Sitting of 1 March 1995

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

  Government of London
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
  10.4 am
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: This is an unusual occurrence. We are meeting on a Wednesday morning to debate the government of London. We have to hold such a debate in our national Parliament because there is no government of London that can debate the issues affecting the people of this capital city.
  Over the years we have had many debates on the issue, and there is a growing consensus throughout London about the need for an elected authority for the capital city. Indeed, ours is the only capital in Europe without a single, elected government. The steady stream of history shows that when cities remove their elected tier of government, or any sort of central authority, chaos ensues. The central government commission of 1837, looking into the administration of the capital, concluded that it was necessary to set up a single authority to deal with London's affairs. That authority eventually became the London county council, which in turn became the Greater London council in 1965.
  The GLC had a good record of administration of services, of pioneering work in education, architecture and housing, and of delivering to Londoners real hope for the future. A whole generation of good council housing would not have been possible without the work of the LCC, and later the GLC. Similarly, the body had an imaginative transport policy, and a highly imaginative arts policy—especially in the latter period of the GLC under the able arts section leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
  When, in 1983, the Government published their document on the so-called streamlining of government in the major metropolises and in London, the GLC responded with an interesting document called "The Future of the Greater London Council", published in January 1984. It stated prophetically:
  "There is no doubt whatsoever that in the next 20 years metropolitan areas throughout the world will pose greater and greater problems. For, unlike the United Kingdom, the rapid expansion of metropolitan populations of many other countries increases apace. Every day another 100,000 people join those living in the urban areas of the world. By the turn of the century, it is estimated that over half the world's population will live in metropolitan scale cities. Given this future, what example is this democratic country to set the world in 1984 of how to organise its public affairs to meet the metropolitan needs of its capital city, London?"
  Despite that statement, and the enormous campaign demonstrating the popularity of a central authority for London, the Government, with their large majority of the
  960
  time, hammered through the destruction of the GLC, together with the sale of a large number of its assets. This achieved, not a cut in public spending or a saving on bureaucratic expenditure, but a transfer of power away from democratically elected politicians and accountable officials to wholly unaccountable but equally—if not more—expensive quangos throughout London.
  A large number of organisations surrounding London Pride recently produced a document describing the money that London puts into the national Exchequer, and the money that it gets back in return:
  "Yet for decades London's contribution has been taken for granted. While other European cities have been investing heavily to secure long-term success, so long as central London has seemed crowded with tourists and commuters London has been assumed to be doing all right. Benign neglect is no longer good enough. The time has come for the capital's needs to be recognised and its potential fully realised."
  The document goes on to describe what constitutes a world city. London fits all the criteria to qualify as an important world city; the only thing it lacks is a unifying authority that can deal with the serious problems that it faces.
  I have mentioned how the government of London has been broken up since the GLC finally went out of existence in 1986. There is, for instance, the sad sight across the river of that empty mausoleum County hall, which has been surrounded by scandals—a point to which I shall return.
  All around London we see the problems bequeathed by the lack of a central authority. But more than anything, we must examine what is democratic and what is undemocratic about London. Londoners elect about 1,600 councillors every four years by an elective process. Those councillors are elected to run their local authorities. They take considerable personal financial responsibility for the affairs of those local authorities and risk surcharge and personal debarment from office if they are deemed to have overstepped the mark in any way, whether justifiably or unjustifiably.
  However, Londoners have no say in the non-election of an equally large number of people to a series of quangos and appointed bodies all around London. They have enormous access to expenditure— £6 billion a year—they are accountable to no one, they are not open to the public in the way that local authorities are and hardly any of their members are elected to any other body. The Government are essentially appointing their friends to organisations that they think are appropriate to run the affairs of Londoners.
  In 1995, it simply is not good enough to say that Londoners do not have the right to elect their own local authority to deal with the important strategic issues facing London. The expenditure of more than £6 billion a year is the responsibility of a mixture of health authorities, housing action trusts, city challenges, London Regional Transport and the London Residuary Body, which manages to get through £72 million a year.
  The London Residuary Body sounds like something out of George Orwell. As it was created in 1984, it is highly appropriate that its Orwellian nature should be examined. What is the body for and what has it done? It has an appointed board of directors who are paid. Its job was to oversee the disposal of the assets of the Greater London council and the transfer of its staff.

  961
  One of the London Residuary Body's greatest claims to fame must be its treatment of County hall. That building was built by public subscription. It is a fine building for all to see across the river, as are its ancillary buildings, the north and south wings. I make no such claim for the architectural beauty of the island block, having suffered many meetings there in the past in my days as a trade union organiser within the GLC.
  What is happening to County hall? When visitors from all over the world come to the House, hon. Members take them out on to the Terrace and point to all the wonderful buildings along the Thames—where the Archbishop of Canterbury lives, the United Nations office, the Shell centre and south bank. But Conservative Members seem to forget about the large building opposite and when visitors ask what it is, they say that it is County hall. When they are then asked whether that is the home of London government, they say, "No, it's empty." The only thing that it seems to be used for is the training of police dogs. They charge up and down the corridors looking for phantom thieves, whereas the thieves are elsewhere around the world at the present time.
  We must examine seriously what has happened to County hall. The London Residuary Body told the world that it had sold County hall to a Japanese property speculator known as the Shirayama corporation. I understand that Mr. Shirayama had a wonderful deal with the London Residuary Body in that he did not have to pay any money straight away. He was allowed a considerable delay on payment. I understand that £10 million due under a secret agreement has still not been paid.
  The Government intervened on a number of occasions to ensure that the building went to a group of Japanese property speculators rather than the London School of Economics, such was their obsession to ensure that the building was not seen to be in public hands in any way.
  The National Audit Office is looking into the matter, which I believe to be a serious scandal. I hope that when it has reported, the Government will be prepared to take action and return County hall to the purpose for which it was always intended—a centre for the government of London.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is it not a fact that that building hosted meetings of huge numbers of organisations, which may have been unstatutory, semi-statutory or fully statutory, representing the people of London in dealing with all-London strategic matters? Is it not also a fact that the final decision about the destruction of one of the finest and oldest civic councils in the world was made by a single leader of the Conservative party because policy is vested in the leader of that party?
  Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is right. A vendetta against the GLC was promoted by the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. She sought to destroy the GLC because it represented a central authority and because of its popularity among people who saw life in London improving under the imaginative policies of the GLC.
  The GLC was also a valuable resource for meetings for all kinds of community organisations, groups and others. Under the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for
  962
  Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), the GLC was an incredibly open building. Anyone could go in and hold meetings there. It was a real resource for the people of London. Its destruction is bitterly resented by many people to this day.
  The Action for London group has done marvellous work in demonstrating the appalling waste of resources that that empty building represents. I should like to know how much of our money is being spent on guarding, sealing off and securing that empty building, denying its use to the people of London. That is an appalling vista.
  In December last year, David Puttnam, in his London lecture, spoke at some length about the artistic merits of London and its abilities to promote good theatre, film, the arts and so on. He said:
  "Bette Midler once said, in her inimitable and caustic way, 'When it's 3 pm in New York it's still 1938 in London.' And that was before the democratically elected authority for London was wiped out by a vindictive Government eight years ago.
  In a very real sense it's not 1930-anything in London. It's far closer to 1890-something and all of us are losing out in consequence. The self-same reasons that led our Victorian fore-fathers to establish the Metropolitan Board of Works and then the London County Council—the need for better planning, better transport, better housing, better education, better public health and civic amenities—all of these are once again zooming up the agenda and crying out for clear and forceful solutions; not solutions thought up by concerned groups of well-intentioned citizens, but long-term strategies argued, implemented and resourced within the framework of the elected and democratically answerable city government."
  That is what we are searching for today.
  If one wants to know what the people of London think, one must look at the recent polling evidence produced by the Harris research centre for Carlton. There is incredible pessimism about the future of London which I see every day in my community and my constituency. I find it among young people, the unemployed, the homeless, the rootless and the poor in London.
  The survey showed that 61 per cent. have no confidence in London's future, an incredible 61 per cent. felt that their children probably would not have jobs when they left school and 77 per cent. believed that the next generation would be unable to obtain decent housing in London. It showed that 17 per cent. were deeply concerned about crime, 16 per cent. about pollution and 15 per cent. about traffic. It showed that 43 per cent. believed that travelling in London had become harder during the past five years and 81 per cent. believed that there was insufficient decent housing in London. When asked whether they thought that there should be an elected council or authority for London, 61 per cent. were for that and only 29 per cent. against. That is an enormous figure.
  We must bear in mind all those concerns about the future of the capital city and address them urgently because they are deeply important.
  In 1984, the GLC produced a document on ministerial commitments made during the passage of the Local Government Act 1985 which abolished it—page after page of them, from the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) on auto-pilot in all-night sittings, droning out soothing words in an attempt to appease my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West. He did not succeed one jot, but he tried hard. Those commitments will come back to haunt the Government. I could quote them all, but I do not have time, so I shall simply quote one concerning housing resources.

  963
  The right hon. Member for Acton said:
  "Although the boroughs welcome the chance to take over and manage the GLC stock, I know that many councils and tenants still need reassurance that resources will be available … We have repeatedly made it clear that abolition will leave that total resource to London essentially unchanged. London's HIP allocation will be shared among the boroughs alone without a top slice being pre-empted by the GLC".
  He continues:
  The distribution of allocations will take account of expenditure liabilities inherited from the GLC … We cannot guarantee the availability of a particular level of resources for London beyond the assurances that we have already given."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 5 February 1985; c. 1107.]
  Many of us would be quite happy to get the resources at the level of the assurances that he has already given. My borough and those of every one of my hon. Friends around me are building almost no homes at all at present. Some 12,000 families are on the transfer list in my borough. There are 8,000 on the waiting list. Every homeless family hostel is chock-a-block. Bed-and-breakfast millionaires abound in London. Why? Because of a vindictive attitude by the Government towards expenditure on housing in London. Those are the issues that must be addressed.
  Poverty in London is absolutely appalling. London is a city with more than 6 million residents in 2.8 million households. Some 1 million people in London claim income support and 733,000 claim housing benefit. About 831,000 existing households, plus an estimated 250,000 households, need a new dwelling. About 500,000 people live in households with more than one person per room. More than 500,000 households in London share or lack basic amenities. One million people are over retirement age—50 per cent. of them rely on state benefits. Some 40 per cent. of pensioners live alone. As one who spends a lot of time working with or meeting pensioner organisations in London, I can attest to the misery and poverty of many older pensioners in London, particularly the older women pensioners, who have no access to occupational pension schemes. About 400,000 people are registered as unemployed in London, including 100,000 young people and 175,000 long-term unemployed. About 300,000 children live in non-earning households and about 300,000 are eligible for free school meals. Some 100,000 households include lone parents looking after children. Some 780,000 people in London have a limiting long-term illness, including 32,000 children.
  Living in London ain't nice. It ain't happy and it ain't healthy, and those issues must be addressed. That cannot be done while we fail to address the need for a central authority for London to tackle those issues. When one looks at the national statistics for poverty, misery and homelessness throughout the country, one finds that the worst areas are all in London. Seven of the 10 poorest parts of the country are in London.
  Mr. Tom Cox: The point that my hon. Friend makes is reinforced by a report, "Out of Sight—London's Continuing Bed-and-breakfast Crisis", which I and, I suppose, all hon. Members received today. Is my hon. Friend aware that Wandsworth, the borough that I represent, has one of the worst bed-and-breakfast records in the whole of London? Hundreds of properties are boarded up and are waiting to be sold rather than the council allowing homeless people whose roots are in the
  964
  borough to live there. It is interesting that the Minister who will reply to the debate was the leader of the authority that encouraged that policy.
  Mr. Corbyn: It is nice of the Minister to be here this morning, as I understand that he is quite busy in the dental surgery some mornings of the week. It is good of him to come at all.
  We must look seriously at the problems of homelessness and the misery that it causes in London. What is it like for children to be brought up in bed-and-breakfast hotels? What is it like for their parents? What play space is available? What quality food is available? What cooking space is available? It is not even cheap. It costs us millions each year. People who have been allocated a hostel or bed-and-breakfast place by the local authority, because they are homeless, come to me and ask: "Mr. Corbyn, is it sensible to be paying out several hundred pounds a week for me and my family to live in bed-and-breakfast when the council could buy or build a flat for less than that?" I tell them: "You are absolutely right. The council agrees with you, but it is not allowed to buy or build." It is nonsense and something must be done about it.
  The problems of poverty and ill health in London are often related to other factors. Air quality and water quality in London are poor. The quality of air in London is seriously damaging to people's health, particularly during a period of still weather. One in seven of London's children now suffers from asthma. If one goes into any school, particularly infant or primary schools, and goes into the school secretary's office, one will see all the inhalers on a shelf above the secretary's desk, to be given out to particular children at lunchtime. There is an epidemic of asthma among London's children—and, indeed the elderly. If one goes into a children's ward in any hospital, one will find many children suffering from chronic asthma, related—not entirely, but mainly—to air pollution in London. Those issues must be addressed.
  Some 150,000 people in London are waiting for access to a hospital bed, to undergo elective surgery. In my own borough, no elective surgery is being carried out until after April. I was trying to explain to somebody from another country how it is unfortunate if someone needs an operation in the latter part of the financial year in London. That person could not understand the concept of having to be ill in the early part of the financial year, not the latter part. Again, we have the nonsense of the internal market and fundamentally unaccountable health authorities that administer Government health policies for London.
  Transport—the one area in which the GLC gained the most publicity during its latter years—is the greatest concern to everyone in London, whether they are waiting for a bus that does not come, as the buses are held up on overcrowded and congested roads, or whether they are trying to get on an overcrowded train, paying through the nose for the highest fares anywhere in Europe. London Underground and London Transport as a whole are entirely strapped for cash and unable to invest in the vital new railway and tube lines that are needed. A proposal is made for the Chelsea to Hackney line—a proposal that has been around for a very long time—but then we hear that it is unlikely to be even thought about until the start of the next century, despite there having been reports for the past 30 years of the importance of that particular line.

