failure as contractual as if there were a stipulation to that effect in the mortgage.
Subsection (5) ensures that the fact that the overriding lease is subject to the relevant tenancy is not a breach of any covenant against subletting. Without this provision, some overriding leases would be in a difficult position. This subsection also makes it clear that an overriding lease falls to be treated, for the purposes of Clauses 12, 13 and the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 58, just like any other tenancy.
Subsection (6) provides for the land registration aspects—again mirroring the approach of the 1993 Act. Although a tenancy will effectively confer on the tenant a form of option to take an overriding lease, no lease is thereby to become registrable under the Land Charges Act, nor is the right to an overriding lease following a request to be an overriding interest under the Land Registration Act 1925. Instead, where a request is made for an overriding lease, the request is to be treated for these purposes as if it were an estate contract and to be registrable or the subject of a notice or caution as such.
Finally, subsection (7) of the second new clause provides for expressions used in the second new clause to have the same meaning as when used in the first new clause and for "mortgage" to include "charge" for the avoidance of doubt. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("applies") and insert ("apply").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment in relation to Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("in to end of line 12 and insert ("it is granted on or after the date on which this Act comes into force otherwise than in pursuance of—

(a) an agreement entered into before that date, or

(b) an order of a court made before that date.").

The noble and learned Lord said: As well as providing which provisions of the Bill are to apply to new tenancies and which to both new and other tenancies, Clause 1 of the Bill defines a new tenancy. Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 revise and refine the definition of a new tenancy presently in the Bill and, with the Committee's leave, I believe that it would be helpful for me to speak to both amendments together since they are very closely linked.
Amendment No. 5 makes it clear that a new tenancy is one granted on or after the date on which the Act comes into force, unless it was granted in pursuance of an agreement entered into before that date or a court order made before that date. Amendment No. 7 deletes the present subsection (4) of Clause 1 and replaces it with three new subsections which put beyond doubt detailed matters relating to the concept of a new tenancy which the existing draft either does not cover or does not cover satisfactorily. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert:
("() Subsection (3) has effect subject to section (Overriding leases: supplementary provisions) (1) in the case of overriding leases granted under section (Right of former tenant or guarantor to overriding lease).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 7:
Page I, line 13, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
("(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3), that subsection applies to the grant of a tenancy where by virtue of any variation of a tenancy there is a deemed surrender and regrant as it applies to any other grant of a tenancy.
(5) Where a tenancy granted on or after the date on which this Act comes into force is so granted in pursuance of an option granted before that date, the tenancy shall be regarded for the purposes of subsection (3) as granted in pursuance of an agreement entered into before that date (and accordingly is not a new tenancy), whether or not the option was exercised before that date.
(6) In subsection (5) "option" includes right of first refusal.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Covenants to which the Act applies]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 2, after ("disposals);") insert:
("() paragraph 1 of Schedule 6A to that Act (covenants requiring redemption of landlord's share);").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are very closely linked and, with the Committee's leave, I feel that it would be helpful for me to speak to both amendments together. Clause 2 ensures that the Act will apply to all covenants of a tenancy, whether they are implied or express and whether they "touch and concern" the land or not. It also, as recommended by the Law Commission, excepts from the Act certain covenants entered into by tenants of local authorities who exercise
366
their right to buy to prevent them making unjustified profits on early sale so that they will continue to be bound by those covenants notwithstanding the new regime. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 make the necessary provision for excepting from the Act a further such covenant which was not picked up in the first draft of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("similar purposes") and insert ("repayment of discount on early disposals").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Transmission of covenants
Transmission of benefit and burden of covenants
.—(1) The benefit and burden of all landlord and tenant covenants of a tenancy—

(a) shall be annexed and incident to the whole, and to each and every part, of the premises demised by the tenancy and of the reversion in them, and

(b) shall in accordance with this section pass on an assignment of the whole or any part of those premises or of the reversion in them.

(2) Where the assignment is by the tenant under the tenancy, then as from the assignment the assignee—

(a) becomes bound by the tenant covenants of the tenancy except to the extent that—

(i) immediately before the assignment they did not bind the assignor, or

(ii) they fall to be complied with in relation to any demised premises not comprised in the assignment; and

(b) becomes entitled to the benefit of the landlord covenants of the tenancy except to the extent that they fall to be complied with in relation to any such premises.

(3) Where the assignment is by the landlord under the tenancy, then as from the assignment the assignee—

(a) becomes bound by the landlord covenants of the tenancy except to the extent that—

(i) immediately before the assignment they did not bind the assignor, or

(ii) they fall to be complied with in relation to any demised premises not comprised in the assignment; and

(b) becomes entitled to the benefit of the tenant covenants of the tenancy except to the extent that they fall to be complied with in relation to any such premises.

(4) In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) or (3) whether any covenant bound the assignor immediately before the assignment, any waiver or release of the covenant which (in whatever terms) is expressed to be personal to the assignor shall be disregarded.
(5) Any landlord or tenant covenant of a tenancy which is restrictive of the user of land shall, as well as being capable of enforcement against an assignee, be capable of being enforced against any other person who is the owner or occupier of any demised premises to which the covenant relates, even though there is no express provision in the tenancy to that effect.
(6) Nothing in this section shall operate—

(a) in the case of a covenant which (in whatever terms) is expressed to be personal to any person, to make the covenant enforceable by or (as the case may be) against any other person; or

367

(b) to make a covenant enforceable against any person if, apart from this section, it would not be enforceable against him by reason of its not having been registered under the Land Registration Act 1925 or the Land Charges Act 1972.

(7) To the extent that there remains in force any rule of law by virtue of which the burden of a covenant whose subject matter is not in existence at the time when it is made does not run with the land affected unless the covenantor covenants on behalf of himself and his assigns, that rule of law is hereby abolished in relation to tenancies.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, as amendments to Amendment No. 10, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 10 agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Transmission of rights of re-entry
(". The benefit of a landlord's right of re-entry under a tenancy—

(a) shall be annexed and incident to the whole, and to each and every part, of the reversion in the premises demised by the tenancy, and

(b) shall pass on an assignment of the whole or any part of the reversion in those premises.").

The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Procedure for seeking release from a covenant under s. 4 or 5]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 29, leave out ("before") and insert ("either before or within the period of four weeks beginning with the date or').
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 14 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 15 to 23 and 25 to 28.
This clause makes provision for the notice procedure for the purposes of Clauses 4 and 5. At present it provides for the landlord to serve a notice on the tenant before the assignment, and for the tenant to have four weeks from the serving of the notice to object to the landlord's being released, and for the landlord to be released, as from the date of the assignment, if there is no objection within four weeks or if there is an objection but the court declares it to be reasonable for the landlord to be released.
Amendments Nos. 14 to 17 give effect to two changes which are consistent with the Law Commission's policy and are accepted by the Law Commission and which go hand-in-hand with a number of amendments to Clauses 8 and 9 which make provision for apportionment of liability under certain covenants between assignor and assignee to become binding on the other party to the lease if a similar notice procedure is gone through. These amendments are so closely interlinked with two other groups of amendments that, with the leave of the Committee, I consider that it would be appropriate if I to speak to all of them together. Amendments Nos. 25 to 28 to Clause 9 simply carry through, mutatis mutandis, the approach of the amendments to Clause 6, and Amendments Nos. 18 to 23 to Clause 8 pave the way for the amendments to Clause 9.
Amendment No. 14 removes the requirement that the notice be served before the assignment and allows it to be served before or up to four weeks after it. This is because there are cases where confidentiality is very important to the landlord when he assigns, so he cannot afford to make his negotiations public by serving notices before the assignment. Since the tenant has no control over the assignment and will be interested only in whether the landlord should or should not be released, it will not disadvantage the tenant if notice is not served until after the assignment. Specific provision is also made for the tenant to indicate that he has no objection, and also for him to withdraw an objection rather than have the matter go to court. Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 and Amendments Nos. 18 to 23 follow from those two changes. Clause 9 makes provision for a similar notice procedure to cover cases of assignment of part, where the assignor and assignee reach an agreement as to apportionment and wish to make the agreement binding on the other party; and Amendments Nos. 25 to 28 make the same provision for the procedure in Clause 9 as Amendments Nos. 14 to 17 make for that in Clause 6. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 15 to 17:
Page 3, line 31, after ("assignment") insert ("or (as the case may be) the fact that the assignment has taken place").
Page 3, line 35, leave out ("either").
Page 3, line 42, at end insert (", or
(c) the tenant serves on the landlord or former landlord a notice in writing consenting to the release and, if he has previously served a notice objecting to it, stating that that notice is withdrawn.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Covenants binding assignee of tenancy or reversion]:
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Lord Chancellor: As I explained in relation to Amendment No. 1, the provisions of Clause 7 are reproduced in the new clause after Clause 2 which was introduced by Amendment No. 10. Accordingly, Clause 7 no longer has a part to play and should not stand part of the Bill. I beg to move that Clause 7 do not stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 negatived.
Clause 8 [Apportionment of liability under covenants binding both assignor and assignee of tenancy or reversion]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 18 to 23:
Page 4, line 34, leave out ("proposes to assign") and insert ("assigns").
Page 4, line 36, leave out ("proposed assignee would") and insert ("assignee are to").
Page 4, line 39, leave out ("proposed assignee agree that on") and insert ("assignee agree that as from").
Page 4, line 43, leave out ("proposes to assign") and insert ("assigns").
Page 4, line 45, leave out ("proposed assignee would") and insert ("assignee are to").
Page 5, line 1, leave out ("proposed assignee agree that on") and insert ("assignee agree that as from").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 18 to 23 with Amendment No. 14. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, line 9, at end insert:
("() In any such case the parties to the agreement may also apply for the apportionment to become binding on any person (other than the appropriate person) who is for the time being entitled to enforce the covenant in question; and section 9 shall apply in relation to such an application as it applies in relation to an application made with respect to the appropriate person.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 24, I speak also to Amendment No. 30.
Amendment No. 24 inserts an extra subsection into Clause 8, which provides for an assignee and assignor in the case of an assignment of part to seek to make an apportionment agreed between them binding on the other party to the tenancy. The new subsection makes provision to cover the possibility that there may be another party to the tenancy, other than the landlord and tenant, who is entitled to enforce the covenant in question; generally speaking, a management company. Management companies may be parties to leases in leasehold developments such as business parks, or office developments. The management company covenants with the tenants to perform various functions usually falling to the landlord, such as cleaning, maintenance, and so on. The Bill does not presently make any provision for management companies, but it is necessary to cover them since the use of management companies to undertake functions normally falling to the landlord is not uncommon. Fuller provision for the way in which management companies are to fit into the scheme is made by Amendment No. 30, and with the Committee's leave I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 24 and 30 together.
Amendment No. 24 simply ensures that the apportionment provisions will apply in such circumstances so as to enable the agreement to become binding against the management company.
It is necessary to ensure that the burden and benefit of a covenant with a management company will pass to an assignee tenant or landlord and that the assignor tenant or landlord will not retain the benefit of it so as to be able to sue the management company. It is also necessary to ensure that the assignor will be released from the burden of the covenant. The new clause introduced by Amendment No. 30 achieves this by defining a third party in terms which encompass management companies but exclude surety covenants, and by providing for covenants given by or to such a third party to be treated as landlord covenants or tenant covenants as appropriate for the purposes of transmission and release and apportionment.
I beg to move Amendment No. 24.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Procedure for making apportionment bind other party to lease]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 25 to 28:
Page 5, line 24, leave out ("before") and insert ("either before or within the period of four weeks beginning with the date of").
Page 5, line 26, after ("assignment") insert ("or (as the case may be) the fact that the assignment has taken place").
Page 5, line 32, leave out ("either").
Page 5, line 39, at end insert (", or
(c) he serves on the parties to the agreement a notice in writing consenting to the apportionment becoming binding on him and, if he has previously served a notice objecting thereto, stating that that notice is withdrawn.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to Amendment Nos. 25 to 28 inclusive with Amendment No. 14. With the leave of the Committee, I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Excluded assignments
Assignments in breach of covenant or by operation of law
.—(1) This section provides for the operation of sections 3 to 6 and 8 and 9 in relation to assignments in breach of a covenant of a tenancy or assignments by operation of law ("excluded assignments").
(2) In the case of an excluded assignment subsection (2) or (3) of section 3—