  965
  That area requires the attention of democracy in London. There is a need to address the problems of the democratic deficit in London.
  The purpose of the debate is to highlight some of those problems. Indeed, many of my hon. Friends wish to make, I imagine, broadly similar points to those that I have made on health and housing. We must address the problem of the lack of a democratic, accountable authority for London. Londoners need to have some pride in their city as a whole. It cannot be governed by a plethora of 32 boroughs, one City of London, a couple of dozen quangos and a Government office for London, which is handing out Government money through the single regeneration budget without the agreement of elected councillors, or of any elected authorities. Indeed, it is being done solely by an appointed civil servant answerable only to Ministers and not to anyone to do with London.
  Mr. Spearing: A gauleiter.
  Mr. Corbyn: As my hon. Friend says, a gauleiter for this capital city. Those issues must be addressed.
  Once a year, the London Labour Members of Parliament go in delegation to meet the Home Secretary, who is the police authority for London for the time being, and, in a separate meeting, to see the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I used to think that the worst possible way to run a police force was to have the Home Secretary as the police authority, answerable to the House for his actions once a year in an Adjournment debate. I now find that there is something worse—the Home Secretary being the police authority for London, being advised by a group of bankers, appointed by himself, to say how the police authority should be run.
  A proposal must be made by the House, at the earliest possible opportunity, for the creation of a new authority for London, which will have responsibilities for overall planning in London. What mad schemes have been approved in the past 10 years to have allowed London to have 22 million sq ft of empty office blocks—office blocks are still being constructed—and no housing programme worth speaking of other than a small number being built by housing associations, and the problems that go with that? Who would have thought that London Transport, the wonder of the world for many people for many years, would now be threatened with privatisation, break-up and deregulation? Our health authorities are unaccountable, with two regional health authorities covering Thames regions, which include London. A London health authority should be involved in a London-wide elected authority. Likewise, why cannot Londoners have a police committee in the same way as other parts of the country?
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend skimmed over the question of who owns County hall. I can only go on what I read in, for instance, the Evening Standard. The fellow involved sounds like a crook to me: if he were a Labour councillor, he would probably be surcharged. He uses various aliases; he is known as Mr. Heinz, of the 57 varieties.
  If the Minister had any guts, he would deal with the matter on behalf of Londoners and the British people as a whole. I believe that there is a scandal that needs to be investigated. Instead of closing the door when it is all
  966
  over, as they did in the case of Barings, the Government should expose the gang of crooks who are supposedly in charge of County hall.
  Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In fact, the National Audit Office is currently investigating the scandal surrounding the sale of County hall to the Shirayama corporation and the gentleman who seems to own it. He goes by a number of aliases, usually the names of types of Japanese motor car. I do not know how many makes of Japanese motor car there are, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West has explained on a number of occasions, there seem to be quite a lot. We hear of Mr. Honda, Mr. Toyota, Mr. Mitsubishi and so on.
  Mr. Tony Banks: May I offer my hon. Friend some up-to-date information? I walked past County hall a few minutes ago, and absolutely nothing is going on there. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pointed out, it is a scandal. Both the Minister and the Secretary of State have discussed the matter with me; I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate, he will tell us a little more about what the Government are actively doing about the scandal that is taking place on the other side of the river.
  Mr. Corbyn: Those of us who have lived through the saga of the abolition of the GLC and the sale of County hall will not allow it to be swept under the carpet. We will persevere, because we want the building back in public hands and public use rather than the obscenity that it is now.
  I believe that there is a strong case for an elected government for London, with responsibilities for overall planning, transport, health, a police authority and a housing strategy to tackle homelessness and the social, health and economic cost of poor-quality housing. There should also be a co-ordinated and supportive strategy for the development of the arts in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West had an excellent record as chairman of the GLC arts committee, providing access to the arts for all people: minority tastes of all sorts were catered for. That was an exciting period of growth in the arts—film, theatre and other entertainments—throughout London. All those facilities are now threatened; indeed, many of them have closed. That is very sad.
  Similarly, the Inner London education authority used to manage expenditure on education. However, its resources for the arts, music, out-of-London pursuits, adult education and many other things have been destroyed with ILEA itself.
  It is also crucial for London to address the problems of its economy. As I said earlier, there are 400,000 registered unemployed people in London, but I believe the number of people out of work to be closer to half a million. Half a million members of a population of 6 million want to work but cannot find jobs.
  In its latter days, the GLC did its best to rebuild some of London's manufacturing industry, to encourage different areas of enterprise, to put money into co-operatives and to support those who tried to produce quality goods and services. It was very difficult, because the GLC's powers to act within local government legislation were limited. I believe that a new elected authority for London should have overall strategic responsibility for all the matters that I have mentioned, and powers to rebuild and plan London's economy.

  967
  Are we to go forward into the 21st century as a city with an incredibly rich minority of people living in certain high-security enclaves—as described by Richard Rogers in the past few weeks in his Reith lectures on the radio—and a mass of poor people living on high-crime, poor-quality estates, looking forward to a life of unemployment and surrounded by filth, degradation and destruction?
  London can be an exciting and wonderful place in which to live, but it requires planning, direction and vision. I do not believe that that vision is fulfilled by a plethora of quangos composed of Tory placemen, and by the scandals and sleaze that surrounded the destruction of the GLC. I hope that today's debate will strengthen the case for an elected authority to make London the city that it can, should and—I believe—must be.
  10.34 am
  Mr. James Couchman: I hesitate to intrude on a debate about London. Let me clarify my provenance: for eight years I served as a London councillor in Bexley. Moreover, I believe that my constituency would be viewed as part of the 'Thames gateway by the all-seeing, all-powerful body offered to us by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) as a new government for London. I think it entirely inappropriate for the Medway towns—which include my constituency, 30 miles out of London—to be subject to government from County hall, or by some new body in London.
  I well remember that, when I was a Bexley councillor, the council governed very well. As a near-unitary authority, it provided social services, housing, education, roads, parks, leisure facilities and many other benefits. My only recollection of the GLC is of a body that intruded into minor planning applications and housing matters. Exercising an extraordinary policy of municipalisation, it bought houses scattered all over the place. Far from acting as a strategic authority, it was a nuisance authority.
  The last days of the GLC were marked by a bizarre campaign against the Government's proposals to do away with it. The hon. Member for Islington, North described the GLC's popularity—revealed, he said, in that great campaign at the end of its life. The so-called popular campaign, however, involved the expenditure of a seven-figure sum on advertising and other PR material, sent out from County hall under the auspices of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).
  Mr. Tony Banks:How can the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that, years after the abolition of the GLC, the most recent opinion polls show that 66 per cent. of Londoners still believe that we should have a strategic authority for the capital?
  Mr. Couchman: I set as much store by those polls as I do by some other current opinion polls. What London really needs is a strengthening of the government of its boroughs.
  Mr. Hartley Booth: Does my hon. Friend believe that that opinion poll—or, indeed, any poll—has informed Londoners about how much they have saved as a result of the GLC's abolition? It is probably £200 a year.
  Mr. Couchman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. Indeed, it was one of the main reasons why we did away with the GLC.
  968
  The hon. Member for Islington, North also mentioned ILEA, one of the most bloated education bureaucracies that the country has ever had.
  Mr. Spearing: What?
  Mr. Couchman: Precisely so. It would be entirely inappropriate to foist ILEA on London again.
  My message to any new London body would be, "We do not want you in north Kent." We want unitary authorities, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is currently considering their establishment. If we are to have good governance in our part of Kent., we must have nothing to do with London. We certainly do not want a new Greater London council, stretching to the M25 and beyond—stretching to the Medway towns as part of the Thames gateway—as suggested in recent reports of Labour's thinking. My message to the hon. Member for Islington, North is, "Hands off the towns of north Kent." If there is to be a co-ordinated development of the Thames gateway, it will be better organised by central Government than by some new GLC.
  10.38 am
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), who appeared to have two reasons for his view. One, understandably, was his experience of the GLC as a Bexley councillor. I assume that he played some part in the legal affair that was responsible for the destruction of "Fares Fair", which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).
  Mr. Couchman indicated dissent.
  Mr. Spearing: He says no, but I think that it was a Kent and Bexley initiative.
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: It was Bromley.
  Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend corrects me: it was Bromley, which is next door.
  The remarkable feature of the speech by the hon. Member for Gillingham, who is not a London Member, was that he accused a possible future Greater London authority or the GLC of the time of having designs upon north Kent and the Medway towns—a proud and ancient area which was related to London in function and history. I have heard no suggestion at any time that a Greater London authority should extend its boundaries thus far. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell me where he got his false accusation from.
  Mr. Couchman: I understand that there has been a suggestion in the Evening Standard.
  Mr. Spearing: If the hon. Gentleman believes everything that he reads in the Evening Standard, including an inaccurate account last week of my history, which said that I attended a public school, although I went to a grammar school in Hammersmith, it shows the standard of his judgment publicly and in this place. I shall ask him about another matter. I am a past member of the transport planning and highways committee of the GLC, to which I was co-opted at different times.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment(Sir Paul Beresford): So the hon. Gentleman is to blame, then.
  Mr. Spearing: I shall shortly take great pleasure in dealing with highways.
  The hon. Member for Gillingham said that that committee and the GLC, using its powers as a strategic planning authority—at one time I was a leading member of part of the planning committee for north-west London—interfered in minor planning applications. Will the hon. Gentleman give an example of that?
  Sir Paul Beresford: I shall give an example relating to the renovation of an estate on the edge of the constituency of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who is not in his place. As is normal, there were consultations with tenants and postmen about the numbering of the flats on the estate. Those consultations were concluded in a short time, but it took five months to get a decision from the GLC. That was interference in a minor, insignificant planning issue.
  Mr. Spearing: I asked for an example and the Minister has given one. If that delay occurred, it must have had some sort of statutory basis and the GLC must have had some responsibility in that matter. Perhaps the Minister could respond to that at a later date rather than delaying our proceedings now. Speaking as a former part-time student postman—[interruption] This issue is not funny. Too many Conservative Members do not understand real life. That is why they are in trouble. As a former post person I know that it is important to get a good numbering sequence. If the Minister engages in canvassing, he will know that that is the case.
  I do not say that that justifies what the GLC did. It may not, because bad mistakes can be made in any organisation, and especially in the Government. The strategic planning of London was destroyed, as was the coherent traffic planning of London, which brings me to the matter of highways. The GLC introduced delayed traffic signals and the first freeways, and that was done after exhaustive consultation, in which I was involved, with each borough. It was broken up by Baroness Thatcher who dispersed coherent planning in London not only for roads but for transport.
  I shall now turn to "Fares Fair". That was upset by Bromley council through a legal point which destroyed the concept of public transport introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East with great boldness and initiative. The people of London look back to that time. A public transport system needs to have as many people using it as possible so that fares can be reduced. That applies especially to the underground, which can carry more people because of its infrastructure. That was the vision of the late Lord Ashfield and of Herbert Morrison, who together created the former London Transport. That has been destroyed by the Conservative party.
  I shall give an example of how current fares are unfair. After years of development, the docklands light railway, which is the responsibility of the Government, still does not run at weekends. That is because the concept is wrong. An extension of that railway is planned to Lewisham. A Bill has gone through the House so that the line can run from Island Gardens in the Isle of Dogs under the river to Greenwich and then to Lewisham. That is a much-needed
  970
  link. It is to be privatised and not long ago I saw a commentary in a business paper about who would take over. It stated that on that commuter route to the extraordinary development in Canary Wharf in the Isle of Dogs—which, incidentally, did not receive the necessary planning permission—it was probable that a premium fare could be charged. That was to be an attraction for the investor.
  "Fares Fair" is one thing, but fares are unfair and not just in the general proportion of revenue which is so high in London compared with the rest of the world. That is an example of fares being jacked up on a line for which the capital investment has been put up by the public. Currently, public subsidy for the DLR is 70p per passenger mile. That information was contained in an answer a few days ago. That shows the disintegration of public transport in London for which Conservatives are wholly responsible and which the Minister appears to defend.
  Sir Paul Beresford: In the context of the GLC's relationship to London docklands and the railways, it is worth pointing out that the GLC in combination with the five Labour boroughs failed to do anything for docklands for years. That railway is there because the GLC failure was recognised by the Government and docklands was taken away and we got rid of the GLC.
  Mr. Spearing: I knew the chairman of the former docklands joint committee, the late Councillor Percy Bell, who was a well-known east London councillor of great sagacity and who gave great service. The docklands joint committee produced an outline for docklands. One of its publications in the early days dealt with a transport spine for tube, bus or tram. That committee considered the need for the DLR, but it was disrupted by the work of a certain leader of the GLC, Sir Horace Cutler, who did not co-operate in the way that the boroughs had been co-operating.
  The President of the Board of Trade, who at the time was the Secretary of State for the Environment, opened new houses built under the Becton district plan produced by the borough of Newham. The marshes had to be drained and I understand that a year's public investment of the then Thames water authority, on which elected members from the GLC sat, was absorbed on draining that area from Tewksbury to London. That was instituted by the committee. Therefore, the hon. Member for Gillingham was not correct in his history. That land, a third of my constituency, went under the suzerainty of the London Docklands development corporation, which had powers for planning and borrowing and for goodness knows what, literally to do anything under the Bill. When the statutory instrument came to the House for a one and a half hour debate and although a third of my constituency and half the LDDC area was involved, I did not get the opportunity to speak. That shows the authoritarian nature of Conservative Members. Even if a body such as the LDDC was needed, it should have been accountable to this elected House rather than to the Secretary of State.
  I have unexpectedly used some illustrations which were given by Conservative Members. I could go on. What about the new towns? Could any organisation in the world have produced those? They were the pride of Britain after the war. The education service has been mentioned. It was economical and was one of the greatest education institutions in the world. I shall give an example. When

  971
  the Conservative party wanted to break up the London county council education service in 1963 or 1964 when the GLC succeeded the LCC, there was tremendous debate in London. It was saved because the LCC had a comprehensive series of occupational and adult education courses throughout London. Those were well known because of the Floodlight booklets—attempts are still made to publish them. Specialist colleges all over the place had been built up to a peak of professional expertise. Where those colleges were sited in each borough was a matter of chance, but let us consider what happened when the LCC was split up into boroughs.
  I shall not name the borough nor the well-known institution, but one highly specialist college on medical matters had a worldwide reputation. People not just from all over London, but from the south-east used to travel up to it at night and at weekends. That college, in a central London location, was in the hands of the local borough. The borough pressed for money for that college, and we know why. When that request came before the relevant committee, the elected councillors asked, not unnaturally, how many of the college's students came from the borough. When they were told 5 per cent., the response was, "We can't have that," and that college disappeared.
  Further and higher education and training are all the rage. The break-up of the further, higher and technical education systems of inner London, which the hon. Member for Gillingham may describe as bureaucratic, is one of the greatest losses to education. That happened at the flick of a finger of the noble, or less than noble, Baroness Thatcher.
  In Newham, we have to spend £8 million of our standard spending assessment on the homeless because the formula agreed by the Minister and his senior colleagues does not provide enough money for the homeless. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) mentioned that problem. That £8 million has to be shaved off education and social services to meet our statutory responsibilities. Some of the homeless in our borough are transferred to us from Westminster. The council bought up private houses which it cannot sell through private enterprise, so it is housing the statutory homeless in them. That is good for them, but the system is rotten, bad and retrogressive.
  Democratic accountability is at the heart of the issue. It has been attenuated in London to a degree that the Scots would find absolutely unbelievable. What remains of the London borough administration is being hogtied by the vicious standard spending assessment and revenue support grant formulae. They are causing revolts in the shires, so one can imagine the effect that they are having in east London, in particular, the deprived boroughs of which have such well-known problems.
  As for the police, Sir John Quinton has been appointed chairman of the advisory committee to the Home Secretary. He has been given that job not on the grounds of policing criteria, but because, as is clear from correspondence, of his expertise in budget cutting and budget allocation. Although the advisory committee has a wide remit and people have been appointed to it by the Home Secretary, it is steering towards economies. It is not focusing on how the police can do their job in association with Londoners. It is considering how the police can operate with reduced finances.
  972
  There will be a great deal of debate later today on democratic accountability and the democratic deficit. One of the biggest democratic deficits nearest the House is the governance of London. Even before there is an elected authority for London under another Government, I hope that combined representatives of the boroughs could get together on a non-statutory basis. Perhaps that group could incorporate some aspects of the Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs Administration. I hope that the Under-Secretary would agree that that group could, during whatever life remains in the Government, through consensus, come to some conclusions about London. Even the Government have found through their encouragement of London First, London Pride and from all the programmes, as well as organisations concerning London that are multiplying and holding conferences all over the place, that a vacuum needs to be filled. That vacuum must be filled by a proper and proud successor to the LCC and GLC to serve the people of London in the next century.
  10.54 am
  Mr. Matthew Banks: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I am not one of those hon. Members who believe that everything that the GLC did was wrong. It did a great deal of good work, but in the latter years of its existence it did a great deal of harm.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) suggested that there was a tremendous force outside the House to recapture a government for London. He mentioned an opinion poll in which 66 per cent of respondents were in favour of that. I do not know where that opinion came from—possibly from the Evening Standard—but I should not attach too much credence to that opinion poll if the hon. Gentleman pooh-poohs some of the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), which also came from the Evening Standard. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and we cannot be too selective when quoting from that newspaper.
  Although I represent a constituency that is about 250 miles from London, I live here during the week; I have lived in three London boroughs and had six years' experience in local government. I therefore have a good idea of what certain Opposition Members mean by democratic accountability. What I perceive as important and as democratic accountability is not necessarily shared by some Opposition Members.
  From time to time, I agree with some of the things that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West says. If what he said about London was correct, I would be fighting to catch your eye this morning, Madam Deputy Speaker. A number of my hon. Friends who represent London constituencies share my concern at what happened in the GLC in its latter years and do not want a London-wide authority, so their absence this morning is understandable. If there is such strength of opinion among Opposition Members about the need for such an authority, I should have thought that far more Opposition Members would be present. Apart from the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), the Front-Bench spokesman and the Opposition Whip, however, we have only the hon. Members for Newham, South, for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for

  973
  Newham, North-West. The latter two Members are here, of course, and they represent all the things that many of my hon. Friends and I found unacceptable in the GLC.
  Mr. Couchman: Champagne socialists.
  Mr. Banks: I do not know about that. I used to get the Refreshment Department bills of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, which was an interesting experience, until I finally managed to sort out the Department. I do not know about champagne socialism, but a vast amount of ratepayers' money was wasted in the final years of the GLC. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham asked how much money was wasted. An independent survey—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may wish to comment on this—has suggested that if the GLC had been allowed to continue, it would have spent £1.5 billion. And for what? I am not convinced that Londoners would have received a better service.
  I should like to compare and contrast briefly my experience of so-called democratic accountability because my constituency is in one of the large metropolitan areas of the north-west. I do not wish to be ruled out of order, so I shall be extremely careful to make those comparisons briefly.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I must record my appreciation of the hon. Gentleman paying my bills from the Pugin Room from time to time. He just said that the GLC, had it still existed, would have spent £1.5 billion. He asked what that would have been spent on. A quick list includes new towns, seaside and country homes, housing, the London mobility scheme, the south bank arts complex, London Transport, London's waste disposal, the fire brigade—the GLC used to run the ambulance service and there were no complaints then—historic houses such as Kenwood and Marble Hill, the magistrates courts, bridges, tunnels, the Woolwich ferry, the Thames barrier, the national sports centre and strategic parks. I could go on. That is a lot of money, but what a lot of good services.
  Mr. Banks: Now that the hon. Gentleman has made his speech, perhaps he will give way to me. I accept that a great deal of money was spent, but many of those services are continuing without the madcap ideas that were evident when the hon. Gentleman was in office. I think that he was a Member of Parliament when he moonlighted from time to time as chairman of the GLC. I do not believe for one moment that there is a great weight of opinion outside the House or, indeed, among Labour Members, for the return of a London-wide authority.
  Mr. Booth: My hon. Friend is dealing with the democratic deficit, a matter raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Does he agree that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are in fact calling for a fourth tier of government in London? If their proposals were accepted, we should have the boroughs, central Government with their Minister for London, Members of the European Parliament and a London-wide authority.
  Mr. Banks: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes his point in his own way. If Labour Members had the opportunity to institute an authority similar to the
  974
  GLC, there would be enormous increase in bureaucracy but not necessarily an improvement in the services provided for the people of London.
  I have lived in three London boroughs—Wandsworth, Westminster and Lambeth. My colleagues have talked about waste, and I must say that services in Lambeth have certainly improved since Labour lost control there. It was something of a novelty for my wife and me to look out of the bedroom window the other day and see someone sweeping the street.
  I shall pick up a number of points made by the hon. Member for Islington, North. He referred to County hall being used for meetings of non-statutory organisations. That conjured up in my mind a picture of senior citizens meeting for various cultural activities. However, he did not mention the fact that the GLC was often used as a platform for political campaigning at the ratepayers' expense and for promoting organisations with which I suspect that most of his constituents would not have agreed had they been asked. However, it was not only at the GLC that such things happened.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South mentioned the police. I remember the days of the Greater Manchester police authority, in those days an offshoot of Greater Manchester council. It spent an enormous amount of money—hundreds of thousands of pounds—on a police monitoring unit. Vast sums of council tax payers' money were spent on hindering the police in the apprehension of criminals.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North was very unfair to our health services. He may have been describing what is happening in the capital and other urban conurbations, but in financial terms local health services are now far better planned than ever before. We no longer experience the kinds of difficulties at the end of the financial year that he described. Not only in London but in my constituency there have been vast increases in the resources provided to the national health service, and they mean that the concerns expressed all too flippantly by the hon. Gentleman pale into insignificance.
  Certainly, my constituents had to wait for the election of the Conservative Government in 1979 to get the brand new hospital that they now enjoy—Lord Healey had cut the hospital building programme so savagely when he was Chancellor because the Labour party got the economy into such a mess, and I have no doubt that if it were ever to be in power again we should find ourselves in the same mess because it wasted money nationally just as it wasted money at the GLC.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North mentioned the use of County hall. I noticed that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is no longer in the Chamber, did not give the name of the individual whom he was accusing. I think that he has a duty to do so. It is generally understood in the House that the National Audit Office is examining some of the issues to which he referred. The NAO is respected and I have no doubt that, as and when it reports, we shall listen carefully to what it has to say and take appropriate action if necessary.
  The fact that it is necessary to use today's business to raise matters relating to London does not worry me in the slightest. We do not need a talking shop costing millions and millions of pounds just across the river. Hon. Members have the opportunity to raise issues relating to their constituencies and regions, as they are doing now.

  975
  The hon. Members for Islington, North and for Newham, South also mentioned transport. The hon. Member for Islington, North is perhaps not aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has recently made a number of important announcements on air pollution following a report by those who take an interest in pollution, not least the Select Committee on Transport. I greatly welcome the opportunity to tighten the MOT test in respect of exhaust emissions.
  It is the buses and lorries in London that create much of the pollution, and diesel-powered vehicles are the greatest polluters. It is those vehicles that we should be examining. If Labour Members are concerned about reducing congestion in London, they might like to suggest that a London borough such as Newham could institute a pilot scheme with the help of the Department of Transport to introduce road pricing so that we could see how it works and how it might benefit London. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newham, South laughs—he is a great cyclist, but I do not recall the GLC doing a great deal for cyclists when it was in a position to do so.
  Unitary authorities—the London boroughs—now have the opportunity to make sensitive decisions affecting their areas. They are extremely fortunate to have the opportunity to be unitary authorities and I look forward to the day, in the lifetime of this Parliament, when my constituency will get back to the position in which it was before 1974 and does not have to do as it is told by members of the Labour party who have a majority on the Merseyside passenger transport authority, who could not give two hoots about spending money in my constituency and who abuse their position. I look forward to the day when my constituency has the same system of unitary government as London.
  11.7 am
  Mr. Ken Livingstone: We have heard a remarkable amount of old rubbish from the Conservatives. It is striking that they cannot find a London Member to defend the effects of the abolition of the Greater London council but have to drag in an hon. Member from Southport to drone on about matters on which he is ill informed. The GLC established a cycle unit and introduced cycle routes across much of London, but since abolition the programme has not been developed.
  We still see the achievements of the old London county council and the GLC. There is hardly a road, a public housing scheme or a hospital—hospitals were once run by County hall—that those two forms of local government did not help to create. They created London as we know it, certainly to a greater extent than any other force or organisation. It is a record of which we are proud—a dramatic and tremendous achievement in rebuilding London after the war, but it is now being lost. Everyone in London today feels that it is less worth living in this city than it was a decade ago. Opinion polls conducted by the Evening Standard chart that progress year by year.
  I have heard the Under-Secretary of State ask what the GLC did about the docklands. We created the infrastructure that the London Docklands development corporation inherited. It then stepped in and the legislation involved wasted the best part of 18 months as it went through Parliament.
  We have been asked about transport. I remember Sir Horace Cutler, under the Tory administration between 1977 and 1981, proposing that we should build the Jubilee
  976
  extension into docklands. It was blocked by the Treasury. When I became leader of the GLC in 1981, we proposed that the Jubilee line should be extended to docklands. It was blocked by the Treasury. If County hall had been allowed to get its way, the Jubilee line would have opened and would have been running for the past seven years, and because we never borrowed money to build such projects—we paid for them out of the rates—we would not have incurred the debts created now that the Government have finally got round to the project 15 years later. We were planning to go on to build the Chelsea to Hackney link, which would probably have been operating by now as well.
  County hall thought in London's interest, which meant inevitable conflicts. Whenever there was a Conservative Government and a progressive administration in County hall, there was conflict. In 1896, Lord Salisbury complained that the then Liberal administration at the London county council was practising socialistic and revolutionary schemes and proposed that the LCC should be abolished. When Herbert Morrison was creating what I think was a marvellous record of municipal enterprise and achievement in the 1930s, Conservative Members of Parliament were demanding that the LCC be wound up. We saw the same thing in the late 1950s, when boundaries were extended in the hope of creating permanent Tory control. Finally, when Mrs. Thatcher was in power she had a big enough majority to push through the lunacy which had been defeated on previous occasions and London has lost out.
  We heard allusions from Southport that the GLC did barmy and dreadful things. I will tell the House what I am proud of. I am proud that the GLC took up the issue of racism in London. I am proud that we took up the issue of women's interests being neglected in London and tried to make local government respond more to their needs. I am proud that the women's committee funded dozens of child care schemes across London. I am proud that we took up the rights of lesbians and gays in London. I am not ashamed of those things. We moved those issues to the centre of the political agenda as those groups were not achieving their full potential because they were suffering from discrimination. It is a legitimate right for those elected to represent London to represent all Londoners, whether they are women or black and irrespective of their sexual orientation. I shall not go on any longer as I know that we have to fit in two more speeches.
  11.12 am
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on initiating this important debate, which has, although it has been short, provided an excellent opportunity to highlight many very important issues. It is somewhat surprising that, from the Conservative Benches, we have heard only from the hon. Members for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and for Southport (Mr. Banks). No Conservative Member who represents London, other than the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), who will respond, has spoken. That is perhaps indicative of the way in which the Government—
  Mr. Booth rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: No, I shall not give way as we have very little time. It is indicative of the way in which the Government have treated London with contempt.
  There is so much in London about which we can be proud. The city boasts a whole range of attributes and qualities, which make it a vibrant and exciting place to live in, to work in and to visit. London's rich legacy of history and fine buildings, magnificent parks and outstanding cultural attractions, its impressive, if somewhat neglected, river, its cosmopolitan and multi-cultural atmosphere, and many more attributes, make it a unique and great city.
  I am sad to say that there is another side to London, too much in evidence in recent years, which tarnishes the bright spots and raises real fears for the city's future. London now suffers from a higher level of unemployment than almost anywhere in Britain—second only to the north in the proportion of people out of work, it having lost 470,000 jobs in the past seven years alone.
  That of course relates to London as a whole, but when one looks at the specific problems in the most deprived areas of London, as the Evening Standard did in its important and disturbing survey of life in east London, entitled "The Betrayed", the characteristics highlighted are more representative of what one might see in the third world than in the capital of one of Europe's leading countries. It is made all the worse by its proximity to the gleaming office blocks of Canary wharf and the affluence of the City.
  The devastating loss of manufacturing industry has left London's economy seriously unbalanced, and over-dependent on services. In the week in which we have seen the collapse of Barings, we should not be complacent about a city which is over-dependent on financial services for its economy.
  Not only are there serious questions to be asked about London's economy, but the city is facing an acute transport crisis, as a result of years of under-investment—points well made by my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—coupled with an abject failure to recognise the damage being caused by ever-worsening traffic congestion. That means that people cannot move quickly and cheaply around the city and far too many of our children are suffering from the appalling incidence of asthma, of which traffic-generated air pollution is unquestionably one of the major contributory causes.
  While I mention health, what can one say about a city whose once proud hospitals are facing closure as a consequence of the crude political vandalism of the Department of Health? Hard-working and dedicated doctors and nurses are demoralised and angered by ill-considered cuts. Patients, London's long-suffering public, are infuriated by the incompetent decision making and administrative bungling of the Secretary of State for Health and her army of highly paid accountants, administrators and assorted quangocrats.
  Before we leave the subject of health, I cannot fail to mention the London ambulance service, which is staggering from one crisis to the next, bedevilled by malfunctioning computers—the telephone system went down yesterday. Despite all the Secretary of State's
  978
  promises of improvement, it is turning in far and away the worst performance figures of any ambulance service in Britain.
  Behind all the statistics and all the evidence of London not coping as well as it should, there lies one inescapable and fundamental theme, to which everyone who has looked seriously at the issue returns without exception. London is seriously disadvantaged by the lack of its own city-wide government. Unique among European capitals, unique, indeed, among capital cities in the developed world, London has no single voice speaking up for the city and representing the views and aspirations of its citizens. Instead, London suffers from fragmentation, from divided and unclear responsibilities and from the malign consequences of the excessive centralisation of decision making, which has become such a hallmark of the Government, who, ironically, when they came to power, pledged to devolve power rather than to centralise it.
  It is not just the accumulation of power by Ministers that is causing concern; the proliferation of quangos and other undemocratic institutions is too. They have been established in breach of Tory promises. Let us look back to the Second Reading debate on the Bill which abolished the GLC. The then Secretary of State for the Environment, Lord Jenkin, could not have put it more clearly. He argued that the fears expressed—not only by the Labour party but by several Conservative Members—about centralisation of power and proliferation of quangos were ill founded. He said:
  "They say that, after abolition, Whitehall will take over. Wrong again. Only 5 per cent. of service spending in London, and virtually none outside London, will go outside local government. They say that the abolition councils will be replaced by quangos. Wrong again. Only two permanent new appointed bodies will be created".—[Official Report, 3 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 36.]
  With huge swathes of spending on London Transport, health, urban regeneration, employment and training all taken out of the hands of democratically elected local bodies and vested in the hands of Ministers, and a whole swathe of quangos administering services all over London, the judgment of Lord Jenkin is about as spectacularly inaccurate as the failure of Mr. Nick Leeson to judge the movement of the Tokyo stock market. The consequences for London have been about as disastrous as the consequences for Barings.
  Instead of a democratically elected London-wide authority speaking up for London in the national and international arena, we have a whole series of fragmented initiatives. As the Evening Standard rightly and aptly reminded us yesterday, by printing Tony Travers's excellent article entitled, "Why Paris is pulling ahead of London", we are losing out in the international arena because others are doing things better. Jacques Chirac, the right-wing mayor of Paris, has no illusions about the important role of the city government that he leads.
  "Paris' ambition is to lay claim to the title of European capital by the year 2000"
  is his unequivocal objective. His publicity machine has little difficulty in putting the knife into London. Paris, he boasts, with justification,
  "has a high performance transportation infrastructure."
  The contrast with London could not be more striking.
  London has suffered disastrously in the nine years since the abolition of the GLC, and Londoners are crying out for the restoration of a democratic city-wide authority to