(a) shall not have the effect mentioned in that subsection in relation to the tenant as from that assignment, but

(b) shall have that effect as from the next assignment (if any) of the premises assigned by him which is not an excluded assignment.

(3) In the case of an excluded assignment subsection (2) or (3) of section 4 or 5—

(a) shall not enable the landlord or former landlord to apply for such a release as is mentioned in that subsection as from that assignment, but

(b) shall apply on the next assignment (if any) of the reversion assigned by the landlord which is not an excluded assignment so as to enable the landlord or former landlord to apply for any such release as from that subsequent assignment.

(4) Where subsection (2) or (3) of section 4 or 5 does so apply—

(a) any reference in that section to the assignment (except where it relates to the time as from which the release takes effect) is a reference to the excluded assignment; but

(b) in that excepted case and in section 6 as it applies in relation to any application under that section made by virtue of subsection (3) above, any reference to the assignment or proposed assignment is a reference to any such subsequent assignment as is mentioned in that subsection.

(5) In the case of an excluded assignment section 8—

(a) shall not enable the tenant or landlord and his assignee to apply for an agreed apportionment to become binding in accordance with section 9 as from that assignment, but

(b) shall apply on the next assignment (if any) of the premises or reversion assigned by the tenant or landlord so as to enable him and his assignee to apply for such an apportionment to become binding in accordance with section 9 as from that subsequent assignment.

(6) Where section 8 does so apply—

(a) any reference in that section to the assignment or the assignee under it is a reference to the excluded assignment and the assignee under that assignment; but

371

(b) in section 9 as it applies in relation to any application under section 8 made by virtue of subsection (5) above, any reference to the assignment or proposed assignment is a reference to any such subsequent assignment as is mentioned in that subsection.

(7) If any such subsequent assignment as is mentioned in subsection (2), (3) or (5) above comprises only part of the premises assigned by tenant or (as the case may be) only part of the premises the reversion in which was assigned by the landlord on the excluded assignment

(a) the relevant provision or provisions of section 3, 4, 5 or 8 shall only have the effect mentioned in that subsection to the extent that the covenants or covenant in question fall or falls to be complied with in relation to that part of those premises; and

(b) that subsection may accordingly apply on different occasions in relation to different parts of those premises.").

The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 29, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 40, 63 and 75.
Amendment No. 29 introduces a new clause to make effective provision for cases where an assignment is not lawful or voluntary, but takes place in breach of a covenant against assignment or by operation of law (such as passing to personal representatives on death of the landlord or tenant). Consequential on the new clause, Amendment No. 40 rectifies wording in Clause 13, Amendment No. 63 ensures the completeness of Clause 15, and Amendment No. 75 to Clause 19 is to make necessary changes to the definitions in that clause. Once again, with the Committee's leave, I feel that it would be helpful to speak to this group of amendments together.
In accordance with the Law Commission's recommendations, assignments of the type I have just mentioned are not to have effect to release the person parting with the interest from his rights and obligations under the lease, although they will, as is the case at present, be fully effective to pass the estate and accordingly to bind the assignee. This will be achieved by the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 29 and, as I have said, Amendment No. 75 to Clause 19 is to carry through its effect into the list of definitions in that clause.
Amendment No. 40 changes the wording of Clause 13(1) to reflect the fact that it is possible for a former tenant under a new lease as well as under an existing one to remain liable other than under an authorised guarantee agreement, because there has been an excluded assignment, and the existing draft of the Bill missed this point. The new subsection to Clause 15, introduced by Amendment No. 63, makes it clear that, consistent with the approach of Clause 15, any such assignment will not .affect any liability of the assignor for breach occurring before the assignment, or any accrued rights of the assignor relating to a breach of the other party occurring before assignment. I beg to move Amendment No. 29.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Third party covenants
Covenants with management companies etc
.—(1) This section applies where—

(a) a person other than the landlord or tenant ("the third party") is under a covenant of a tenancy liable (as principal) to discharge any function with respect to all or any of theo demised premises ("the relevant function"); and

372

(b) that liability is not the liability of a guarantor or any other financial liability referable to the performance or otherwise of a covenant of the tenancy by another party to it.

(2) To the extent that any covenant of the tenancy confers any rights against the third party with respect to the relevant function, then for the purposes of the transmission of the benefit of the covenant in accordance with this Act it shall be treated as if it were—

(a) a tenant covenant of the tenancy to the extent that those rights are exercisable by the landlord; and

(b) a landlord covenant of the tenancy to the extent that those rights are exercisable by the tenant.

(3) To the extent that any covenant of the tenancy confers any rights exercisable by the third party with respect to the relevant function, then for the purposes mentioned in subsection (4), it shall be treated as if it were—

(a) a tenant covenant of the tenancy to the extent that those rights are exercisable against the tenant; and

(b) a landlord covenant of the tenancy to the extent that those rights are exercisable against the landlord.

(4) The purposes mentioned in subsection (3) are—

(a) the transmission of the burden of the covenant in accordance with this Act; and

(b) any release from, or apportionment of liability in respect of, the covenant in accordance with this Act.

(5) In relation to the release of the landlord from any covenant which is to be treated as a landlord covenant by virtue of subsection (3), section 6 shall apply as if any reference to the tenant were a reference to the third party.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 24. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Enforcement of covenants
Enforcement of covenants
.—(1) Where any tenant covenant of a tenancy, or any right of re-entry contained in a tenancy, is enforceable by the reversioner in respect of any premises demised by the tenancy, it shall also be so enforceable by—

(a) any person (other than the reversioner) who, as the holder of the immediate reversion in those premises, is for the time being entitled to the rents and profits under the tenancy in respect of those premises, or

(b) any mortgagee in possession of the reversion in those premises who is so entitled.

(2) Where any landlord covenant of a tenancy is enforceable against the reversioner in respect of any premises demised by the tenancy, it shall also be so enforceable against any person falling within subsection (1) (a) or (b).
(3) Where any landlord covenant of a tenancy is enforceable by the tenant in respect of any premises demised by the tenancy, it shall also be so enforceable by any mortgagee in possession of those premises under a mortgage granted by the tenant.
(4) Where any tenant covenant of a tenancy, or any right of re-entry contained in a tenancy, is enforceable against the tenant in respect of any premises demised by the tenancy, it shall also be so enforceable against any such mortgagee.
(5) Nothing in this section shall operate—

(a) in the case of a covenant which (in whatever terms) is expressed to be personal to any person, to make the covenant enforceable by or (as the case may be) against any other person; or

373

(b) to make a covenant enforceable against any person if, apart from this section, it would not be enforceable against him by reason of its not having been registered under the Land Registration Act 1925 or the Land Charges Act 1972.