  979
  fight for their interests and to oversee the future planning and development of their city. London needs a strategic authority that can promote London's interests in Europe and throughout the world, that can attract vital new inward investment, which is so critical to our capital city's future, and that can begin the long hard process of rebuilding industry, jobs and hope in London's devastated areas—most notably in east London.
  London needs a strategic authority that can plan the new transport policies that are vital to unblock the congested arteries of our city, to ensure a substantial shift from the use of private vehicles to public transport and, in doing so, to clean up the city's polluted atmosphere that is so damaging to the health of our children and to the attractiveness of our city to visitors.
  Economic development, transport planning, land-use planning, oversight of London's environment and all the strategic functions that cannot be carried out by individual London boroughs should and will be given back to a democratically elected city-wide authority by the next Labour Government. We will consult widely in due course about the city-wide responsibilities that the new authority may assume, including, possibly, the role of the police authority and the oversight of health policy. As we have already made clear, that authority will be a streamlined and lean body, not involved in day-to-day service delivery, which is best handled at a local level. It will focus on the big issues, the issues that need to be planned and co-ordinated across the whole of London, the issues which are fundamental to the success and vitality of our capital city in the 21st century. The Labour party will give back to Londoners their rightful say on the government of their city and, in doing so, will give London back its pride, its self-esteem and control over its destiny.
  11.21 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): Of course, the Opposition's proposals would give London a huge bill and more bureaucracy. That is what we should concentrate on. The two most important points about the government of London arc the quantity of government—we already have quite enough—and the quality of government. There is a strong link between the two. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) talked about a "streamlined" authority. That is the word that the Opposition used when they set up the GLC and the LCC. What did we get? Bloated bureaucracy. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Government set it up."] They were wrong—absolutely wrong. [Interruption.] That is right, and it was wrong.
  As the quantity of government grows, so the quality of government drops. Many of the calls that we now hear for a new strategic authority for London are totally misconceived. There would be an extra layer of government, and that would solve nothing. We do not want more bureaucrats, bigger bills or slower decisions on even minor matters. I, too, was a child postman. We want less but higher-quality government. We want local government to work with the private sector and to adopt the standards of efficiency and customer service that we expect and receive predominantly from the private sector.
  980
  Opposition Members have quoted the Evening Standard. I should like to quote The Economist which, in August, after detailed consideration of the government of London, concluded:
  "a big central authority for London was likely to damage, not enhance London's long-term economic interests."
  The city, The Economist said,
  "can continue to adapt and grow flexibly without central planning".
  Mr. Corbyn: That is the City.
  Sir Paul Beresford: I am not referring to the City of London; I am talking about London. Opposition Members have not defined the city of London. Interestingly, they have very carefully not stated any borders. The article also said that
  "London's fragmentation was a source of strength rather than weakness. The lesson for rising megacities is that a central strategic authority is not essential for prosperous growth. Self-governing neighbourhoods work better than a single city hall and are a safer base for an urban economy".
  Reference was made to ILEA and to the fact that it had good services for adults. I accept that, but it needed to do so. ILEA tested the IQ of London children aged five and found that it was average, but, after 11 years of ILEA education, the IQ test showed that the standard had dropped. That is why London needed adult education.
  It is against the background of less but better government that we look to the principles of promoting the role and responsibility of the individual and freedom from unnecessary regulation and over-government. The Government have a key role. We seek to empower the individual and reduce bureaucracy, particularly when the latter serves no purpose. The lesson of London during the 1980s was too much government, gerrymandering government, and too much waste. [HON. MEMBERS: "Westminster."] The housing of London is where the gerrymandering was done. The GLC gerrymandered housing throughout London. One needs only to see the mess—
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
  Sir Paul Beresford: No. I have only five minutes. Mr. Corbyn: Just on Westminster?
  Sir Paul Beresford: No. We will not refer to Westminster. We may refer to Roehampton, which I happen to know even better than Opposition Members do. That was a GLC gerrymander if ever I saw one.
  As I have said, the lesson of London during the 1980s was too much government, too much waste and too much bureaucracy. People have forgotten that, although the GLC was responsible for a mere 11 per cent. of local services in the capital, it had a budget of almost £1 billion—excluding ILEA—92 councillors and 20,000 staff. In the five years until its abolition, it increased its spending by 170 per cent., when prices generally rose by just 29 per cent.
  I remember a former leader of the GLC on an elephant in Battersea park. That explains the emphasis of the GLC.
  Everybody agrees that London is a major world city. But, when we look closely at London, we see not one city but a series of small towns and villages, each with its own identity. To use a dental phrase that has been thrown at me, we see an amalgam of villages. That variety is its strength as well as the cause of some of its problems.

  981
  It also makes London hard to define. For example, no Opposition Member has dared to define its boundary. Is its boundary the 33 boroughs, the area within the M25, or is it further away? London's influence is substantial. As The Economist pointed out, London dominates Britain far out of proportion to its population. In terms of public transport and commuting, London dominates the south-east. Should a strategic authority for London include key parts of the south-east?
  I notice that Opposition Members have produced several proposals, which have been leaked to The Independent, the Evening Standard and so on, for various forms of authority, but they have not come to a real decision. They talk about the M25 and an ill-defined central area. They shift and churn in various directions—U-turns and S-turns. I warn Londoners of the cost to London—the direct bill on the doorstep—of delay, particularly to business. People in business in London have made it clear to me and to others that the key is that London is not as heavily regulated as other European cities.
  Mr. Raynsford: Business supports a strategic authority.
  Sir Paul Beresford: No, it does not.
  The only other European city of a size or status anywhere near equal to London is probably Paris. We have heard much about Paris, with its mayor, as an example of how a great capital city should be run. Although Paris has one titular major, the city is in fact run by eight unitary authorities, with small parishes below them. It does not support the case for a single authority or a single mayor for London.
  We touched briefly on public transport. Much is made of the GLC's so-called "Fares Fair" policy, but we should be clear that that was no panacea for road congestion. During its operation road journeys were reduced by a mere 2 per cent. In economic terms, it was not a great success for London Transport. The policy was based on the premise that the taxpayer should always foot the bill.
  I realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that although I would like to add more I have completely run out of time. We need to reflect on the impact of our efforts to reduce the quantity and increase the quality of government in London. London is far from the problem city that many critics would have us believe. It is the favoured location for European business men, who are encouraged by low tax and low regulation, and by the high quality and flexibility of the work force. London is rich in arts and culture, drawing visitors from the rest of Britain and the rest of the world. Overseas visitors find London clean and safe, and even the education standards—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.

  Middle East Peace Process
  11.30 am
  Mr. James Clappison: I am delighted to have secured the opportunity of a debate on the middle east peace process, which besides being a matter of wide interest is of particular interest to many of my constituents.
  I am delighted to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office here, because he has played an especially important role in co-ordinating Britain's policy on the peace process. I pay tribute especially to the important job that he did in updating the 1975 trade agreement between Israel and the European Union.
  A week ago, the House heard important news about the latest developments in the Northern Ireland peace process. From that process, we know how much the lifting of the threat of terrorism, the enjoyment of peace and the presence of hope contribute, how much those have meant since the peace process began and how they are changing the atmosphere in the Province.
  In their efforts for peace, the people of Israel seek and deserve no less—the opportunity to enjoy security, to build an atmosphere of peace and to move forward in the peace process towards, I hope, a permanent solution. I seek to put at the forefront of today's debate and to draw to the attention of the House the issue of security, which is so vital for the people of Israel.
  The Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, won the 1992 Israeli election on a platform promising peace with security. He realised that the one could not be achieved without the other. We all know that since 1948 Israel has faced a constant and often painful struggle to achieve security. She has fought wars and suffered terribly at the hands of terrorists, who have shown ruthlessness and who have stopped at nothing to inflict damage on Israel, her people and the Jewish citizens of other countries. It is not surprising, therefore, that security is of paramount concern for Israel. Unless the peace process can guarantee security it cannot guarantee peace.
  Many people in Israel and throughout the world hoped that the declaration of principles and the Oslo accords would bring about a peace process that encompassed and met Israel's natural and legitimate security concerns. Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman Arafat deserve the high praise and recognition that they received for their part in commencing that process.
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I think that everyone agrees that Israel has every right to live free from terrorism, but does my hon. Friend not concede that the building of the settlements around Jerusalem—an entirely illegal act—is fuelling Hamas and the very forces that are trying to destroy both Mr. Arafat and the peace accord?
  Mr. Clappison: I shall deal with that aspect in a minute. I recognise that there are issues between the parties, but the vital point that I want to make is that security must be an overriding consideration. As we know from our own experience in Northern Ireland, once there is security there are good prospects for establishing an atmosphere of peace and all that that means in terms of an eventual solution to the outstanding problems.

  983
  In recent months the peace process in which we invest so much hope has been overshadowed by a terrorist menace that has struck at the heart of Israel. We have seen the escalation of the terrorist activities of Islamic terrorist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which have perpetrated serious acts of terror and exploited their own young people by sending them on suicide missions.
  Last October the bus bombing in Tel Aviv was carried out by Hamas; 22 people were killed and 42 injured. In January this year at Beit Lid, in perhaps the most callous attack to date, one suicide bomber detonated himself in a crowd while another waited for rescuers to gather to aid the wounded and dying and then detonated his explosives, killing 19 more people.
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when we think about terrible events such as those we must look at both sides of the equation, not just one? Is it not true that since the Gaza and Jericho agreement was signed more than twice as many Palestinians as Israelis have been killed?
  Mr. Clappison: I shall acknowledge later in my speech the importance of stability among the Palestinian people, and especially of stability for the Palestine National Authority. But the hon. Gentleman should join me in recognising the serious terrorist threat directed against Israel while Israel and her people are playing their part and entering into negotiations in the peace process. The people of Israel are being asked, not for the first time, to make a substantial sacrifice in the cause of peace by enduring those attacks while still searching for peace. To be realistic about the prospects for peace we must recognise the strain that that puts on the Israeli people and therefore on the peace process as a whole.
  The campaign of terror organised by those groups from outside Israel has not been confined to the territory of Israel. A most serious aspect of their activities consists of attacks directed against Jewish communities throughout the world. In 1992 I had the pleasure of visiting Argentina with the Inter-Parliamentary Council Against Anti-Semitism with Members from both sides of the House. We visited the Jewish communal offices in Buenos Aires, where we enjoyed warm hospitality in a happy, friendly family atmosphere.
  Last year I and other Members who had been on the visit watched television pictures of the appalling atrocity that took place in those offices, where more than 100 people were murdered by a terrorist bomb. There have been similar acts of terrorism against Jewish communities in this country. It is a matter of good fortune, but no thanks to the behaviour of the bombers and extremists, that the two bombs at the Israeli embassy and at Balfour house, the headquarters of the Joint Israel Appeal, did not cause fatalities, although planting them was a ruthless, reckless and wicked act that caused several injuries.
  As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), plainly there are issues to resolve between the various parties, but I urge the House and the Minister to agree that surely the need for security overrides those considerations. We have our experience of Northern Ireland, and our Government have rightly been conscious of the need for a cessation of terrorist violence and for the decommissioning of arms as part and parcel of getting the peace process under way. The same must apply to Israel. That country has an entirely natural and
  984
  legitimate concern that violence should end and that the peace process and the resolution of the outstanding issues should take place in an atmosphere of peace.
  Prime Minister Rabin deserves great credit for continuing negotiations with the Palestinians against the background of those acts of terror both in Israel and abroad.
  Israel has been placed in a terrible dilemma. Its experience has shown that the incidence of terrorism can be reduced by the closure of the territories. At the same time, part of Israel's dilemma is that closure means a deterioration in the economy of Gaza, which in turn undermines the Palestine National Authority. I must say to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) that I recognise that the stability of that authority is very important.
  Given the severity of the terrorist threat that I have described, it is not hard to see why Israel recently took the decision to close the Gaza strip and prevent Palestinian workers from entering Israel. Given the need for the authority to be stable, it is not hard to see why Mr. Rabin showed that he was conscious of the issue by deciding to ease the closure of the territory after meeting the PLO chairman last month.
  Mr. Rabin was frank about his position, and said that he had probably acted against Israel's security interests to prevent tension among the Palestinians. The House would do well to recognise the statesmanship and courage that Mr. Rabin has shown in pursuing peace in the circumstances. I am sure that that courage extends to the people of Israel too.
  Israel is also faced with a dilemma regarding the deployment of troops on the west bank, which—understandably—has been judged to be necessary for security reasons. Pressure exists for the troops to be redeployed from the west bank to allow arrangements for autonomy and elections to proceed. I hope that we can recognise that dilemma, and sympathise with the people and Government of Israel.
  In extending our sympathy and support to Israel, it is right to support the position of the new Palestine National Authority and to give it stability. We must give it every encouragement, as it could be very important in dealing with terrorism and disorder. I make no bones about paying tribute to Chairman Arafat for the course on which he is proceeding in the face of considerable personal and political risks.
  I welcome the fact that the British Government have played a constructive role in seeking to bring stability to the new Palestine National Authority, not least by granting it £75 million in aid.
  I turn from the question of the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians to wider issues of the peace process. Syria is an important element of the process and, at present, there is a great deal of uncertainty about its intentions and position. In many respects, the Syrian track of the peace process—an important one—is at an impasse. President Assad put forward a formula of, in his words,
  "Total peace for total withdrawal".
  But that has not been sufficiently explained in tangible terms.
  I suggest that Israel has shown flexibility towards Syria, and that, in my judgment, calls for a response from Syria. Israel is bound to be cautious, in view of the strategic importance to Israel of the Golan heights.
  Mr. Hartley Booth: Does my hon. Friend deprecate the fact that Damascus has become a safe haven for no fewer than 10 different terrorist groups, most of which are aimed against Israel?
  Mr. Clappison: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. That factor undermines Israel in many respects, and I shall turn to that in a moment. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has visited the Golan heights, as I have, and stood among the disused Syrian bunkers with their commanding views across Israeli villages and the kibbutzim below. If he has done so, he will appreciate the special strategic and security implications for Israel.
  I commend to the House the flexibility that has been shown by the Prime Minister of Israel. Last year, he told the United Kibbutz Movement:
  "I view the Golan Heights through the security prism, first and foremost, no matter whether settlements exist there or not … if we reach the point where we need to remove settlements for the sake of peace, I have been and will remain in favour of it … For me, peace is a higher value for Israel's future and security than this or that group of settlements."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and we should commend that approach. Mr. Rabin, while putting security as the foremost consideration, is showing flexibility, and I hope that that flexibility will result in a response from the Government of Syria.
  I also hope that Syria shows flexibility in respect of the important issue of the future of south Lebanon. Israel's position must be equally flexible, and governed by quite natural considerations of security, given the vulnerability of its northern borders. Everyone hopes that the Syrian Government will respond to that clear flexibility.
  Confidence must be built, a starting point for which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth). The Syrian Government must show that they are serious about curbing terrorism in the middle east, and rebut any suggestion that Syria is in any way a safe haven for terrorist groups. One could not escape noticing the fact that the leader of Islamic Jihad, Fathi Shkaki, claimed responsibility for the Beit Lid outrage from Damascus. I join my hon. Friend and other hon. Members in support of the contention that Syria must rebut any suggestions that it is involved in terrorism, and I urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister to exercise all the Government's influence with the Syrians to move the peace process forward.
  Jordan is a happier story, as it has played a full part in the peace process. I am sure that all Members would want to recognise the leadership of King Hussein over the Jordanian people. King Hussein waited for the Palestinians to begin their part of the peace process and to arrive at an agreement before concluding a peace treaty with Israel, which has removed the remaining differences between Jordan and Israel. Since then, a number of border crossings have been opened and the free passage of people and goods has commenced.
  The King and the Government of Jordan deserve our support. They have shown clearly by their actions that they are interested in a warm peace, not a cold peace, and in many ways that sets a good precedent. They have stood firm in the face of discouragement from Syria at various
  986
  points during their involvement in the peace process. King Hussein has been at pains to deny the charge that Jordan's treaty with Israel weakens Syria's negotiations. He said:
  "On the contrary it might have created a precedent in the right direction".
  I am sure that many Members on both sides of the House agree with the King, and I hope that his actions set a helpful precedent which others could follow.
  There are many difficult hurdles which the peace process must overcome. One of the most difficult of those is the issue of the future of Jerusalem. Jerusalem has special significance for three great faiths, and I feel it proper to recognise the way in which the holy sites have been maintained and made accessible to all since 1967, for the first time in 2,000 years. That is important to people of many faiths.
  Jerusalem presents a difficult problem. There was wisdom in the Oslo agreement, which sought to postpone discussions on Jerusalem until negotiations on the final settlement were complete and progress on other fronts had been made. I do not want to criticise the Palestinians—I want to support them in their endeavours—but they might be wise to reflect on the wisdom of the agreement and to act within the spirit of it. One way in which they could do so is to think carefully about the use that could be made of Orient house in east Jerusalem, which has been suggested as a site for some form of diplomatic headquarters. The Palestinians must think carefully about that. Perhaps they should think again and concentrate on promoting other areas in which progress can be made.
  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary rightly stated, the parties to the negotiations have to work out and agree the timing and the pace. Surely they would be well advised to consider the effect of the timing and pace of their actions on the future of Orient house.
  Finally, on relations between Israel and this country, my right hon. Friend will shortly make his first visit to Israel as Prime Minister. It will be the second visit to Israel by a British Prime Minister in office—Lady Thatcher made the first in 1986. I warmly welcome the visit, which will cement the excellent bilateral relationship between this country and Israel. I also warmly welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend will be accompanied by a group of prominent business men, which I hope will help to develop the growing trade between the two countries, as Israel is our third most important trading partner in the middle east. I hope that more good will come of my right hon. Friend's visit.
  The visit also has significance beyond trade, important though that is. The peace process in the middle east means a great deal to the region and to many people throughout the world. We have a good record of contributing to that process and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister deserves our strong support across the House for the further efforts that he will undoubtedly make to move forward that process, in which we have all invested so much hope.
  11.50 am
  Mr. Ernie Ross: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on winning this Adjournment debate. At this time in the middle east peace process, it is important for the House to have an opportunity to discuss the issues and for Opposition Members to have the chance to support the efforts that

  987
  the Government and the international community are making to ensure lasting peace in the middle east. It is also important for hon. Members on both sides of the House to set out some of our concerns.
  We do not have much time and I do not want to take up any more than necessary, but it is important to say one or two things, given that the thrust of the speech by the hon. Member for Hertsmere concerned the security of Israel. I have been in this House for 16 years and have heard many people talking about the security of Israel from different perspectives. The argument has moved on, but it has not really changed. The hon. Gentleman fell into the trap of thinking that dealing with security in its military sense is the only way to guarantee Israel's security, without realising that the best security and harbinger of peace in the middle east would be a comprehensive peace settlement. That is the only security and future that Israel could and should be striving for, and that must be what all hon. Members dedicate themselves to.
  The hon. Member for Hertsmere is right in saying that we must concentrate our efforts on a comprehensive peace settlement for the middle east and the various aspects of it. I agree with him that one of the most crucial aspects of that peace plan is for the Israeli-Syrian peace accord to be moved forward. I agree that the Syrians have made it clear that it must be full peace for full withdrawal and the Israelis have said that the depth of peace will be commensurate with the depth of withdrawal, but we need to go beyond that.
  We have had many hints from the various capitals of the world that the two countries are close to concluding that agreement. We need to press harder to encourage them to take that extra step for peace. Then we must move on to the peace accord between Lebanon and Israel and to a further comprehensive peace that will remove all the inhibitions and problems that Israel faces. Israel cannot complain at the moment that it has somehow lost out because of anything that has happened so far as part of the declaration of principles, the Oslo agreement, or any other agreement for that matter.
  I also pay tribute to the Israeli Government. They are the first Israeli Government to be elected on a platform for peace during the 16 years that I have been in this place and that should be recognised in the House. They were not only elected on a platform for peace, but have had the determination to make it happen. I have sat here through two previous Israeli Governments—the Likud Governments of Begin and Shamir. The latter went to Madrid and signed the original peace accord. As we now know, he did so with no intention of moving any way towards giving the Palestinians any rights, responsibilities or freedom and certainly with no intention of giving them a Palestinian authority, let alone a Palestinian state. This Israeli Government command respect and support because they fought on a platform for peace, and what is more important, a platform that set out land for peace, as outlined in Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.
  There is a different environment in Israel and I hope that the Israeli Government will be re-elected in the forthcoming elections. It is vital for the Israeli people and the middle east peace process that that Government, who are committed to peace, should be re-elected.
  The Israeli-Palestinian problem is the crux of the middle east problem. I have difficulty agreeing with much of what the hon. Member for Hertsmere said on that
  988
  matter. It is clear to anyone who has worked in the middle east, understands it and realises the problems that the lack of comparability and equality between the two parties, who are supposed to be negotiating equally across the table, is the problem. There must be an equality of legitimacy between the Israelis and the Palestinians and that cannot happen unless the Palestinian authority can sit at that table as a directly elected authority. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends agree and will support me, as will Conservative Members, when I say that an early election on the west bank and Gaza is one of the vital cogs in the process. The forum, size and nature of the authority is for the Palestinians to determine and to agree with the Israelis and we must try to help. Whether it is a 100-person council, 65 persons as proposed by Egypt, 40 or 20, as proposed by Israel, is not as important as the fact that those elections take place. Unless and until they do, there cannot be the legitimacy of equality over the negotiating table, which is so vital if we are to move the peace forward.
  As the hon. Member for Hertsmere secured this debate, I am sorry that we were not able to invite him to listen to the talk by Emma Murphy, the British academy postdoctoral fellow, at the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies last week. She gave an excellent paper which, for the first time, brought together all the concerns and fears and began to look at the declaration of principles, the Oslo accord and the way in which they have impacted on the two countries. What Israel has done to exploit—I use that word as it is supposed to be used—the Oslo accord and the declaration of principles is no less than any other Government would have done in negotiations with another party. Later today, we will discuss the various ways in which Britain might secure the best place for Britain in Europe.
  I was not surprised when Emma Murphy set out in such detail in her paper the way in which the accord could not work because from the outset it was structured to favour the Israelis to the extent that there was an imbalance that would not allow it to be a success. She identified two international failures:
  "Firstly, the international community has failed to insist that economic and political development in the West Bank and Gaza Strip should go hand in hand and secondly, Israel has been speedily rewarded both politically but more importantly economically, for its participation in the process, without regard for its own failures to fulfil either the spirit or the letter of the DOP"—
  the declaration of principles. If any Member wants to challenge me, he need not merely take my word for that.
  Let us hear from Danny Doron, president of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants in Israel, who said:
  "The firms are moving here on the belief that the peace process is a done deal."
  Previously they were reluctant to deal with Israel for fear of damaging their business with the Arab world.
  Let us list what has happened to Israel since then. By August 1994, it had announced that 20 countries had
  established diplomatic relations since the Israeli accord. Prime Minister Rabin has been to China, Indonesia and Singapore to open up those markets, which were previously closed to Israel. Even Vietnam has had discussions with Israel. Even the Japanese Security Dealers Association authorised its members to conduct trading through the Israeli stock exchange for the first time, and the Japanese Trade and Industry Minister offered training to Israeli managers and workers in Japanese firms.

  989
  So it is difficult for anyone to come to the Chamber and argue that Israel has lost out. What should concern us is how the Oslo accord has worked against the best chances of a real peace agreement in line with the declaration of principles. As a result of that dialogue, the Palestine National Authority has been given direct responsibility for education, culture, health, social welfare, direct taxation and tourism. But it must co-operate with Israel in the more strategic areas of water, electricity, energy, financial development, transport, communications, trade and industry, environment, labour, media and the hunt for international aid and finance. Most notably, Israel divests itself of the expensive function of government but has retained its influence over matters directly related to the economic development of the authority which it handed over to the Palestinians.
  So, from the outset, the Palestinians' hands have been tied because they were given the most costly matters to look after while economic matters must be agreed with Israel. Moreover, as a result of the Oslo accord and the newly developing peace, Arab money is pouring into the west bank and Gaza and, for the first time ever, that money is now accessible to Israel. Who would have thought that Israel would have had access to Saudi, Egyptian, Jordanian and diaspora Palestinian finances? As it now has that access to the occupied territories' markets, it is not much of a loser.
  None the less, the world community, including this country, finds fault with the Palestine National Authority and asks why it has not done this or achieved that, without realising, understanding or accepting the imbalance in its relationship with Israel. It is perhaps ironic that it took 26 years thoroughly to reduce the occupied territories' economy, yet the international community expected a massive turnround in the space of months. When Israel's disengagement fell behind schedule and elections failed to materialise, Israeli closures strangled the lifeline of the Palestinian income, aid only dripped into the west bank, Gaza and the occupied territories and living standards fell, the result—not surprisingly—was a loss in public faith in the opportunities presented by the deal and a rise in political tensions.
  It is crucial that those issues are understood. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Hertsmere and with the agreement of Emma Murphy, I shall place her extremely enlightening document in the Library so that the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues can read it.
  The benefits for Israel are great. The Troika visited Israel recently for discussions with Prime Minister Rabin and Foreign Minister Peres. Apart from correctly raising issues which it regarded as blocks to the success of the middle east peace process—the settlements and the failure of the international community to help Palestinians in Gaza—it also discussed special, favoured terms for Israel. The European Mediterranean Association agreement, which I understand is 95 per cent. agreed—we are arguing over the last 5 per cent.—will give Israel, the only non-European Union member, privileged access to research and development and bidding for projects in European countries. It has gained that privileged access because of its commitment to resolving peacefully the problems in the middle east.
  990
  At the same time, Israel is telling the European Union, which is the largest single contributor to the peace process—it is giving 500 million ecu—that it must keep its nose out of the political side of those negotiations. That is no longer possible. Without seeking to attack Israel, we must remind it, as the United States Government did when they temporarily suspended $10 billion of aid some years ago because Israel was not working as hard as they thought it should, that if it wants that association agreement to be concluded, we expect certain measures from it. If it intends to be a partner to the European Union, it is not too much to ask that it listens to what we have to say.
  One of the most important measures is Palestinian elections. It is essential that the Palestinians can sit down at the negotiations as an elected authority to negotiate with their elected counterparts in Israel. It is also important that we understand the conditions under which those elections can and will take place. The International Human Rights Law Group, in its book, "Guidelines for International Election Observing", defines the following minimal conditions for free and fair elections:
  "no unreasonable limitations placed on a citizen's ability to participate in the political process, including the right to a secret vote and the right to be elected to office; and respect for the rights of freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of assembly for a period adequate to allow political organizing and campaigning and to inform citizens about the candidates and issues."
  There must be a full withdrawal of Israeli military presence if those elections are to take place. I firmly believe that, if an elected Palestinian authority can negotiate with its Israeli counterparts, a comprehensive peace plan will be well on the way to being established. That is the best and only security that Israel can possibly want.
  12.6 pm
  Sir Timothy Sainsbury: It is some 13 years since I last had an opportunity to participate in a debate on the middle east and Israel. During that time, while other responsibilities enforced my absence from such debates, a great deal happened—most recently, an advance in the peace process. I therefore warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on initiating this debate and welcome the opportunity to make a new contribution to it.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) emphasised several times that, in his view, the best way to obtain security for Israel was a "comprehensive peace". In a speech 13 years ago, I made the obvious and, I hope, now generally agreed point that the best way to advance the peace process was to promote direct negotiations between Israel and her neighbours. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that, given everything that has happened since then, that is not just the best way but the only way to achieve substantial progress in the peace process. Intermediaries have an important role, but it should be restricted to bringing about direct negotiations, which have achieved results in respect of Egypt, Jordan and the Palestine Liberation Organisation.
  A powerful message must be given to Syria. If it refuses to participate in direct talks with Israel, it is effectively saying that it has no interest, in advancing the peace process and bringing about détente. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere said, a second message