(6) In this section—
"mortgagee" and "mortgage" include "chargee" and "charge" respectively;
"the reversioner", in relation to a tenancy, means the holder for the time being of the interest of the landlord under the tenancy.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment inserts a new clause which, although of a technical nature, comprises another important element of the Law Commission's scheme which I outlined earlier. The amendment complements the two clauses which were introduced by Amendments Nos. 10 and 13 pursuant to which the benefit and burden of all covenants is to be annexed to and run with the lease or reversion when assigned in whole or in part, and the benefit of a landlord's right of re-entry is similarly to be annexed to the whole and every part of the reversion, by affording concomitant rights to those with derivative interests. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Tenant guaranteeing performance of covenant by assignee]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 32 has been wrongly marshalled so I propose to call Amendment No. 33 first.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 6, line 25, after first ("a") insert ("tenant").
The noble and learned Lord said: With Amendment No. 33, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 34, 35, 36, 32 (which will be taken in that place), 37 and 38. Clause 12 covers the Law Commission's recommendation that when a tenant under a new tenancy is released on assignment in accordance with Clause 3, it should nevertheless be possible for the landlord, as a condition of licence to assign, to ask him to guarantee performance of the tenant covenants of the tenancy by his immediate assignee, but no more. The possibility of such a guarantee being asked for by the landlord will only arise if the lease gives the landlord any control over assignment either by banning assignment altogether (in which case the landlord will be free to demand such a guarantee as the price for waiving the ban) or by providing for assignment only with the landlord's consent. Subsections (1) to (3) of the clause cover the propositions just stated, and the remainder of the clause makes provision for the limitations on what the landlord can seek to include in the guarantee, which is termed an "authorised guarantee agreement".
Amendments Nos. 32 to 37 make very important changes to the clause to ensure both that the guarantee is actually effective when the landlord most needs it and that it cannot be used as a device for retaining the effect of privity of contract liability once the assignee has himself assigned. As these amendments form one element in the overall scheme, perhaps the Committee will permit me to speak to them together. In addition, Amendment No. 33 does the same thing for Clause 12 as Amendment No. 38 does for Clause 13.
Amendment No. 33 inserts the word "tenant" in subsection (1) of Clause 12 to make it absolutely clear that it is only tenant covenants the performance of which may be guaranteed, and Amendment No. 38 does the same in subsection (1) of Clause 13.
Amendment No. 34 is consequential upon Amendments Nos. 35 and 32 which make it clear that the guarantee will not be effective unless it complies with the new clearer provision setting the time limits and regulating the terms of an authorised guarantee agreement.
Amendment No. 36 simply introduces words into subsection (3) of Clause 12 making it clear that no question of an authorised guarantee agreement arises unless the lease contains some form of covenant against assignment.
Amendment No. 37 completes the revision of Clause 12 by introducing two new subsections to cover the position of excluded assignments and the position where a tenant who entered into an authorised guarantee agreement becomes tenant again. In a case where a tenant who made an excluded assignment is released on the next assignment then, if the tenant making the next assignment enters into an authorised guarantee agreement, the landlord is to be able to require the tenant who made the excluded assignment also to enter into an authorised guarantee agreement on terms corresponding to those of the assigning tenant's agreement so that they guarantee the next tenant jointly. In the case where a tenant who entered into an authorised guarantee agreement either takes back the assigned lease on a disclaimer following his assignee's insolvency or enters into a new lease under the authorised guarantee agreement it will be possible to enter into another authorised guarantee agreement. It is considered entirely appropriate for a tenant whose previous assignee was weak to have to guarantee his new assignee since it may have been only the prospect of the authorised guarantee agreement which persuaded the landlord to consent to the assignment. I beg to move Amendment No. 33.
Lord Meston: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation, but I wonder in respect of Clause 12 and new Amendment No. 32, where it is provided that the guarantee agreement may,
"require the tenant, in the event of the tenancy assigned by him being disclaimed, to enter into a new tenancy of the premises",
whether it is intended that there should be any specific timetable for that to take place or whether it should be left to the parties themselves to decide how rigid or how flexible they wish to be in the terms of that agreement. The amendment as presently drafted seems to leave it rather unclear. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can perhaps give us some indication of what is intended by the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: Strictly speaking, subsection (4A) which is introduced by Amendment No. 32 is in the nature of a definition of an authorised guarantee agreement. It is saying that an agreement will be an authorised guarantee agreement if it has inter alia the character of paragraph (c); namely, that it requires the tenant,

375
"in the event of the tenancy assigned by him being disclaimed, to enter into a new tenancy of the premises comprised in the assignment",
provided that the conditions in sub-paragraph (i) and (ii) are satisfied. It will be for the parties, assuming that it is an agreement of this character, to provide for the terms of that agreement. So long as the agreement answers the description in this paragraph, it will be an authorised guarantee agreement under the clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 6, leave out from ("it") in line 45 to end of line 5 on page 7 and insert ("purports—

(a) to impose on the tenant any requirement to guarantee in any way the performance of the relevant covenant by any person other than the assignee; or

(b) to impose on the tenant any liability, restriction or other requirement (of whatever nature) in relation to any time after the assignee is released from that covenant by virtue of this Act.

(4A) Subject to subsection (4), an authorised guarantee agreement may—

(a) impose on the tenant any liability as sole or principal debtor in respect of any obligation owed by the assignee under the relevant covenant;

(b) impose on the tenant liabilities as guarantor in respect of the assignee's performance of that covenant which are no more onerous than those to which he would be subject in the event of his being liable as sole or principal debtor in respect of any obligation owed by the assignee under that covenant;

(c) require the tenant, in the event of the tenancy assigned by him being disclaimed, to enter into a new tenancy of the premises comprised in the assignment—

(i) whose term expires not later than the term of the tenancy assigned by the tenant, and

(ii) whose tenant covenants are no more onerous than those of that tenancy;

(d) make provision incidental or supplementary to any provision made by virtue of any of paragraphs (a) to (c).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 34 to 37:
Page 6, line 32, leave out ("(but not its performance by any later tenant)").
Page 6, line 34, at end insert ("; and
(c) its provisions conform with subsections (4) and (4A).").
Page 6, line 36, at beginning insert ("by virtue of a covenant against assignment (whether absolute or qualified)").
Page 7, line 5, at end insert:
("(4B) Where a person ("the former tenant") is to any extent released from a covenant of a tenancy by virtue of section (Assignments in breach of covenant or by operation of law) (2) as from an assignment and the assignor under the assignment enters into an authorised guarantee agreement with the landlord with respect to the performance of that covenant by the assignee under the assignment

(a) the landlord may require the former tenant to enter into an agreement under which he guarantees, on terms corresponding to those of that authorised guarantee agreement, the performance of that covenant by the assignee under the assignment; and

(b) if its provisions conform with subsections (4) and (4A), any such agreement shall be an authorised guarantee agreement for the purposes of this section; and

(c) in the application of this section in relation to any such agreement—

(i) subsections (2) (b) and (c) and (3) shall be omitted, and

376

(ii) any reference to the tenant or to the assignee shall be read as a reference to the former tenant or to the assignee under the assignment.

(4C) For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial that—

(a) the tenant has already made an authorised guarantee agreement in respect of a previous assignment by him of the tenancy referred to in that subsection, it having been subsequently revested in him following a disclaimer on behalf of the previous assignee, or

(b) the tenancy referred to in that subsection is a new tenancy entered into by the tenant in pursuance of an authorised guarantee agreement;

and in any such case subsections (2) to (4A) shall apply accordingly.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 and Amendment No. 37. With the leave of the Committee, I should like to move these en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Restriction on liability of former tenant for rent or service charge]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 7, line 14, after first ("a") insert ("tenant").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 33. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 7, line 14, leave out ("to pay rent or a service charge") and insert ("under which any fixed charge is payable").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 41, 43 to 46, 50, 52, 54, 55 and 57.
Clause 13 applies to both new and existing leases. It makes provision aimed at ensuring that former tenants who are still under liability in relation to a lease (either because of privity of contract liability, or an excluded assignment, or an authorised guarantee agreement) should be given notice within a fixed period of any arrears which become due and which they may find themselves having to pay. They will thus be able to make provision against the liability, rather than being presented with a bill which might cover a very long period. As drafted, the Bill fixes the period at nine months, but the Committee will have noted that one of the package of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Courtown will change that to six months.
The essence of the provision is that the landlord should serve notice of sums which arise under the lease as fixed or liquidated sums—it being too difficult and onerous to attempt to do this for such matters as dilapidations which are of their nature difficult to quantify as they arise. The existing wording of the clause limits this to rent and service charges; but there are other such liquidated sums whose amount will be fixed as they fall due; for example, specified payments for each fixed period the tenant is in breach of a particular covenant. It is appropriate that the tenant should have notice of such sums as those as well as of rent and service charges, and the approach of the amendments, of which Amendment No. 39 is the first, is to provide that the landlord must give notice of sums payable as "fixed charges". Amendment No. 39 paves the way .for no fewer than 10 further amendments carrying

377
through the approach, and with the Committee's leave, it may be helpful to speak to those amendments now. Amendments Nos. 41, 44, 45, 50, 52, 54, 55 and 57 carry through that approach.
Amendment No. 54 provides the new definition of "fixed charge", namely rent, service charges corresponding to the well-settled definition in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and sums payable as liquidated amounts in the event of breach of a covenant. Amendment No. 57 accordingly deletes the existing definitions of "rent and service charge"; and the other amendments remove the words "rent and service charge" and substitute "fixed charge" as appropriate.
Amendment No. 46 deals with interest on a fixed charge of which the former tenant is given notice under Clause 13. It is considered appropriate that the former tenant should be given some warning of the fact that interest is accruing on the sum due, so that he can take that into account in making provision to meet his potential liability. It would be onerous for the landlord to expect him to calculate the interest accrued and keep updating it for the former tenant's benefit, and so this amendment does not require the landlord to calculate interest but only to warn the former tenant in the notice of the fact that interest is accruing, and the terms on which it is accruing. If he does not include that simple warning, he will not be able to recover the interest should he sue the former tenant in due course. I submit that that is a satisfactory way of dealing with that aspect of the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: I wish only to make a short point on the expression "fixed charge". Amendment No. 54 includes, riot surprisingly, rent. But anyone who has the doubtful pleasure of reading a modern lease will realise that the expression "rent" is often used to describe a large number of different types of payment, including things such as insurance. I wonder whether, in drafting the amendment, that was considered and whether an indication can be given as to what sort of construction it is expected should be put upon the word "rent" in the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: I would have thought that rent would cover any sum payable by the tenant to the landlord as a recurring charge in respect of occupation of the premises. The insurance cover may be of that type and it will be in the interests of the tenant to regard the word "rent" as widely as possible. It is a provision for giving notice. I would say, therefore, that it covers any payment of a recurring nature given in consideration of the occupation of the premises demised by the tenant. If the insurance is payable to the landlord, although it is in the name of the insurers, it would be covered by the definition of "rent" under that explanation.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Can the noble and learned Lord clarify for me whether service charges are included? In housing benefit cases there is a regulation that if the lease demands that a service charge is paid it can be treated as equal to rent. Would a service charge be the type of charge to which the noble and learned Lord is referring?
The Lord Chancellor: In sub-paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 54 it expressly refers to,
378
"any service charge as defined by section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the words 'of a dwelling' being disregarded for this purpose)".
Service charges are therefore expressly covered.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 40 and 41:
Page 7, line 16, leave out ("other").
Page 7, line 19, leave out ("rent or service") and insert ("fixed").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 with Amendments Nos. 29 and 39 respectively. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 7, line 21, leave out ("nine") and insert ("six")
The noble Earl said: This very short and simple amendment will give effect to an element of the property industry agreement on the basis of which the Bill has succeeded in progressing to this advanced stage. As has been explained by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, Clause 13 gives protection to former tenants by requiring a landlord who wishes to pursue a former tenant for arrears run up by a subsequent tenant to serve notice of the arrears on the former tenant within a specified period of their becoming due. This amendment increases that protection by reducing the period from nine months to six months, which is still a sufficient period for the landlord to ascertain whether payment might be made by the defaulting tenant, trace the former tenant or his last known address if necessary, and serve a notice if appropriate. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I am sure the Committee will appreciate that this is a substantial change in favour of the tenant which was consequent on the agreement to which my noble friend referred. I certainly support it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 43 to 46:
Page 7, line 21, leave out ("rent or service")
Page 7, line 24, leave out ("rent or service").
Page 7, line 25, leave out ("rent or service").
Page 7, line 27, at end insert ("and (where payable) interest calculated on such basis as is so specified").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 43, 44, 45 and 46 with Amendment No. 39. With your Lordships' leave, I shall move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 7, line 27, at end insert:
("(2A) Where a person ("the guarantor") has agreed to guarantee the performance by the former tenant of such a covenant as is mentioned in subsection (1), the guarantor shall not be liable under the agreement to pay any amount in respect of any fixed charge payable under the covenant unless, within the period of six months beginning with the date when the charge becomes due, the landlord serves on the guarantor a notice informing him—