  991
  that we should give Syria is about terrorism. Eliminating terrorism is the best confidence-building measure that one can have. Syria must not only say that it opposes terrorism but show that it will do something about it, instead of accepting the presence in its capital of many terrorist organisations, which seem to be able to operate with no interference and perhaps even with encouragement from the Government.
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: My right hon. Friend made an interesting argument about the need for negotiations between the two partners to the accord; but is that the whole picture? Surely the United Nations has some part to play. What about United Nations resolutions 242 and 338? At a time when Israel is obviously breaking international law in the occupied territories, surely the wider community and the world has a part to play.
  Sir Timothy Sainsbury: As I said, intermediaries do have a role, and I recognise that the United Nations can be an intermediary. Nevertheless, the history of efforts to obtain peace and improve security in the region shows that the only effective way to make real and lasting progress is for the parties to sit down face to face and negotiate—although that may be the result of a process and work by intermediaries. It is common sense that one will be unable to build confidence with a neighbour unless that neighbour is prepared to come and talk directly, instead of, so to speak, corresponding through solicitors. I reiterate that.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg)indicated assent.
  Sir Timothy Sainsbury: I notice that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State recognises the disadvantages of using lawyers on those occasions.
  Mr. John Marshall: And on many other occasions.
  Sir Timothy Sainsbury: And also on many other occasions.
  Obviously, it is also important that we do everything possible to retain and build on confidence in the peace process throughout the region. I support, in part at least, what the hon. Member for Dundee, West said about that.
  The first effective way to do that is to improve the safety and security of all parties in the region, not only by negotiations between countries, but by eliminating terrorism, which is very destabilising to the process, and not only life-threatening but worse.
  Mr. Booth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, especially as I am another lawyer.
  My right hon. Friend has mentioned terrorism. Does he agree that one needs to widen the net, and that, as it is now public knowledge that the Hamas illegal money is probably laundered through London, and as President Clinton has frozen similar assets in the United States since 24 January 1995, Britain should do the same?
  Sir Timothy Sainsbury: My hon. Friend, who is a staunch supporter of Israel and who I know takes a close interest in these affairs, makes a valid argument. I entirely agree that attacking money laundering, whether it be in connection with drugs, terrorism or any other aspect of criminal behaviour, is an important way of fighting crime.
  992
  The second way to enhance confidence in the peace process, which has already been mentioned, is very important—it is to promote economic co-operation and trade. That will enable the people of the region—the people of Gaza and of Jericho as well as the people of Israel, Jordan and all the surrounding areas—to witness direct economic benefits in their lives, such as more jobs and greater prosperity.
  There is enormous scope for advances to be made by co-operation between Israel and her neighbours. That co-operation can bring benefits, whether it be on transport infrastructure, tourism or water resources. Everyone recognises that there is an enormous number of ways of advancing co-operation.
  I hope, and I am sure, that the United Kingdom Government will do all that they can to promote that co-operation and to bring about those benefits. The forthcoming visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Israel will provide an opportunity to do that, especially as he will be accompanied, not only by right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, who will respond to the debate, but by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Export Trade, who I hope will build on the target set by one of his predecessors—me—to double trade flows between Israel and the United Kingdom. I am happy to say that we have made good progress towards that object.
  Mr. Gerrard: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Timothy Sainsbury: I do not want to give way too often, because I know that several hon. Members wish to speak, but I shall give way briefly.
  Mr. Gerrard: In considering the economic developments that I am sure that we all want, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if, during the visit by the Minister for Export Trade, the Minister will argue that the policies of economic separation between the Palestinians and Israel that appear to be being pursued and actively encouraged by the Government of Israel are of no help in that process?
  Sir Timothy Sainsbury: With the time limitations, I should not like to go too far down that route. Obviously there are ways of developing co-operation, which, for instance, might take the form of development of industrial estates on the borders between Gaza and Israel, which would provide job opportunities and opportunities for the use of Israeli capital and skills to provide work for inhabitants of Gaza.
  Something else that would be essential to taking best advantage of opportunities for economic co-operation is the dismantling of the remaining and distasteful aspects of the boycott. Undoubtedly, we now have the best opportunity that we have ever had to give the people of Israel, and indeed her neighbours, peace and economic advance. I am sure that we in the United Kingdom—including my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State in his negotiations and all his contacts—will take every opportunity to advance that process and to build on what has been achieved.
  12.15 pm
  Mr. Richard Burden: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing the debate.

  993
  The last time that I was in the middle east was about 18 months ago. That was at a time when the Madrid and Washington talks were generally felt to be on the rocks, at least by people living in the middle east. There was pessimism at that time among the people of the west bank and the Gaza strip about what the future held for them. Few people at that time knew—certainly I did not—of the talks that were going on in Oslo. Yet as soon as a couple of months later we witnessed that historic moment on the White house lawn when the peace accords were signed between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin.
  Much has been achieved. Much was achieved in that moment. The declaration of principles achieves a great deal. However, since that day in September 1993, there have been some reminders of the great importance of the peace process. Some of those reminders, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere reminded us, were the attacks of Islamic fundamentalists. There was also a reminder, in February 1994, when Baruch Goldstein massacred 29 people at the Ibrahim mosque in Hebron. That was a salutary reminder of the importance of the peace process.
  We all support the peace process, but one thing must be understood; it cannot stand still. It is a fragile process, and unless it constantly moves forward it is likely to fall apart. As time is short, I shall concentrate on two aspects that are vital in ensuring that the peace process moves forward and does not fall apart.
  The first aspect has already been alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross)—the necessity for early elections to the Palestine National Authority. One of the top Palestinian negotiators on elections, Dr. Saeb Erekat, has said that the issue of elections is the make-or-break issue for the peace process. Elections will be the cement that binds that process together, which allows the Palestinians to act as full partners with Israel in making progress in the peace process.
  A great deal of emphasis has rightly been placed on the need for economic revival in that part of the world, yet, if that is to happen, elections are a vital component. The fact that elections have not so far been held is one reason for delay in the provision of some of the aid that was promised by World bank donors as long ago as 1993.
  We need to consider the ways in which barriers to those elections may be removed. An early redeployment of Israeli troops away from the population areas must be a central part of that process. I welcome the fact that the Minister of State made that argument in the House on 1 February 1995, and it was made again much more recently by the European Parliament.
  Political legitimacy requires democracy. For democracy to thrive, the participants in it must be confident. It is very difficult for the people of the west bank and Gaza to have that confidence if they feel that their elections are being supervised by what they still regard as an occupying power.
  I refer briefly, and secondly, to the settlements, which are central to the success or otherwise of the peace process. I welcome the fact that the Minister recently acknowledged in the House that the settlements in the west bank and Gaza are unlawful—under international law and under article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention. There was a time when the former Government of Israel
  994
  seemed to think that it was open season for building settlements. I am pleased that the present Government do not see them in those terms and have declared a settlement freeze. If that settlement freeze is to be meaningful it has to be consistent, and seen to be so by the Palestinians living in the west bank and the Gaza strip.
  I accept what the hon. Member for Hertsmere said about the issue of Jerusalem being left to future negotiations, but they must include all aspects of Jerusalem. The future status of Jerusalem should not be pre-empted by continued settlement building on the borders of east Jerusalem—which is what is happening. On 23 January this year The Guardian described the Israeli Housing Minister, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, as having
  "backed further expansion of the arc of burgeoning dormitory suburbs around mostly Arab East Jerusalem. He told Israel radio: 'I will continue to do my best to convince my colleagues in the government that the only thing we have to do is to continue to reinforce the defences of the capital of Israel."'
  Faced with that, it is hardly surprising that Palestinians will see the so-called freeze on settlement building as not all that it is cracked up to be.
  When I was in the middle east about 18 months ago, what was going on around the outskirts of east Jerusalem was obvious: an arc of settlements being built around Arab east Jerusalem. Those settlements are not only a barrier to peace, but they have an impact on the Arab quarter that is psychologically dangerous. That too serves to underline the inequity in the negotiations.
  The settlements are a major obstacle to Palestinian confidence in the peace process. Should hon. Members wonder why that is so, let us remember, for instance, what was said by the Israeli military commander responsible for the west bank area when he testified before the Shamgar commission, set up to investigate the Hebron massacre:
  "You have to understand the basic situation. A Jew has a weapon to defend himself. An Arab who is carrying a weapon is a terrorist. A Jew with a weapon is defending himself and he is allowed to shoot. We forbid soldiers in the IDF to open fire at them."
  We need to get away from this sort of attitude and to state clearly that peace is indivisible: it must be respected on both sides. As we rightly condemn attacks made by Islamic fundamentalists and others on Israelis, so too we expect the Israeli Government and Israelis in general to respect the basic rights of the Palestinians. They have to recognise the role that the settlements play. They must also recognise the force of what Hanan Ashrawi said some time ago. It spoke volumes about the settlements which, she said,
  "cause friction, are a blatant injustice to Palestinians, fragment Palestinian land and prevent the emergence of a geographically contiguous Palestinian entity. Leaving the settlements untouched is like putting a flame next to a powder keg and saying: co-exist."
  There are many difficult issues to be faced. The Oslo accords and the peace agreement signed on the White house lawn were but the start, not the end, of a difficult process. We have the chance now of a real and lasting peace in the middle east; but if it is to be meaningful, it must be based on equality. To be equal, it has to be legitimate and democratic. Two necessary prerequisites for that would seem to be early Palestinian elections preceded by an early redeployment of Israeli troops away from populated areas. There must also be a proper freeze on settlement building, to include the outskirts of Jerusalem as well as other parts of the west bank and Gaza.
  12.24 pm
  Sir David Madel: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on initiating the debate, which comes at a timely moment.
  The middle east peace process always seems to proceed in fits and starts. Temporarily we appear to be in the doldrums again, but middle east instability remains, as it always has been, an immense danger to the west. Apart from our long historical connection with the area, it surely remains in the British national interest that we should play a positive role in the middle east.
  As this is a short debate I want to make just three brief points. First, I applaud the fact that Mr. Rabin's Government in Israel have taken risks for peace and have some considerable diplomatic triumphs to their credit—especially the agreement with Jordan. Like my hon. Friend, I give credit to the part played in that by King Hussein and his Government. Inevitably, the problem of the settlements in the west bank and Jerusalem is making further progress in the talks between the PLO and Israel extremely difficult.
  When Mr. Rabin's Government came to power in 1992 they said that they would freeze settlements. Settlements policy is bound to be hotly contested when Israel holds general elections next year, but of course it will not be the only issue that the Israeli electorate will have to consider. It would surely help the peace process along if the Israeli Government announced an immediate and stronger freeze on the settlements, not least because that would deny the extremists who want to wreck the peace process easy propaganda to use against the Government of Israel, who are striving on all fronts to achieve a peace agreement.
  The peace process is certainly dangerously incomplete without the positive involvement of Syria. It is important to remember that the dispute between Israel and Syria did not start in 1967. There was constant trouble and warfare on the armistice lines between 1949 and 1967, and everyone who takes an interest in the subject must realise the extreme Israeli sensitivity about future security on the Golan heights.
  This year, 1995, is surely the year in which progress on this dispute can be made. First, there is Syria's need for more economic aid, now that the Soviet Union no longer exists to back it up. Israel does not have elections this year and so has time to prepare a package to put before the electorate in 1996. President Clinton does not have elections this year either; without big American involvement, I do not believe an agreement to be possible.
  There will surely have to be a step-by-step approach to the problem. Initial territorial compromise will be needed before a complete solution is achieved. I do not believe that a non-aggression pact between Israel and Syria will be adequate, but America will need to give as strong a guarantee for the security and stability of the Golan heights as she gave to west Berlin at the time of the cold war.
  It is impossible to overemphasise the fact that a poor middle east is a dangerous middle east. Enormous improvements in living standards could be made if only these countries would reduce the amount that they spend on arms. Wild talk of an Islamic nuclear bomb and the dangerous unpredictability of Iran, to say nothing of the situation in Algeria, make it all the more important that
  996
  we make progress in 1995; and that peaceful co-existence, with all the advantages that it would bring to Israel and her neighbours, becomes a reality, not a dream.
  12.28 pm
  Mr. Norman Hogg: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing the debate and making an excellent speech. I thought that some of my hon. Friends' observations assumed an influence for this country that we simply do not have—and have not had for a long time. The Foreign Office does not enjoy the influence in the middle east that it thinks it should have. It has forfeited that and has not made a particularly good job of affairs in the middle east. I am even handed about that. That has been the position since Ernest Bevin. I absolve the Minister of State. He enjoys a good reputation in the House and a growing international reputation on the issue. I do not blame him for the lack of influence that the Foreign Office appears to have in the middle east.
  The hon. Member for Hertsmere mentioned a number of points which should be pursued. He mentioned Europe, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). It is true that Israel was among the first non-European states to recognise the importance of the Common Market and it signed an economic accord with the trading bloc in 1975. Today, after all that time, Israel's trade deficit with the European Union amounts to about £7 billion per annum. The British Government should do something about recognising that. They have failed actively to encourage our European partners to support Israel's trade agreement and they should do more in that regard.
  The key issue involving Israel today is the peace process and what is going on in the nations that surround Israel. The biggest worry of all is Syria and the Syrians' failure to take a much more positive attitude to the peace process. Syria's main interest focuses on the return of the Golan heights to Syria and no one can underestimate their strategic and military importance. But Mr. Rabin's Labour Government have made it clear that they are prepared to withdraw on the Golan heights for a full and comprehensive peace with Syria.
  Unfortunately, our Government are not positive enough in pursuing that. We should take a far stronger line with Syria on the question of Hizbollah and other terrorist groupings, to which the hon. Member for Hertsmere referred, and the fact that they find a safe haven in Syria from which to conduct attacks on the state of Israel. The British Government should be much clearer in what they are saying to the Syrian Government about that and be much more demanding that they desist in order that the peace process may be progressed.
  Likewise, the British Government, despite our long friendship with King Hussein and the people of Jordan, are not positive enough about Jordan. Jordan has acted with great courage in the peace process. King Hussein and his Government are to be warmly congratulated on what they have done. But, again, there is a trade deficit between Jordan and the United Kingdom and, despite promises, the United Kingdom has agreed to write off only approximately 10 per cent. of Jordan's debt. I hope that the Minister will say something about that.
  The hon. Member for Hertsmere also referred to the £75 million available to the Palestine National Authority. He made a good point about that, but so far only

  997
  £10 million has reached the Palestinians. That is not a good record. I accept that circumstances have not been as conducive to the delivery of aid as we had hoped, but I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about that in order to assure us that the money that has been earmarked for the Palestine National Authority will reach it as a matter of urgency.
  On Europe we have not done enough; on Syria we have not done enough: on Jordan we have not done enough: on the Palestinian question we have not done enough. Those questions must be addressed by the Government. When they are addressed, then and only then will the Government be able to say that they are making a positive contribution to the peace process.
  12.34 pm
  Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on his success in securing the debate. I do so with some feeling because he and I applied for a one-and-a-half-hour debate on peace in the middle east: he was successful and I was not.
  Peace in the middle east will come only when there is mutual trust. That mutual trust would be helped if the people of Israel could be told of the fate of the Israeli hostages, if those who are alive could be returned to their families in Israel and if the remains of those whose death has been confirmed could be sent back to their families.
  We must remember that John McCarthy and Terry Waite live in freedom because Israel kickstarted the release of hostages in the middle east by releasing a large number of prisoners. That decision meant that the west owed Israel a debt of honour. Israel had a right to expect that she would receive something in return. In fact, all she received in return were the bones of a dead Druze soldier.
  The parents of Zachary Baumel still do not know his fate 12 years after he was captured; Joseph Fink's parents have been told that he is dead, but they have still not been able to give him a burial; but much worse is the case of Ron Arad. On 31 December, when the people of England were celebrating new year, Ron Arad was celebrating his 3,000th night in captivity.
  Ron Arad was shot down on 16 October 1986. It is known that he was captured by the Amal and it admitted that it was holding him. In the first year of his captivity, he was allowed to write three letters to his wife, Tami, who also received two photographs from him, but since 1987 there has been a ghastly silence from that poor man. His relatives have not received a message and he has not been allowed to receive any messages from them.
  In 1988, he was removed from the care of Amal and transferred to the care of the Resistance of Believers. In 1989, he was transferred to that benevolent organisation, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Until recently, we have had only rumour to go by, but this weekend an Iranian appeared on Israeli television to say that he had seen Ron Arad alive in 1994. Mr. Manucher Matumer—I apologise to the gentleman if I have mispronounced his name—appearing on Israel television on 25 February this year, said: "I have a message both for the wife and the mother of Ron Arad. The message is: your husband is alive; your son is alive."
  998
  It is surely a scandal that, some eight and a half years after that man was captured in Lebanon, he is being kept in solitary confinement, against all the rules of the Geneva convention, and that his mother, his wife and his young daughter have not heard from him. Surely if we are to have peace in the middle east, Ron Arad should be allowed to return to his family rather than being kept in solitary confinement in Iran. His continued incarceration is an act of sheer barbarism.
  There is always a risk that a new peace process will create a crisis of rising expectations. We know that Camp David did not yield the immediate dividend that everyone expected. There was not the anticipated increase in tourism and trade from Egypt to Israel. One of the tragedies of the middle east is that the bus that used to go from Tel Aviv to Cairo was full of Israelis, but the bus from Cairo to Tel Aviv was only infrequently full of Egyptians.
  I believe that the peace between Jordan and Israel will be a very warm peace. I pay tribute to the courage of King Hussein, who must always have been reminded of the fate of his grandfather. Anyone who has stood on Allenby bridge knows that people and goods have moved between Israel and Jordan for a very long time. One of the risks involved in the peace must be that the people of Jordan may feel that their economy is not expanding quickly enough. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he visits the middle east later this month, will be able to give them economic hope.
  When the people of Israel signed the Oslo agreement, they hoped that they were getting security. We have seen in Argentina, London and Israel how Hamas is determined to try to defeat peace in the middle east. The people of Israel deserve our understanding when they have to act to try to ensure security and peace for their own people, because if they do not succeed in doing that peace in the middle east will be very much at risk.
  12.40 pm
  Mr. Jim Cousins: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing the debate and on choosing this topic. I particularly commend his use of the phrase "warm peace", which, perhaps, has guided the whole tone of the debate. That is to be welcomed.
  I say respectfully to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) that these debates are an opportunity for us to go further than simply rehearse and exchange old grievances, no matter how deep and legitimate the hurt that lies behind them.
  I share the anxiety of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel), who expressed concern that the middle east peace process should not stall, but let us begin by recognising the unique place in the history of democratic government that the present Government of Israel will have. The endeavour on which they have set out is one of the boldest, bravest and most testing endeavours that any democratic Government in the history of democratic Governments have ever attempted. It is a matter of pride for me that the party that lies at the core of that Government bears the name of my own party and shares many of our hopes and traditions, and that we can say truthfully, sincerely and with great respect that they are our brothers and sisters. All my hon. Friends who have spoken have done so in that sense and with respect for the great endeavour that is being undertaken.

  999
  I recognise some of the points that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West made about settlements, but the present Government of Israel face not one set of extremists but two, and the courage of the measures that the Israeli Government have already taken on settlements gives some hope for the future.
  Time is short and I want to allow the Minister adequate time to reply. At the heart of the matter is a rapid construction of the strength, legitimacy and success of the Palestine National Authority. Without that, the peace process will stall. The strength and legitimacy of the Palestine National Authority will depend, as my hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) pointed out, on its ability to legitimise its own place in the life of the Palestinian people through election processes.
  But it does not end there. This is a battle for hearts and minds that will be won as much on kitchen tables as ballot boxes. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) made a telling intervention on precisely that point. When the Prime Minister visits Israel and Gaza—he will take all our hearts with him when he does so—I hope that this will lie at the core of his visit. Something must be done quickly to improve the water, sewerage, electricity, homes and jobs of the people for whom the Palestine National Authority currently bears responsibility. I hope that that is the framework in which we can start to discuss the matter and move it forward. Skilful diplomacy and tough and plain speaking are certainly important, but let us not forget the part that chicken and vegetables will play in resolving the matter.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that the Prime Minister will not go to Israel and Gaza with empty hands, and that we have, ready to be delivered quickly, while it is still important and while it can win the hearts of people, positive proposals to put young men back to work, to give them a place in their own community and to give them some sense of their own power and place in society, because that is as important in Gaza as it is in many other parts of the world.
  12.45 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): May I begin, like all other hon. Members, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on having secured this debate? It has been an extremely good debate and it has reinforced the wisdom of the House in creating opportunities on a Wednesday morning for such debates. The number of participants demonstrates the importance that hon. Members attach to promoting the peace possess within the middle east.
  The starting point for every speech has been a very strong welcome for the peace process. Hon. Members have recognised the very considerable courage that has been shown by Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman Arafat. It is right that we should all recognise—as did the hon. Members for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg), and my hon. Friends the Members for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel) and for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall)—the contribution that His Majesty the King of Jordan has made.
  I agree that, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) said, the momentum of the peace process must be maintained. It cannot stand still, because if it does it will fall.
  1000
  The agenda for the debate was set by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere. I agree with the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, who apologised to the House for not being able to stay for the closing speech, about the comprehensive framework that my hon. Friend set for our discussion. My hon. Friend touched on all the major issues. Therefore, in the course of my response, I will base what I have to say on the framework that he established.
  My hon. Friend concentrated substantially on security. He is entirely right when he says that security has overshadowed the middle east peace process, most notably in recent months. Israel clearly has a right to look to Chairman Arafat and other neighbours to combat terrorism, but another proposition needs to be advanced. Terrorism in the middle east and the threat to the security of Israel cannot be checked or contained exclusively by military or police action. That is true whether it be military action by the Israelis, the Palestinians or anyone else.
  Advances in political rights and increasing prosperity are an essential element in promoting the security of Israel. That point was made by the hon. Member for Dundee, West, and I wholly agree with him. It follows, therefore, that Israel should not make unattainable requirements of, for example, the Palestine National Authority, as a condition of further negotiations within the peace process.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: As it is clear that security is at the base of so many of the difficulties in relation to the peace process, why have the British Government changed their attitude towards Syria? What is offered in exchange for the considerable support that they have given Syria in their change of attitude?
  Mr. Hogg: I shall deal with Syria shortly, but first I must emphasise that security is best promoted by the development and eventual achievement of a comprehensive peace process.
  There has been a good deal of discussion about the importance of Syria in that peace process. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury)—I was glad to hear him break a 13-year silence—focused on that subject. I wholly agreed with his view that face-to-face negotiations between Syria and Israel are essential if there is to be agreement between the parties; solicitors are not an adequate channel, even if they are as good as Secretary Christopher. That, I think, is the point that my right hon. Friend was making.
  I hope that face-to-face talks will take place. Indeed, discussions of that kind have already taken place in Washington, at ambassadorial level. Such talks, however, will not lead to an agreement unless it is based on the two propositions that have been advanced: total withdrawal from the Golan on Israel's part, and a full, comprehensive and—I would say—warm peace with Israel on Syria's part. Those are the two essential elements.
  Hon. Members have pointed out that Prime Minister Rabin has committed Israel to full withdrawal, and—although at times the language has been a little equivocal—I think that he has. To the extent that he has, his commitment is welcome. I hope that Syria will now feel able to spell out in detail what is meant by "total peace": that, along with agreement with Syria, is essential to Israel's achievement of a comprehensive and sustainable agreement in the middle east involving all her neighbours.

  1001
  The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) mentioned terrorism. All of us should do all that we can to persuade Syria that any endorsement of terrorism, either in southern Lebanon or in Israel itself, is wholly wrong and destructive of the peace process, and should be stopped. The British Government take every possible opportunity to make that plain.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere mentioned Jerusalem. He is entirely right to say that a way must be found to enable the various parties to the negotiations to reconcile their legitimate interests in Jerusalem, but that will be extraordinarily difficult. It will require generosity from all parties. I am convinced that that issue should be left until last.
  I also agree with what I took to be the general message from the House about the importance of not taking steps designed to shape or pre-empt the ultimate agreement. Specific reference has been made to settlements: it was made very strongly by the hon. Member for Northfield but also by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West. In so far as we can stop the process, we must not allow settlements to be so constructed as to pre-empt that ultimate agreement. Indeed, I say categorically that the construction of settlements is an obstacle to peace, and I very much hope that the Israeli Government will desist from it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere rightly pointed out that bilateral relations between the United Kingdom and Israel have never been better. Perhaps unconsciously, he was echoing a point made by Prime Minister Rabin when he visited the United Kingdom last year, and his view is strongly shared by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere welcomes my right hon. Friend's visit to Israel in two weeks' time, on which he will be accompanied by a substantial number of UK business men. Much of the preliminary work was done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove, who has contributed substantially to the promotion of Anglo-Israeli relations, which are very important.
  The fact that so many business men are going to Israel with my right hon. Friend demonstrates the extent to which the boycott has fallen away. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West that a poor middle east is a dangerous middle east: that is a true statement, which influences our thinking.
  Mr. Cousins: We welcome the fact that business men are to go to Israel, but if business is to be done money must be invested. It is essential to use that money to return people to work.
  Mr. Hogg: Money is certainly important. In fact, the European Union is the largest contributor to the Palestinian cause in financial terms. As the hon. Gentleman will know, 500 mecu is promised over five years. But he is wrong: 100 mecu has been disbursed up to the end of February, and the British Government's contribution is £75 million over three years. We shall try to find other ways of enforcing our commitment, but the hon. Gentleman must allow my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to deal his cards as he thinks best.
  The question of elections was raised by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Dundee, West and for Northfield. I agree that elections are terribly important: they underpin and reinforce the legitimacy of the Palestine National Authority. I also agree that it is extremely important for the Israelis to feel able to redeploy troops away from residential areas. Let me say to the Palestinians, however, that the Israelis have legitimate security interests. I hope that the Palestinians will themselves feel able to exercise flexibility in their calls for redeployment, taking account of the security requirements that Israel certainly has.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South raised the question of hostages, most notably the case of Ron Arad. I associate myself with what he said. As Ron Arad is still alive—we believe that he is, but we have no certain knowledge—the fact that he has been detained for so long is, as my hon. Friend said, a crying scandal. We say to any Government with influence—the Iranians, for instance, may have some influence—that it is indeed a crying scandal, and that Ron Arad should be released.
  I also say to the Israelis in this context—although I am not establishing any kind of linkage—that we welcome what has been done recently with regard to Khiam prison. I recall that the hon. Member for Dundee, West raised the matter when we last discussed this issue. Two important steps have been taken. I welcome the Israeli Government's decision to allow families access to the prison; I also welcome the decision to release some 32 prisoners. As I have said, no link is involved, but I welcome what Israel has done and feel that her action should be applauded. Nevertheless, I again emphasise the importance of securing the release of Ron Arad, whose detention has been a scandal.
  A number of important points have been made, but I am afraid that I have not been able to deal with all of them in 14 minutes. I mean no discourtesy to the House. This has been an important and interesting debate in the sense that to a considerable extent hon. Members have spoken with one voice. We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere for making that possible.

  Rutherglen Maternity Hospital
  12.59 pm
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: My reason for requesting the debate is that Greater Glasgow health board has issued a consultation paper which proposes, among other things, the closure of Rutherglen maternity hospital. The debate is a direct response to that proposal. I have the support of my hon. Friends the Members for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson), for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson).
  The hospital was officially opened in May 1979 and has clearly established a first-class record for providing service to the area. The proposal is to close the hospital and to direct the people in its catchment area to Southern general hospital. The catchment area consists basically of Cambuslang, Halfway, Rutherglen, Toryglen and East Kilbride, in which a third of the mothers attending the hospital live, and it includes a swathe of south Glasgow. That is a big area containing 250,000 people. In contrast to many areas and to proposals for hospital closures, this catchment area is expanding, especially in East Kilbride.
  The board's only justification for the closure is the "stand-alone" principle, with which I shall deal later. I am bitterly disappointed that, in a 20-page document, the future of the hospital is dealt with in six lines, within which the hospital and its ethos and service are dismissed by the board. It is disgraceful that the hospital is felt to be so unimportant that it is dealt with in such a short space.
  By the end of the year, the hospital will have delivered almost 50,000 babies. It has an excellent record not only for the service that it was started to provide but for the various services that the hospital has developed since it opened. It provides a day-care unit, a parenthood education department, a community midwifery base, physiotherapy and speech therapy units, and two pre and post-natal wards with 50 beds. The ground floors house an antenatal clinic, ultrasound facilities, an X-ray department, a dietician, social workers, a pharmacy, biochemistry and an in-service training department.
  I do not intend any criticism of any hospital anywhere in the Greater Glasgow health board area when I say that I cannot think of a more modern and up-to-date maternity facility in that area. As befits a centre of excellence, it continues to expand its services. Recent developments include a pre-pregnancy clinic which provides consultant assessment and counselling on a one-to-one basis. The hospital has an Ultramark 9 scanner, which is one of the most up-to-date available. It has a day-care unit for the monitoring and assessment of maternal and foetal well-being and it provides a comfortable environment. I shall deal with that later in my speech. It has a host of special facilities which it has developed over the years, and that justifies my view that it is a first-class centre of excellence.
  Over the years, two wards have been closed on the top floor. The board made a special case on that to the Minister, but they were closed as a result of the shorter time that women now stay in hospital after having their babies—it has dropped from over a week in some cases to just a couple of days. In the spirit and attitude of the Rutherglen maternity hospital, those wards have been put to positive use and now contain the X-ray service and
  1004
  physiotherapists and speech therapists. One indication of the work that has been put in by the hospital staff is community support. Fund-raising events have been held frequently to ensure that the hospital is one of the best equipped in the city of Glasgow or the surrounding area. There was such an input from people that it has become a vital care in the community asset in which most of the younger people have a firm stake. The hospital has an excellent record in clinical safety, and I shall expand on that when dealing with the stand-alone argument.
  In addition to the services which I have mentioned, the hospital has a first-class training department. It is part of the Victoria infirmary NHS trust and is committed to the pursuit of excellence through clinical training, audit and research. It provides higher professional training for senior registrars, and participates in an extensive range of clinical audit and research projects, which include a leading UK role in fish oil trials in pregnancy. There has been a systematic review of clinical practice in labour suites and it has locally co-ordinated the Scottish joint breast feeding initiative. It uses the Cochrane database which provides information on clinical trials in obstetrics. Those and other continuing developments in clinical practice clearly show that it is not just a maternity hospital but a centre of excellence.
  Mr. Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend's views are strongly expressed in my community. Some 900 births a year—two thirds of all the births in East Kilbride—occur in that hospital. Its closure will have a major impact on the delivery of hospital, maternity and obstetric services in that important part of Lanarkshire. I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising these issues and wish him well in his campaign, which has the full support of my constituents.
  Mr. McAvoy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. East Kilbride is a key part of the area that is covered by Rutherglen maternity hospital. That is shown by the fact that the East Kilbride community, led by Joe Quigg, was the first of the communities served by the hospital to initiate a campaign of opposition to the proposed closure. That group was, of course, supported by my hon. Friend.
  One of the key points which even the Government seem to accept in the provision of services in the NHS is women's choice. If Rutherglen maternity hospital is removed as a choice, the women in the population of 250,000 people in the catchment area will have their choice removed at a stroke. That is unacceptable and it will be challenged.
  As I have said, the stand-alone principle was the reason given by the board for closing the hospital. It takes the view that a maternity hospital should not stand alone from acute hospital services in case anything happens to a mother or baby during birth. The fact that the board dealt with that in only six lines shows that it does not have a large base on which to justify the stand-alone theory. If throughout the medical world there were a proven and accepted clinical reason for stand-alone maternity hospitals being regarded as unsafe and bad practice, I would not argue against it. If the clinical world said that such a system was not good for pregnant mothers, I would accept it. But the board's reasoning is disputed not just by lay people but by medical people and by the Victoria infirmary NHS trust board. The proposal should be reconsidered.