(a) that the charge is now due; and

379

(b) that in respect of the charge the landlord intends to recover from the guarantor such amount as is specified in the notice and (where payable) interest calculated on such basis as is so specified.").

The noble and learned Lord said: It is a necessary part of the rule for which Clause 13 makes provision that its protection should be extended not only to former tenants, but also to their guarantors, and I understand that this was also accepted as part of the agreement reached between the property industry organisations to which the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Courtown give effect. The guarantor of a former tenant is just as exposed and likely to suffer from a sudden and unexpected demand for payment covering a very long period of arrears as the former tenant, and it would also be unfair if guarantors were to be open to being sued for payments which the landlord could not recover from the tenant, not because the tenant could not meet the payment but because the landlord simply found it easier to sue the guarantor because no notice was required.
Amendment No. 47 deals with this by inserting a new subsection (2A) into Clause 13, which makes the same provision for guarantors as subsection (2) makes for former tenants. There are three further amendments which are consequential or build on this change. Amendments Nos. 49 and 51 simply ensure that references in subsection (3) to subsection (2) are amended so that they refer also to the new subsection (2A).
Amendment No. 48 expressly applies to guarantors as well as former tenants. It makes provision for the possibility that the landlord may in good faith have served on a former tenant under Clause 13 a notice specifying a particular sum, but that, for example, a rent review which was outstanding at the time he served the notice determines the rent to be higher on a backdated basis but this does not occur until more than six months after the rent payment became due.
It would not be fair for a landlord in such a position, who had not made a mistake through carelessness in specifying the sum, to be unable to recover the difference between the sum in the notice and the higher sum which the determination entitled him to. Therefore, this amendment introduces a new subsection, which enables the landlord to preserve his right to recover the difference by serving a supplementary notice within three months of the final determination. It would equally not be fair on the tenant, who might have made provision on the basis of the lower sum, to be suddenly and unexpectedly presented with a revised notice for the difference; and so the new subsection also provides that the landlord will only be able to recover the difference in the circumstances which I have outlined if he gives warning in the original notice that the liability is subject to the possibility of upward determination. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 48 to 52:
Page 7, line 27, at end insert:
("(2B) Where the landlord has duly served a notice under subsection (2) or (2A), the amount (exclusive of interest) which the former tenant or (as the case may be) the guarantor is liable to pay in respect of the fixed charge in question shall not exceed the amount specified in the notice unless—
380

(a) his liability in respect of the charge is subsequently determined to be for a greater amount,

(b) the notice informed him of the possibility that that liability would be so determined, and

(c) within the period of three months beginning with the date of the determination, the landlord serves on him a further notice informing him that the landlord intends to recover that greater amount from him (plus interest, where payable).").

Page 7, line 28, after ("(2)") insert ("or (2A)").
Page 7, line 28, leave out ("rent or service") and insert ("fixed").
Page 7, line 30, leave out ("that subsection does not apply") and insert ("neither of those subsections applies").
Page 7, line 31, leave out ("rent or service").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 with Amendment No. 47. I spoke to Amendment No. 50 with Amendment No. 39 and to Amendment No. 51 with Amendment No. 47. I spoke to Amendment No. 52 with Amendment No. 39. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 7, leave out lines 35 and 36.
The noble and learned Lord said: Because of other changes to the Bill which include references to authorised guarantee agreements and new tenancies, it will be necessary for "authorised guarantee agreement" and "new tenancy" which are presently only defined for the purposes of Clause 13, to be defined for the whole Bill. Amendments Nos. 53 and 56 make the necessary provision together with Amendments Nos. 76 and 80. Amendment No. 53 removes the definition of "authorised guarantee agreement" in subsection (4) and Amendment No. 76 reproduces it as a general definition for the whole Bill in Clause 19. Amendments Nos. 56 and 80 do the same for the definition of "new tenancy". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment Nos. 54 to 57:
Page 7, line 36, at end insert:
(""fixed charge", in relation to tenancy, means—

(a) rent,

(b) any service charge as defined by section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the words "of a dwelling" being disregarded for this purpose), and

(c) any amount payable under a tenant covenant of the tenancy providing for the payment of a liquidated sum in the event of a failure to comply with any such covenant;").

Page 7, line 37, leave out ("service") and insert ("fixed").
Page 7, leave out lines 39 and 40.
Page 7, leave out lines 41 to 44.
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 with Amendment No. 39; to Amendment No. 56 with Amendment No. 53; and to Amendment No. 57 with Amendment No. 39. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown moved Amendment No. 58:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
Restriction of liability of former tenant where tenancy subsequently varied
(".—(1) This section applies where a person ("the former tenant") is as a result of an assignment no longer a tenant under a tenancy but—

(a) (in the case of a new tenancy) he has under an authorised guarantee agreement guaranteed the performance by his assignee of any tenant covenant of the tenancy; or

(b) (in the case of any tenancy) he remains bound by such a covenant.

(2) The former tenant shall not be liable under the agreement or (as the case may be) the covenant to pay any amount in respect of the covenant to the extent that the amount is referable to any relevant variation of the tenant covenants of the tenancy effected after the assignment.
(3) Where a person ("the guarantor") has agreed to guarantee the performance by the former tenant of a tenant covenant of the tenancy, the guarantor (where his liability to do so is not wholly discharged by any such variation of the tenant covenants of the tenancy) shall not be liable under the agreement to pay any amount in respect of the covenant to the extent that the amount is referable to any such variation.
(4) For the purposes of this section a variation of the tenant covenants of a tenancy is a "relevant variation" if either—

(a) the landlord has, at the time of the variation, an absolute right to refuse to allow it; or

(b) the landlord would have had such a right if the variation had been sought by the former tenant immediately before the assignment by him but, between the time of that assignment and the time of the variation, the tenant covenants of the tenancy have been so varied as to deprive the landlord of such a right.

(5) In determining whether the landlord has or would have had such a right at any particular time regard shall be had to all the circumstances (including the effect of any provision made by or under any enactment).
(6) Nothing in this section applies to any variation of the tenant covenants of a tenancy effected before the date on which this Act comes into force.
(7) In this section "variation" means a variation whether effected by deed or otherwise.").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown moved Amendment No. 59:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
("Overriding leases
Right of former tenant or guarantor to overriding lease
.—(1) Where in respect of any tenancy ("the relevant tenancy") any person ("the claimant") makes full payment of an amount which he has been duly required to pay in accordance with section 13, together with any interest payable, he shall be entitled (subject to and in accordance with this section) to have the landlord under that tenancy grant him an overriding lease of the premises demised by the tenancy.
(2) For the purposes of this section "overriding lease" means a tenancy of the reversion expectant on the relevant tenancy which—

(a) is granted for a term equal to the remainder of the term of the relevant tenancy plus three days or the longest period (less than three days) that will not wholly displace the landlord's reversionary interest expectant on the relevant tenancy, as the case may require; and

(b) (subject to subsections (3) and (4) and to any modifications agreed to by the claimant and the landlord) otherwise contains the same covenants as the relevant tenancy, as they have effect immediately before the grant of the lease.

(3) An overriding lease shall not be required to reproduce any covenant of the relevant tenancy to the extent that the covenant is (in whatever terms) expressed to be a personal covenant between the landlord and the tenant under that tenancy.
(4) If any right, liability or other matter arising under a covenant of the relevant tenancy falls to be determined or otherwise operates (whether expressly or otherwise) by reference to the commencement of that tenancy—

(a) the corresponding covenant of the overriding lease shall be so framed that that right, liability or matter falls to be determined or otherwise operates by reference to the commencement of that tenancy; but

(b) the overriding lease shall not be required to reproduce any covenant of that tenancy to the extent that it has become spent by the time that that lease is granted.

(5) A claim to exercise the right to an overriding lease under this section is made by the claimant making a request for such a lease to the landlord; and any such request—

(a) must be made to the landlord in writing and specify the payment by virtue of which the claimant claims to be entitled to the lease ("the qualifying payment"); and

(b) must be so made at the time of making the qualifying payment or within the period of 12 months beginning with the date of that payment; and

(c) may be sent by post.

(6) Where the claimant duly makes such a request—

(a) the landlord shall (subject to subsection (7)) grant and deliver to the claimant an overriding lease of the demised premises within a reasonable time of the request being received by the landlord; and

(b) the claimant—

(i) shall thereupon deliver to the landlord a counterpart of the lease duly executed by the claimant, and

(ii) shall be liable for the landlord's reasonable costs of and incidental to the grant of the lease.

(7) The landlord shall not be under any obligation to grant an overriding lease of the demised premises under this section at a time when the relevant tenancy has been determined; and a claimant shall not be entitled to the grant of such a lease if at the time when he makes his request—

(a) the landlord has already granted such a lease and that lease remains in force; or

(b) another person has already duly made a request for such a lease to the landlord.

(8) Where two or more requests are duly made on the same day, then for the purposes of subsection (7) —

(a) a request made by a person who was liable for the qualifying payment as a former tenant shall be treated as made before a request made by a person who was so liable as a guarantor; and

(b) a request made by a person whose liability in respect of the covenant in question commenced earlier than any such liability of another person shall be treated as made before a request made by that other person.

(9) The preceding provisions of this section shall apply where the landlord is the tenant under an overriding lease granted under this section as they apply where no such lease has been granted; and accordingly there may be two or more such leases interposed between the first such lease and the relevant tenancy.").?
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown moved Amendment No. 60:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
Overriding leases: supplementary provisions
(".—(1) For the purposes of section 1 an overriding lease shall be a new tenancy only if the relevant tenancy is a new tenancy.
(2) Every overriding lease shall state—

(a) that it is a lease granted under section (Right of former tenant or guarantor to overriding lease), and

383

(b) whether it is or is not a new tenancy for the purposes of section 1;

and any such statement shall comply with such requirements as may be prescribed by rules made in pursuance of section 144 of the Land Registration Act 1925 (power to make general rules).
(3) A claim that the landlord has failed to comply with subsection (6) (a) of section (Right of former tenant or guarantor to overriding lease) may be made the subject of civil proceedings in like manner as any other claim in tort for breach of statutory duty; and if the claimant under that section fails to comply with subsection (6) (b) (i) of that section he shall not be entitled to exercise any of the rights otherwise exercisable by him under the overriding lease.
(4) An overriding lease—

(a) shall be deemed to be authorised as against the persons interested in any mortgage of the landlord's interest (however created or arising); and

(b) shall be binding on any such persons;

and if any such person is by virtue of such a mortgage entitled to possession of the documents of title relating to the landlord's interest—

(i) the landlord shall within one month of the execution of the lease deliver to that person the counterpart executed in pursuance of section (Right of former tenant or guarantor to overriding lease) (6) (b) (i); and

(ii) if he fails to do so, the instrument creating or evidencing the mortgage shall apply as if the obligation to deliver a counterpart were included in the terms of the mortgage as set out in that instrument.

(5) It is hereby declared—

(a) that the fact that an overriding lease takes effect subject to the relevant tenancy shall not constitute a breach of any covenant of the lease against subletting or parting with possession of the premises demised by the lease or any part of them; and

(b) that each of sections 12, 13 and (Restriction of liability of former tenant where tenancy subsequently varied) applies where the tenancy referred to in subsection (1) of that section is an overriding lease as it applies in other cases falling within that subsection.

(6) No tenancy shall be registrable under the Land Charges Act 1972 or be taken to be an estate contract within the meaning of that Act by reason of any right or obligation that may arise under section (Right of former tenant or guarantor to overriding lease), and any right arising from a request made under that section shall not be an overriding interest within the meaning of the Land Registration Act 1925; but any such request shall be registrable under the Land Charges Act 1972, or may be the subject of a notice or caution under the Land Registration Act 1925, as if it were an estate contract.
(7) In this section—

(a) "mortgage" includes "charge"; and

(b) any expression which is also used in section (Right of former tenant or guarantor to overriding lease) has the same meaning as in that section.").

The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown moved Amendment No. 61:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Landlord's consent to assignments
Imposition of conditions regulating giving of landlord's consent to assignments
. After subsection (1) of section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 (provisions as to covenants not to assign etc. without licence or consent) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) Where the landlord and the tenant under a qualifying lease have entered into an agreement specifying for the purposes of this subsection—
384

(a) any circumstances in which the landlord may withhold his licence or consent to an assignment of the demised premises or any part of them, or

(b) any conditions subject to which any such licence or consent may be granted,

then the landlord—

(i) shall not be regarded as unreasonably withholding his licence or consent to any such assignment if he withholds it on the ground (and it is the case) that any such circumstances exist, and

(ii) if he gives any such licence or consent subject to any such conditions, shall not be regarded as giving it subject to unreasonable conditions;

and section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 (qualified duty to consent to assignment etc.) shall have effect subject to the provisions of this subsection.
(1B) Subsection (IA) of this section applies to such an agreement as is mentioned in that subsection—

(a) whether it is contained in the lease or not, and

(b) whether it is made at the time when the lease is granted or at any other time falling before the application for the landlord's licence or consent is made.

(1C) Subsection (1A) shall not, however, apply to any such agreement to the extent that any circumstances or conditions specified in it are framed by reference to any matter falling to be determined by the landlord or by any other person for the purposes of the agreement, unless under the terms of the agreement

(a) that person's power to determine that matter is required to be exercised reasonably, or

(b) the tenant is given an unrestricted right to have any such determination reviewed by a person independent of both landlord and tenant whose identity is ascertainable by reference to the agreement,

and in the latter case the agreement provides for the determination made by any such independent person on the review to be conclusive as to the matter in question.
(1D) In its application to a qualifying lease, subsection (1) (b) of this section shall not have effect in relation to any assignment of the lease.
(1E) In subsections (1A) and (1D) of this section—

(a) "qualifying lease" means any lease which is a new tenancy for the purposes of section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 other than a residential lease, namely a lease by which a building or part of a building is let wholly or mainly as a single private residence; and

(b) references to assignment include parting with possession on assignment.'"').

The noble Earl said: This amendment is the most important one which it falls to me to move. It represents the backbone of the compromise which has enabled this Bill to be supported on all sides. As I said at Second Reading, it is the essence of compromise that the results will not please everybody, but I believe that this compromise is proper and realistic and will ensure that the principal aim of privity reform is secured early in order to benefit those in need of relief while ensuring that landlords and investors know that they have the security they need.
The considerable challenge has been to do as much as necessary to give to landlords the security required to underpin investment and development while aiming not to stray any further from the spirit of Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 than is needed to secure that objective.
This amendment introduces a new clause which amends Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 to increase the possibility of the landlord's control over assignment compared to qualified covenants against

385
assignment under the existing law, but short of allowing sole discretion to the landlord for which absolute covenants against assignment will still be possible for those landlords who require complete control and who are prepared to take the consequences in terms of lower rental values on rent review.
The changes are intended directly to balance the removal of privity of contract liability and they are to apply to new tenancies only. They are also specifically excluded from applying to residential tenancies and will also not apply to agricultural tenancies, which have always come under a different regime for assignment. 'They will also affect assignment only, leaving the law relating to covenants against underletting, for example, untouched.
Section 19(1) of the 1927 Act provides for any covenant against assignment, underletting or charging without the landlord's consent, to be deemed, notwithstanding any provisions in the lease to the contrary, to be a covenant which requires the landlord not to withhold his consent unreasonably. That lay at the heart of the opposition to the earlier Bill in another place, for reasons which I shall now summarise.
Many applications of leases in the commercial field, and much investment in tenanted property and funding of new development, presently depend on the security which privity of contract provides, because a strong original tenant covenant will ensure performance of the lease covenants and a return for the whole term of the lease no matter how many times it may change hands. In the absence of privity of contract, landlords and investors will seek to ensure that covenant strength is similarly maintained throughout new leases notwithstanding assignment. The natural way to do that is to ensure that assignment is only permitted where the assignee is of sufficient status to give the same level of assurance of performance of covenant and return as the original tenant.
The historic approach of the courts in deciding when a refusal of consent is unreasonable means that there is no confidence at all that such control over assignment would be possible for new leases, even given that the courts might be expected to adjust their approach to take account of the fact that landlords' investments in new leases will no longer be backed by the privity of contract of the original tenant. Authorised guarantee agreements are a help, but do not address the problem sufficiently because, on the next assignment, the original tenant will drop out of the picture and the covenant strength underpinning the investment may become seriously diluted.
Without change to Section 19 of the 1927 Act, therefore, in the attempt to preserve covenant strength, landlords will seek, where they are able, to impose absolute covenants against assignment and thereby keep complete control over assignment. Where they cannot do that, investment will be harder to attract and the property market will therefore suffer a blow to confidence of the sort which was in the Government's contemplation when they concluded that the Law Commission's recommend-dations could not be implemented for existing leases.
The solution finally agreed and accepted was that it should be possible for the parties to a lease containing a qualified or fully qualified covenant against assignment to agree between them the criteria which should govern
386
the question of whether or not the landlord would consent to any assignment, and that those criteria should not be susceptible of being overturned by a court on the ground that they, or the landlord's refusal based on the tenant's failure to fulfil them, were unreasonable.
Much effort has been expended to ensure that the change does only what is necessary to enable the parties to preset the criteria for assignment without fear of their being void for unreasonableness while otherwise retaining the effect of Section 19(1) of the 1988 Act as far as possible. It is not intended that the parties should simply be able to oust Section 19(1) altogether so as to place the decision whether or not to consent to assignment in the landlord's undefined discretion which is to all intents and purposes a disguised absolute covenant against assignment, but one which might be easier to impose than a naked absolute covenant.
The amendment works by inserting five new subsections after subsection (1) of Section 19 of the 1927 Act. New Subsection (1A) is the main operative provision. It specifically empowers the landlord and tenant to enter into an agreement to cover assignment. In such an agreement, the landlord and tenant are to be able to specify the terms or conditions on which the landlord will grant or withhold consent. Where they do so, the landlord is not to be taken to be refusing consent unreasonably if he does so on the 'ground that the conditions have not been met—which he will have to show to be the case if the matter is disputed, as he has to show at present that he is not withholding consent unreasonably. Furthermore, if he gives consent subject to any such pre-agreed condition, he is not to be taken as giving consent subject to an unreasonable condition.
To the extent that the conditions are not exhaustive, however, Section 19 and the provisions under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 which build on it will continue to have effect as they do at present. Thus, if the tenant meets all the specified conditions but the landlord is still minded to withhold consent, he will have to show that his final refusal notwithstanding the fulfilment of all the pre-agreed conditions is not unreasonable. He will also have to fulfil the duty under the 1988 Act, for example, to consent or to give reasons for withholding consent within a reasonable time. This will enable the landlord to set out the specific requirements in respect of matters such as the assignee's business and financial status which will ensure that the assignee is a sufficiently secure prospect for the landlord's investment to be safeguarded.
The new subsection (1B) provides that the agreement may be in the lease or in any other instrument and could be at the time of the lease or at any other time. It will most often be the case that the agreement is part and parcel of the lease but there will be cases where it is appropriate for such an agreement to be entered into at another time to reflect changing conditions, provided that it is before the tenant actually applies to the landlord for consent to assign.
The new subsection (1C) is aimed at those cases in which the landlord will wish to reserve some final discretion or judgment as to the suitability of the assignee notwithstanding that a series of specific conditions are fulfilled. Simply to allow the landlord to agree with the

387
tenant a condition reserving the final determination to the landlord, or indeed to another person who might be the landlord's associate, would produce the effect of an absolute covenant against assignment in a disguised form.
The new subsection (1C) permits conditions which inherently or expressly depend on the landlord's or any other person's determination, and therefore his discretion, judgment or opinion, rather than being objectively proved. It does so, however, only if the terms of the agreement require the power to determine the matter to be exercised reasonably or provide for the determination to be referred to an independent person if the tenant is not satisfied with the initial determination by the landlord or other person. This will, for example, allow for matters which of their nature require an opinion or judgment to be formed to be capable of conclusive resolution by an independent expert, thus balancing the need in some cases for an element of judgment or discretion against the need for certainty.
The new subsection (1D) concerns the assignment of new building leases. The present position under Section 19(1) (b) of the 1927 Act is that any covenant against the assignment of a building lease without the landlord's consent cannot stop the tenant from assigning without consent more than seven years before the end of the term. With the removal of privity of contract liability for new leases, this complete lack of control over assignment cannot be justified for building leases, and so the new subsection ensures that, as regards assignment, new building leases are to be no different from new commercial leases generally.
The new subsection (1E) makes it clear that the changes do not apply to residential leases. It also covers the fact that a covenant against parting with possession may be broken in a number of ways, of which assignment is one; and it ensures that, in the case of such a covenant, assignment, but not the other ways of parting with possession, is covered by the new provisions.
I am conscious that I have spoken at great length, but I believe this to be justified by the importance of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am concerned about the width and significance of this amendment, which has been put down so recently. I understand that it first appeared on the list only on Monday, two days ago. It has been put down so recently that we have really had no adequate time to consider it thoroughly in the context of what I might call "the balance of power" between landlord and tenant. That said, it is right that I should acknowledge the courtesy of the noble Earl in seeking to explain this amendment to me shortly before we began our discussions in Committee this evening.
The amendment is part of the trade package, the BRC-BPF package, and, as I understand the noble Earl, it is regarded as the backbone of the package. Essentially, it would seem to be regarded by the landlord/investor interest as a means of enabling landlords to secure much greater control over assignments once they have lost the benefit of privity of contract liability.
My concern is that under the Bill, it being generally accepted that privity of contract liability is not defensible, we may be seeing, in the shape of the amendment, an
388
attempt to put into law, with insufficient notice I would suggest, an amendment to Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, the effect of which is that, in relation to assignments, the balance of power between landlord and tenant is being altered sharply in favour of landlords to an extent which was not specifically anticipated, and which may, on mature consideration, be shown to go further than is necessary.
The basic effect of Section 19 was that, no matter what was said in a lease, where it provided that the lease could not be assigned without the landlord's consent, that was subject, in effect, to a proviso: "consent not to be unreasonably withheld". The intended effect of the amendment is, I think, ashamedly, to allow landlords a greater ability to control assignments short of imposing an absolute ban on assignment, that being regarded as so blunt an instrument as not to be desired.
The effect is that the jurisdiction of the court to hold that a consent to assignment has been unreasonably withheld is gone as a result of the amendment in a case where the landlord shows that the pre-agreed grounds for withholding consent have been made out. Then, where the grounds for withholding consent are of a discretionary nature—I would interpose that I would think that the drafting of subsection (1C) calls for further consideration—if the provision requires the landlord to make a reasonable decision, the landlord wins if he can satisfy the court that a reasonable landlord could have decided as he did.
This, as I say, is a provision which requires careful thought, but certainly at first blush it seems to me that it may alter the balance of power in favour of landlords by contrast to a decision by a court as to whether in the view of the court consent has been unreasonably withheld.
I have little doubt that that part of the package is designed by the landlord interest to improve its position from what is seen by that interest as the too pro-tenant direction of the decisions of the courts concerning consent not to be unreasonably withheld.
I would urge the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment and to leave it over to Report. That would allow those of us who are concerned that his amendment goes further than is necessary to make the package viable in the landlord interest to consider more fully our approach to it. I should make it plain that I had hoped—indeed, I still hope—that the Bill can go through as non-controversial. If the noble Earl were to agree to withdraw the amendment and to come back on Report, that would assist in the endeavour of securing the Bill to enter upon the statute book on a non-controversial basis.
Having said that, I appreciate that the changes embraced in the amendment are to apply to new tenancies only. I appreciate that the relevant terms will be terms which have actually been agreed by the relevant parties. I appreciate also that the amendment cannot apply either to residential or agricultural tenancies. I put that on the record, as it were.
Nevertheless, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment and move it at Report stage, essentially on the basis that it merits careful thought. As he says, it is complex and is also the backbone of the package. We have not had sufficient time to address in a considered and

389
critical way that which he informs the Committee is the essential core of the package agreed which is sought to be translated onto the statute book.
Lord Meston: I share the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and I join with him in the invitation that he has just extended to the noble Earl.
This is an important and substantial amendment which was tabled only very recently and which has been debated in this Committee at a very late hour. I have reservations about the drafting. I should like to think it through in more detail and discuss with others more knowledgeable than myself how it might work in practice and its wider implications, some of which were touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine.
It may well be that the noble Earl is quite right when he says that this is a realistic proposition but it may be also that there is room for further improvement and adjustment. I hope that the noble Earl will not see the invitation to withdraw the amendment at this stage as in any way hostile. It is merely a plea that those of us who wish to see the Bill pass through in a satisfactory time should have proper time to give the matter thorough thought.
The Lord Chancellor: My understanding of this clause is that it represents the agreement between the property interests and the tenant interests which are represented by the major operators in the field. When we knew of it, we put it out to consultation because I did not wish to support this Private Member's Bill unless there was general agreement, because it is one matter for the large operators in an industry to agree something but quite different in relation to the small operators. However, on consultation, we have secured the views of the industry in general and those views were supportive of that compromise.
I am sure that my noble friend would not wish to press this forward as something agreed at this juncture. But I venture to suggest to the Committee that for the purposes of considering whether this clause is right in the light of the agreement that has been made, perhaps the noble Lords, Lord Irvine of Lairg and Lord Meston, would take into account the fact that if the clause goes into the Bill this evening as an amendment, the whole Bill will be available for consultation—not only this amendment but the whole proposal. I venture to think that it may be easier to consult people if the whole proposal is in one document rather than trying to fit the amendment, as it were, into some other document. I suggest to the Committee that it may be easier to consult upon the matter if the amendment is agreed within the Bill this evening.
I have made it clear all along—and I am sure that my noble friend supports this—that the Bill can go forward to the statute book ultimately only by agreement. If the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, or any other noble Lord wishes to challenge this clause or suggest amendments to it, that will have to be considered very carefully.
If it is convenient to noble Lords opposite, I think it would be better for the whole clause to be included in the Bill so that one can read the whole thing together. It may be much easier to consult other people than if one has to do it by reference to two documents, because it is intended
390
to hang together as drafted. I fully appreciate that the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Irvine of Lairg, feel that they require more time further to consider the matter. However, that time will certainly be available between now and Report stage, which will be some time off. The minimum period will certainly be available, and my understanding is that more than the minimum period will elapse.
In the light of those considerations, I wonder whether both noble Lords will feel able to accept that the provision should go into the Bill tonight on the understanding that it is fully open for reconsideration. As I said at the outset, anyone who wishes to raise any questions with me would certainly find an open door. I am equally sure that my noble friend would be most willing to co-operate in any such arrangements. I know that small tenants—if I may call them so—are also very interested in the Bill proceeding because there is substantial protection for them in it, even in regard to existing leases. My observations are intended to try to facilitate a solution to the problem, which might make it easier for the consultations that may be required to take place.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I, too, support the amendment simply because I believe that it is part of the deal—if I can so describe it—between the British Property Federation and the Retail Consortium. However, I hope that someone will look at it again. I am slightly concerned about subsection (1C) (b) where it is proposed that the tenant should have an "unrestricted right" to have an independent person reviewing the determination.
I am not completely happy in regard to small tenants. I know that paragraph (b) says that,
"identity is ascertainable by reference to the agreement".
However, as I understand it, that means that in the original agreement the tenant would be agreeing to a particular person being appointed. I believe that a small tenant signing a lease might not realise what power was being put into the hands of that person. I should like to feel quite confident that it would be a completely independent person. However, I hope that noble Lords will accept the suggestion made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that we accept the provision tonight and reconsider it on Report.
The Earl of Northesk: I echo the words of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. It is an extremely important matter. Bearing in mind the fact that the provision has cross-party agreement so far as concerns the industry, both tenants and landlords are essentially in agreement with the amendment as drafted.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: It is a matter for the noble Earl to follow his own course. However, despite the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I am disinclined to agree to something in respect of which such short notice was given—indeed, something of such width and significance—and which, by reason of that short notice, has neither enjoyed the mature consideration that it requires nor had the full debate in Committee that it merits. For all those reasons, I believe that it would be a

391
bad precedent just to let a provision go into a Bill on that basis. Therefore, to the extent that my agreement is relevant, I do not agree to that course being followed.
It appears to me that consultation can perfectly well take place on the basis of the Bill not subject to the amendment and on the Bill plus the amendment. I do not think that there is any particular difficulty in consulting on two pieces of paper rather than on one. It would certainly assist me in considering what has come from the noble and learned Lord if we could have a specific indication, to the extent that he is able to give it, of when the Report stage is likely to take place, because that of course relates to the adequacy of the period for consultation.
The Earl of Courtown: I wish to thank all those who have taken part in this short exchange. The noble Lord pointed out that an important concession has been made in the agreement to change the long-standing and venerated Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927. However, this is not a concession made simply to appease the landlord lobby as a price to extract its support for those parts of the package that are of great importance to the tenant. Rather, tenants are acutely conscious that landlords have the right under Section 19 absolutely to withhold consent to assignments. If landlords were left without a satisfactory ability to approve the assignee, they would, it has been said, in many cases just stop the tenant assigning. This would not get anybody anywhere. Neither am I impressed by the argument that this could be an abuse by landlords to which Parliament would turn its attention by changing the law. It has taken since 1988 to get to this stage this evening and I do not think that Parliament would wish to return to this issue if the Bill is passed. I am in somewhat of a quandary, I must admit, over this matter and I take the lead of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
The Lord Chancellor: If my noble friend is taking my lead, just before he finally decides what that lead should be, I should say that my understanding is the following. The Committee will know that, this being a Private Member's Bill, if it is to reach the statute book in this Session it has to return to the House of Commons by 14th July. I think that is the date. My understanding is that the Report stage of this Bill is likely to be on 5th or 6th July. As the Committee will know, the amount of business that occupies this Chamber as we get nearer the end of July gets heavier and heavier. Therefore, this is rather a narrow matter. I am anxious not to prejudice the chance of this Bill reaching the statute book. That is why I felt, apart from anything else, that the solution I was putting forward might help us in that direction. On the other hand, I am most unwilling to seek to force anything on those who have been so accommodating to try to reach a conclusion about this.
I had rather hoped that what I had proposed might meet with agreement because the Bill will reach the statute book only by agreement. There is no question about that. I thought that what I had proposed might simplify our procedures. For my part, unless the noble Lords, Lord Irvine of Lairg and Lord Meston, were prepared to agree to the course I am suggesting, I would not indicate to my noble friend that he should press too hard this evening.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I should perhaps make it plain that in the observations I was making I was not necessarily expressing hostility to the amendment, and I was certainly not expressing hostility to the Bill being translated promptly on to the statute book. I was merely suggesting to the noble Earl, whose courtesy prior to this Committee sitting I acknowledge, that the better course, and one which would give more encouragement in all quarters, would be to withdraw the amendment tonight and to move it on Report.
The Earl of Courtown: In that case I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 62:
Before Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
Effects of becoming subject to liability under, or entitled to benefit of covenant etc
(".—(1) Where as a result of an assignment a person becomes, by virtue of this Act, bound by or entitled to the benefit of a covenant, he shall not by virtue of this Act have any liability or rights under the covenant in relation to any time falling before the assignment.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any such rights being expressly assigned to the person in question.
(3) Where as a result of an assignment a person becomes, by virtue of this Act, entitled to a right of re-entry contained in a tenancy, that right shall be exercisable in relation to any breach of a covenant of the tenancy occurring before the assignment as in relation to one occurring thereafter, unless by reason of any waiver or release it was not so exercisable immediately before the assignment.").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment introduces a new clause to provide for another element of the framework for the transmission of covenants on assignment, giving full effect to the Law Commission's recommendations for new tenancies which I outlined when speaking to Amendment No. 1.
Subsection (1) of the new clause makes it clear that an assignee shall have no rights or liabilities under a covenant of the tenancy in relation to anything occurring before the assignment. That is subject to a saving in subsection (2) for cases where the assignor expressly assigns his accrued rights to the assignee to allow for the accrued rights of the assignor to be taken into account as part of the agreement between assignor and assignee as the parties see fit. Subsection (3) preserves the present position in respect of the landlord's right of re-entry, which do not fit in the Law Commission's scheme as landlord and tenant covenants and accordingly require separate provisions, as I mentioned earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Effects of release from liability under, or loss of benefit of covenant]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 8, line 35, at end insert:
("() Where a person bound by a landlord or tenant covenant of a tenancy—

(a) assigns the whole or part of his interest in the premises demised by the tenancy, but

(b) is not released by virtue of this Act from the covenant (with the result that subsection (I) does not apply),

the assignment does not affect any liability of his arising from a breach of the covenant occurring before the assignment.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 63 with Amendment No. 29. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Agreement void if it restricts operation of the Act]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 8, line 41, leave out ("or modify") and insert (", modify or otherwise frustrate").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 16 is an important clause since it contains anti-avoidance provisions. The principal provision is in subsection (1) and is, as recommended by the Law Commission, in general terms to catch any device aimed at subverting the Act.
Amendments Nos. 64 to 68 refine the anti-avoidance provisions so as to ensure that they are all-embracing but also to prevent arguments to the effect that they outlaw certain other matters which the Act elsewhere envisages being permitted. They are closely linked, and I believe that it would be helpful if I speak to them together.
Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 amend the wording of subsection (1) to ensure that it is sufficiently all-embracing to catch the various devices which might be attempted as ways of circumventing the Act. It has been suggested in some quarters that subsection (1) might affect the operation of covenants which are expressed to be of limited duration on the basis that such limitation would "modify" the operation of the provisions providing for an assignor to be released on assignment. I am strongly advised that this is not the case, since time-limited covenants, once the period has expired, will not be covenants which bind the assignor immediately before assignment, and thus the limited duration cannot be said in any way to fall foul of Clause 16.
Amendment No. 66 deletes the existing subsection (2) of Clause 16, which makes a cross-reference to the provisions for authorised guarantee agreements. The deletion is necessary to make way for revised and refined provision to that effect made by Amendment No. 68, which provides for a new subsection to be inserted after subsection (3). The new subsection makes it clear that the anti-avoidance provision does not outlaw any agreement to the extent that it is an authorised guarantee agreement; but that anything in such an agreement which falls foul of the amended subsection (4) of Clause 12 is void to the extent that it does so.
Amendment No. 67 deletes the existing subsection (3) of Clause 16 and replaces it with a revised and refined version. The existing subsection reflects concern that it might be argued that absolute or qualified covenants against assignment amounted to provisions which would "modify", and so on, the operation of the provisions of the Act covering release on assignment and that they would therefore be held to be void. The new subsection makes it clear that such a covenant against assignment is not void by reason of the anti-avoidance provision, but also makes it clear, which the existing provision perhaps does not do so well, that any conditions which might be attached to consent or required to be fulfilled before consent is given
394
would not escape the anti-avoidance provisions if they were such as to subvert the operation of the Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 65 to 68:
Page 9, line 5, after ("so") insert ("(whether expressly or otherwise)").
Page 9, line 7, leave out subsection (2).
Page 9, line 10, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) To the extent that an agreement relating to a tenancy constitutes a covenant (whether absolute or qualified) against the assignment, or parting with the possession, of the premises demised by the tenancy or any part of them—

(a) the agreement is not void by virtue of subsection (1) by reason only of the fact that as such the covenant prohibits or restricts any such assignment or parting with possession; but

(b) paragraph (a) above does not otherwise affect the operation of that subsection in relation to the agreement (and in particular does not preclude its application to the agreement to the extent that it purports to regulate the giving of, or the making of any application for, consent to any such assignment or parting with possession).").

Page 9, line 13, at end insert:
("() In accordance with section 12(1) nothing in this section applies to any agreement to the extent that it is an authorised guarantee agreement; but (without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above) an agreement is void to the extent that it is one falling within section 12(4) (a) or (b).")./
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Notices for the purposes of the Act]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No 69:
Page 9, line 35, at end insert ("and the options available to the person on whom it is served").
The noble and and learned Lord said: Clause 18 of the Bill makes provision for notices which are required for Clauses 6, 9 and 13. It provides for the form of the notices to be prescribed by regulations made by statutory instrument, specifies certain matters which the form of notices thus prescribed must contain and provides that the sanction for serving a notice which is not substantially in the form prescribed (so that minor departures will not be fatal) is that the notice shall be ineffective for its purpose. Service of notices is to be in accordance with the very well settled provisions of Section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927. Amendments Nos. 69 to 73 are consequential on earlier changes made to Clauses 6, 9 and 13, and with the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may now speak to those amendments.
Amendment No. 69 is consequential on the changes to Clauses 6 and 9 which allow the recipient of the notice more options than was previously the case. The amendment requires the form of notice under those clauses to set out for the recipient's benefit what his options are. The recipient will therefore know that he need not simply stay quiet but can agree to save everyone's time and that he is not committed if he registers an objection but may withdraw the objection to save time and costs if he changes his mind.
Amendment No. 70 requires a notice under Clause 13 to include an explanation of its significance to the former tenant or guarantor on the same basis as for notices under

395
Clauses 6 and 9. Indeed, it may be even more important for a person receiving a notice under Clause 13 to know what it signifies than it is for the recipient of a notice under Clauses 6 or 9.
Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 amend subsection (3) of Clause 18 so that the sanction of ineffectiveness applies also to notices under Clause 13 which are not substantially in the prescribed form. Amendment No. 73 removes a limitation in subsection (4) of Clause 18 which has become inappropriate in the light of the amendments to Clause 13. I beg to move Amendment No. 69.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 70 to 73:
Page 9, line 43, at end insert:
("() The regulations shall require any notice served for the purposes of section 13 to include an explanation of the significance of the notice.").
Page 9, line 45, leave out ("or 9(1)") and insert (", 9(1) or 13").
Page 9, line 47, leave out ("or section 9") and insert (", section 9 or section 13").
Page 10, line 2, leave out ("13(2)") and insert ("13").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 70 to 73 inclusive with Amendment No. 69. With the leave of the Committee I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Interpretation]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 10, line 5, at end insert ("(unless the context otherwise requires)").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 19 sets out definitions and provisions for interpretation of the Bill as a whole. A number of these fall to be revised, and some additional ones added, as a consequence of earlier amendments. I have already spoken to some of them, and with the leave of the Committee I believe that it would be appropriate if I were to speak to the remainder as a group.
Amendment No. 74 inserts a general provision qualifying the entire list of definitions so that they do not apply if the context otherwise requires. This enables the definitions themselves to be simpler and clearer.
Amendment No. 77 makes it clear what is meant by "collateral agreement", a term which has an important place in the amendments providing the framework for transmission of covenants to give effect to the Law Commission's recommendations. The definition in particular makes it clear a collateral agreement may be entered into after the creation of the tenancy.
Amendment No. 78 is to be read with Amendment No. 75. It makes it clear that, in accordance with the Law Commission scheme, the term "covenant" is to encompass matters contained in collateral agreements.
Amendment No. 79 introduces a definition for the whole Bill, for the avoidance of doubt, of the terms "landlord" and "tenant" which are used throughout the Bill so often that it might be easy to lose sight of the fact that they have a specific meaning.
Amendment No. 80 restores wording which was originally recommended by the Law Commission: it excludes a mortgage term from the definition of "tenancy" for the purposes of the Bill. The Law Commission's reason for recommending the wording is that it remains possible for there to be a mortgage by demise, and it is inappropriate for there to be any question of the Bill's provisions applying to any such mortgage.
Amendment No. 83 provides a more specific extension of the definition of "landlord" and "tenant" for the purposes of the Bill to put beyond doubt a point which emerged during revision of the Bill and consideration of Clause 10. It introduces a new subsection into Clause 19 which makes it clear that any reference to the landlord or tenant means, where there are joint landlords or tenants, all those who jointly constitute the landlord or tenant, as the case may be. This means that Clause 10, which was intended to cover persons who have failed to secure release and their assignees and the like, and not joint tenants or landlords, will, as intended, have no application as between joint tenants or landlords. I beg to move Amendment No. 74.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 75 to 81:
Page 10, line 6, leave out from (""assignment"") to end of line 8 and insert ("includes equitable assignment and in addition (subject to section (Assignments in breach of covenant or by operation of law)) assignment in breach of a covenant of a tenancy or by operation of law;").
Page 10, line 8, at end insert:
(""authorised guarantee agreement" means an agreement which is an authorised guarantee agreement for the purposes of section 12;").
Page 10, line 8, at end insert:
(""collateral agreement", in relation to a tenancy, means any agreement collateral to the tenancy, whether made before or after its creation;").
Page 10, line 10, at end insert (", and references to a covenant (or any description of covenant) of a tenancy include a covenant (or a covenant of that description) contained in a collateral agreement;").
Page 10, line 10, at end insert:
(""landlord" and "tenant", in relation to a tenancy, mean the person for the time being entitled to the reversion expectant on the term of a tenancy and the person so entitled to that term respectively;").
Page 10, line 13, at end insert:
(""new tenancy" means a tenancy which is a new tenancy for the purposes of section 1;").
Page 10, line 18, at end insert:
("but does not include a mortgage term;").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 75 with Amendment No. 29, to Amendment No. 76 with Amendment No. 53, to Amendments Nos. 77 to 79 with Amendment No. 74, to Amendment No. 80 with Amendment No. 53 and to Amendment No. 81 with Amendment No. 74. With the leave of the Committee, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 75 to 81.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 10, line 39, at end insert:

397
("() Where two or more persons jointly constitute either the landlord or the tenant in relation to a tenancy, any reference in this Act to the landlord or the tenant is a reference to both or all of the persons who jointly constitute the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be (and accordingly nothing in section 10 applies in relation to the rights and liabilities of such persons between themselves).").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 74. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 84 not moved.]
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Repeals and consequential amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 11, line 1, at beginning insert:
("(1ZA) The enactments specified in Schedule (Consequential amendments) are amended in accordance with that Schedule, the amendments being consequential on the provisions of this Act.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 21 of the Bill provides for repeals and consequential amendments, and revision of the Bill has resulted in there being more consequential amendments than before and some rearrangement of those which were already in the clause. Amendment No. 85 paves the way for Amendments Nos. 86, 87 and 89.
Amendment No. 85 provides for there to be a new schedule of consequential amendments, and Amendment No. 86 deletes the consequential amendments presently in subsection (2) of Clause 21, which are moved to that schedule. Amendment No. 87 changes the references in subsection (3) of Clause 21, consequential on Amendments Nos. 85 and 86.
Finally, Amendment No. 89 introduces the new schedule of consequential amendments. I have referred earlier to two matters contained in this schedule, and it may be helpful to remind the Committee of them. The first matter is the consequential amendment of Sections 34 and 35 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to ensure that, when the courts fix the terms of new business tenancies under that Act, they take properly into account the effect of the removal of privity of contract liability and the other effects of this legislation.
The second matter concerns trustees, and addresses a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, at Second Reading. There is an amendment to the Trustee Act 1925 consequential on the provisions concerning authorised guarantee agreements, which extends to trustees and personal representatives in their representative capacity the same protection in respect of the possibility of liability under an authorised guarantee agreement as they have' under the present law in respect of the possibility of privity of contract liability. I believe that the noble Lord may have been speaking on that occasion on behalf of another, but the point is dealt with. beg to move Amendment No. 85.
The Earl of Courtown: I should like to take this opportunity to thank my noble and learned friend and his officials for their help over the past few weeks and this evening. I also wish to thank all those who have taken part in the Committee proceedings. I admit that, having been given due warning by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, that he might have a slight problem with one of my
398
amendments, I saved my voice. Although I did not speak to all the amendments of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I was in total agreement with them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 86 to 88:
Page 11, line 3, leave out subsection (2).
Page 11, line 25, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) Subsections (1ZA) and (1) do not affect the operation of—

(a) section 77 of, or Part IX or X of Schedule 2 to, the Law of Property Act 1925, or

(b) section 24(1) (b) or (2) of the Land Registration Act 1925,

in relation to tenancies which are not new tenancies.").
Page 11, line 27, at end insert:
("() In consequence of this Act nothing in the following provisions, namely—

(a) sections 78 and 79 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (benefit and burden of covenants relating to land), and

(b) sections 141 and 142 of that Act (running of benefit and burden of covenants with reversion),

shall apply in relation to new tenancies.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 with Amendment No. 85 and to Amendment No. 88 with Amendment No. 1. With the leave of the Committee, I should like to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 89:
Before the Schedule, insert the following new schedule:

Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Bill
  SCHEDULE

    Consequential Amendments
    Trustee Act 1925 (c.19)
    1. In section 26 of the Trustee Act 1925 (protection against liability in respect of rents and covenants), after subsection (1) insert—
    "(1A) Where a personal representative or trustee has as such entered into, or may as such be required to enter into, an authorised guarantee agreement with respect to any lease comprised in the estate of a deceased testator or intestate or a trust estate (and, in a case where he has entered into such an agreement, he has satisfied all liabilities under it which may have accrued and been claimed up to the date of distribution)—

    (a) he may distribute the residuary real and personal estate of the deceased testator or intestate, or the trust estate, to or amongst the persons entitled thereto—

    (i) without appropriating any part of the estate of the deceased, or the trust estate, to meet any future liability (or, as the case may be, any liability) under any such agreement, and

    (ii) notwithstanding any potential liability of his to enter into any such agreement; and

    (b) notwithstanding such distribution, he shall not be personally liable in respect of any subsequent claim (or, as the case may be, any claim) under any such agreement.

    In this subsection "authorised guarantee agreement" has the same meaning as in the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995."
    Law of Property Act 1925 (c.20)
    2. In section 77 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (implied covenants in conveyances subject to rents), for subsection (2) substitute—
    "(2) Where in a conveyance for valuable consideration, other than a mortgage, part of land affected by a rentcharge is, without the consent of the owner of the rentcharge, expressed to be conveyed

    399
    subject to or charged with the entire rent, paragraph (B) (i) of subsection (1) of this section shall apply as if, in paragraph (i) of Part VIII of the Second Schedule to this Act—

    (a) any reference to the apportioned rent were to the entire rent; and

    (b) the words "(other than the covenant to pay the entire rent)" were omitted.

    (2A) Where in a conveyance for valuable consideration, other than a mortgage, part of land affected by a rentcharge is, without the consent of the owner of the rentcharge, expressed to be conveyed discharged or exonerated from the entire rent, paragraph (B) (ii) of subsection (1) of this section shall apply as if, in paragraph (ii) of Part VIII of the Second Schedule to this Act—

    (a) any reference to the balance of the rent were to the entire rent; and

    (b) the words ", other than the covenant to pay the entire rent," were omitted."

    Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (c.56)
    3. At the end of section 34 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (rent under new tenancy) insert—
    "(4) It is hereby declared that the matters which are to be taken into account by the court in determining the rent include any effect on rent of the operation of the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995."
    4. —(1) The existing provisions of section 35 of that Act (other terms of new tenancy) shall constitute subsection (1) of that section.
    (2) After those provisions insert—
    "(2) In subsection (1) of this section the reference to all relevant circumstances includes (without prejudice to the generality of that reference) a reference to the operation of the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995"").
    The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 85. I beg to move
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Remaining schedule agreed to.
    House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
Criminal Procedure (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Foreign Affairs Council
  North Atlantic Assembly: UK Delegation
  North Atlantic Assembly: UK Delegation
  Inter-Governmental Conference: Study Group Meeting, 13/14 June
  Inter-Governmental Conference: Study Group Meeting, 13/14 June
  UN World Conference on Women, Beijing: UK Report
  UN World Conference on Women, Beijing: UK Report
  Osteoporosis: Prevention and Treatment
  Osteoporosis: Prevention and Treatment
  Dental Anaesthesia: Report
  Dental Anaesthesia: Report
  Mental Health Act 1983: Compliance with Code of Practice
  Mental Health Act 1983: Compliance with Code of Practice
  Government Powers during Election Period
  Government Powers during Election Period
  Southend Pier
  Southend Pier
  Rotherhithe Tunnel: Listed Building Consent Application by London Underground
  Rotherhithe Tunnel: Listed Building Consent Application by London Underground
  European Commission: Special Areas of Conservation
  European Commission: Special Areas of Conservation
  Defence R&D, Patenting and Technology Transfer
  Defence R&D, Patenting and Technology Transfer
  Ballistic Missile Defence
  Ballistic Missile Defence
  Spy Satellites
  Spy Satellites
  Domestic Violence and Homicide by Women
  Domestic Violence and Homicide by Women
  Domestic Violence: Offences
  Domestic Violence: Offences
  Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Local Taxes
  Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Local Taxes