  1005
  I would like to see the look on the faces of Scottish Office Ministers if the policy to abolish stand-alone maternity hospitals was implemented throughout Scotland, because they would then be responsible for trying to finance the building of replacement new hospitals. The policy has ramifications for Scotland, if not for the United Kingdom.
  Let us consider the practical opposition to the stand-alone hospitals. Since Rutherglen was built, no mother has died either during or after transfer to the Victoria infirmary because of complications. The maternity hospital has a good track record. Greater Glasgow health board, to its credit, has not sought to cite any occasion when lives have been lost because of the stand-alone policy. I accept that the board must consider all aspects of health care, but it does not seek to fulfil the aim of providing optimum services in all health services. It does not station ambulances on motorways because of the bad risk of accidents taking place there. I do not see why we should accept its argument that, by abandoning the stand-alone maternity unit, it will provide optimum services to mothers in the catchment area.
  The board's decision comes down to an unseen reason—cost. Mothers in the catchment area will be expected to travel to Southern general hospital in Govan, a journey which will take an extra 15 minutes. Who is say that that extra travelling time for those from Blantyre, East Kilbride or Halfway will not cause problems for mothers and babies and the people looking after them? The board has taken no account of the complications that could arise in that 15 minutes.
  I make no criticism of any other hospital, but the board has tried to suggest that the acute and maternity services at Southern general are side by side. I have been reliably informed by people in the health service that should a mother develop complications in the maternity unit at that hospital, she would have to be transferred to the acute hospital services site by ambulance, because there is no direct route. That shoots down the argument that Rutherglen should be closed because of the delays experienced when mothers have to be transferred, because of complications, from that maternity hospital to the Victoria infirmary. The same argument applies to the Southern general, so where is the safety gain?
  I pay tribute to a number of people who have campaigned for Rutherglen maternity hospital. They include members of the Victoria infirmary NHS trust board, who support the retention of Rutherglen. The campaign has received excellent support and backing from the chief executive of that trust, Barry Small, and one of the managers at Rutherglen maternity hospital, Jim Bretherton. One of the key people to challenge the stand-alone theory is Mrs. Kim Margey, of Rutherglen, who is a member of the National Childbirth Trust. Those people are part of the community campaign against the closure of Rutherglen.
  The strength of local feeling was revealed when I organised a meeting of delegates from local community groups in the catchment area, when more than 400 people turned out. I remember the atmosphere in the hall when Dr. Neil McDougall illustrated the efforts of the staff to provide good services to the public. He came across extremely well and had the support of the audience. A host of other people and organisations are behind
  1006
  Rutherglen maternity hospital, for example, the Womens Royal Voluntary Service, which has supported the hospital for many years. That hospital and the services which it provides are valued in our community. I cannot vouch for those services, but my wife has certainly been a consumer of them. My younger son, Brian, is a true-born Ruglonian, because he was born at that maternity hospital, within the borders of Rutherglen town council and borough.
  The hospital is rooted in the heart of the community. The chairman of Greater Glasgow health board, Sir Robert Calderwood, whom I respect, has said:
  "In drawing up these proposals, the Board has sought to emphasise the importance of the involving of local communities in the provision of health care. "
  The community served by the Rutherglen maternity hospital want it to remain open and it will continue to make that case. If Sir Robert is true to his word and the board listens to the community served by the hospital, the closure proposal will be withdrawn. The hospital and its staff will then be allowed to get on with providing their first-class service.
  1.14 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) warmly on securing a debate on this important subject, which I know is of great interest to him and to his constituents.
  I should like to set out the current position on the future of Rutherglen hospital. Greater Glasgow health board has issued for public consultation a document setting out its purchasing intentions for acute and maternity services to the year 2001. That document sets out, among other matters, proposals for the reorganisation of maternity services for the Greater Glasgow health board area. The proposals suggest that Rutherglen hospital should close as part of the reorganisation and creation of new maternity services for the area.
  Greater Glasgow health board is, of course, aware of the impact that its proposals will have outwith Glasgow. For example, over recent years the board has been in discussion with Lanarkshire health board. Its views have been sought as part of the current consultation exercise. The board will consider all responses lodged with it by the consultation deadline of 30 April. Any subsequent proposal by it to close the hospital would be subject to the consent of the Secretary of State for Scotland. He would have to he satisfied that better services would be put in place before he would agree to any such proposal.
  May I reassure the hon. Member and the House that the current debate in Glasgow on how best to provide maternity care should not be taken to reflect on the staff and standard of care provided at Rutherglen hospital; but the board believes that continual improvement in care and services is vital. With that in mind, the board is merely seeking better ways of doing what it already does well.
  The proposals in the Glasgow consultation document reflect a concern on the part of the board that, wherever practicable, maternity units should have the availability and back-up of the full range of clinical support services of a major acute hospital. As the hon. Member will know, the document sets out an argument against the Glasgow

  1007
  area retaining stand-alone maternity facilities. The health board aims to provide expert maternity services with full back-up facilities on site.
  For the benefit of those present, Greater Glasgow has four NHS trusts which manage maternity services. Those services are currently organised from the Southern general hospital, the Queen Mother's hospital at Yorkhill, the Glasgow Royal maternity hospital and Rutherglen. In all, some 313 maternity beds are available. The consultation document, in proposing a reduction in bed numbers to 244, was arrived at following full discussions with local clinicians and general practitioners.
  As its consultation document points out, 244 beds by the year 2001 is considered by the health board to be appropriate to estimated need and appropriate for the provision of a safe complement of beds for the city. That level of provision also takes account of the needs of women who may decide to come to Glasgow for their deliveries and maternity care in preference to their local health board services.
  I have mentioned safety in terms of the board's views on future bed numbers. Safety is also a key consideration, of course, in the organisation of all health care—no less so for maternity services. Again, for the benefit of those hon. Members present, it is worth noting the consideration that lies behind the Greater Glasgow board's wish to have on-site full acute facilities to back up its maternity services.
  In cases where mothers experience difficulties and complications after giving birth, it is obviously desirable and safer for all concerned that the full range of clinical support facilities of a major acute hospital be available on site. This is clearly set out in the board's consultation document.
  There is another equally important consideration that has informed the Greater Glasgow board's thinking in this matter. As in most spheres of medicine, new techniques are also being developed by obstetricians, which allow the antenatal diagnosis of congenital disorders as part of the specialty of perinatal medicine. Where neonatal surgery and complex neonatal paediatric care are required, that can now be diagnosed before delivery. The board is of the view that there are clear safety benefits to be gained were babies in this category to be delivered and cared for on the site of the main neonatal surgical and medical paediatric unit—Yorkhill hospital, of course—and continuing services from the Queen Mother's hospital at the Yorkhill site is consistent with the board's view on back-up and the availability of specialist care.
  Mr. Ingram: Although I take on board some of the Minister's arguments, I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) about the views expressed by doctors at Rutherglen maternity hospital which, in a sense, tend to contradict some of the Minister's remarks. It is worth bearing in mind that there are about six maternal deaths per 1,000 in the United Kingdom but that there has not been one maternal death at Rutherglen maternity hospital since it was opened. The proportion of perinatal deaths throughout the United Kingdom is nine per 1,000 but only five per 1,000 at Rutherglen maternity. Those figures tend to cancel the safety worries about the hospital as a stand-alone facility.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman's point will be taken into account in the
  1008
  consultation. The hoard is sympathetic to the views of those who support Rutherglen and will take those views into account before reaching a final decision. As I said, the Secretary of State's consent is required for any proposal to close Rutherglen.
  As a dedicated sick children's hospital with associated academic units, Yorkhill is unique in the United Kingdom. As the board points out, this facility offers particular advantages in the care and treatment of sick newborn babies.
  It is worth taking a step back for a moment and reminding ourselves of the great strides that have been made in developing maternity care in Scotland. Over the past few years, there have been steady improvements in maternal and infant health. Outcomes in childbirth in Scotland as a whole compare favourably with levels anywhere in the developed world. Since 1980, the rates of perinatal, neonatal and infant mortality have fallen by more than one third and the rates of maternal mortality are now so low that the fear of dying in childbirth has all but been eradicated. We should never take this achievement for granted, and it is worth reflecting how real a danger maternal mortality was until comparatively recently. We should never be complacent about these achievements—as ever, there is still further progress to be made.
  Rutherglen does not have the advantage of being attached on site to the full range of back-up clinical support facilities—most critically, blood transfusion services—routinely found in a large acute hospital. That is why the board, having decided on the best course for the organisation and provision of modern services, is recommending the closure of Rutherglen.
  As hon. Members will know, Rutherglen is a stand-alone maternity hospital. It has a proud history; it is held in high regard by the many mothers whose babies were delivered there and it is viewed with fondness, I am sure, by those born there. There will always be genuinely held strong feelings and attachments to local facilities, and the views offered in the consultation process and in this debate will further inform the health board's consideration of the proposals. Rutherglen hospital was opened in 1978 and currently has 56 beds, 15 special care cots and two intensive care cots. The hospital dealt with some 3,036 deliveries last year.
  I mentioned that the Greater Glasgow board is in touch with neighbouring health boards on the proposals. Hon. Members may wish to know that, although it will be for individual mothers and their GPs to determine where individual births would occur, if Rutherglen were not available there would be sufficient capacity within existing facilities in Lanarkshire—principally at Bellshill hospital but also at Law hospital—to accommodate the current and anticipated levels of deliveries for Lanarkshire without any adverse effect on the quality of care.
  Mr. McAvoy: I am grateful to the Minister, who has been very generous in giving way; that is much appreciated. I refer again to the heart of the problem, which is the stand-alone theory. Would he care to comment on the fact that the latest report states that only two patients in 3,000 in the past year were transferred from Rutherglen maternity hospital?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is a telling point, which will inevitably be considered in the consultation. I have no axe to grind. Clearly, the hon.

  1009
  Gentleman wants the very best services that he can get for his constituents. Were Rutherglen to be closed, current anticipated Lanarkshire birth levels could be accommodated at Bellshill and Law hospitals without quality being compromised. The key point is that the Secretary of State has to be satisfied that there will be an improvement in services before he consents to any proposal from the board.
  In the board's view, the forecast number of deliveries for the year 2001 could be met satisfactorily in the three proposed maternity units. Local access will, of course, be given full consideration, and geographical circumstances, which have been mentioned, will also be taken into account by the Secretary of State in his consideration of all closure proposals.
  The Secretary of State will need to study the proposals carefully in the light of Government policy on the provision of maternity services. I shall briefly spell out that policy. I have outlined already some of the significant improvements that have been made over the years in maternity care. In particular, there has, of course, been a move to develop more sensitive, flexible and safe systems of care.
  The Scottish Office has been keen to promote those developments. Last year, its policy review on the provision of maternity services in Scotland set the framework for action by health boards. It affirmed the importance of delivering maternity care which is sensitive and effective and which offers the best value for money. It asked health boards to examine their existing services with a view to further improving choices in maternity care—a matter that the hon. Gentleman stressed—to promoting DOMINO and other community-based schemes and to achieving a shift from specialised to less specialised forms of care.
  Meanwhile, the CRAG/SCOTMEG group—the Clinical Research and Audit Group and the Scottish Management Efficiency Group—on maternity services has been looking in more detail at particular aspects of maternity care, with a remit to develop strategies for raising standards and improving training. The Government attach the highest importance to making certain that while these improvements take place, we continue to maintain the high standards of safety that have been achieved.
  1010
  The benefits of easy access to services have to be considered alongside the need for sufficient concentration of staffing and resources to allow the delivery units to offer first-rate medical care, including the sophisticated technology of special baby care and neonatal intensive care units.
  Delivery facilities need to handle enough births to ensure that clinical staff can keep up and improve their skills and experience in dealing with the more difficult cases and with emergencies. Proper arrangements need to be on hand to ensure 24-hour emergency medical cover and access to sophisticated clinical back-up. In short, the key is to work out for each local area, and in a way that is sensitive to local circumstances, the proper balance between the concentration and dispersal of resources for maternity services.
  In reaching its planned configuration for bed numbers and locations, the Greater Glasgow health board has, quite properly at this stage, not announced what the final distribution of maternity beds will be between the three proposed sites. That remains a matter for discussion with clinicians. The location of neonatal intensive care cots will also be subject to clinical input before decisions are made. However, I know that, whatever the outcome, the board and NHS trusts will arrive at a flexible arrangement that can respond to future changes in need.
  I am not in a position to anticipate the final outcome of the consultation exercise or the Secretary of State's decision, but the points made by the hon. Members for Rutherglen and for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) will be fully taken into account. There is no hidden agenda in the board's consideration of the organisation of maternity care provided for Glasgow. The current proposals have arisen from a genuine review of how best to match maternity care to need and how best to provide that care for the Greater Glasgow health board area. This strategy review is not driven by any artificial target on bed numbers. No target exists. The board's actions are confirmation of the board's continuing commitment to the policy of putting patients' needs first. We look forward to receiving its proposals following the conclusion of its consultations on 30 April.
  I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen on raising the important matter. The fact that so many of his hon. Friends—the hon. Members for East Kilbride and for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood)—are—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.

  Education in Kent
  1.30 pm
  Mr. Bob Dunn: I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to open an Adjournment debate on education in Kent, for it gives me the opportunity to comment on change—desirable and undesirable—in the structure, motivation, direction and philosophy in maintaining provision through the agency of Kent county council.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Kent and I wish to place on record our unswerving and total support for the many hundreds of schools—local education authority-maintained and grant-maintained—in the county. We recognise fully the dedication of teachers, governors and parents who service the range and variety of schools in Kent, thus giving local parents a range of choice second to none in England and, therefore, giving Kent's children the opportunity of a first-rate education: the best start in life possible.
  I am pleased to see my hon. Friends the Members for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), for Graveshan-i (Mr. Arnold) and for Dover (Mr. Shaw) supporting me today. Those of us who represent Kentish constituencies have wasted no opportunity at any time to praise Kent schools, not as a matter of form, but for genuine reasons of pride and admiration.
  Until recently, there was a symmetry of interests between the local education authority, schools and parents. 'That symmetry of interests and working together to improve standards in Kent has been ruthlessly destroyed by the advent of the Lib-Lab pact at county hall. It is to that regime in Maidstone that I want to direct my charges. I charge it with wilful politicisation of the education bureaucracy, a total and cynical disregard of pledged commitments made while in opposition about open government and the need for transparency and accountability, a manifestation of complete hostility to the range of national policies, which allow Kent to enjoy the variety of schools and to permit the greater involvement of parents in the running of their children's school, and financial incompetence. The Lib-Lab pact in Maidstone is trying every which way to avoid owning up to financial irresponsibility of the like never before seen in Kent at county level.
  The final straw for us in Kent since the loss of control by the Conservative party in May 1993 was that, a few weeks ago, the director of education services issued under his name a leaflet paid for by the council tax payers of Kent, which contained nothing more than a political, anti-Government message. The leaflet was issued at a cost of several thousand pounds to each local education authority-maintained school in Kent. No consultation was allowed with the governing bodies of those schools, although it is said that some governors, at some meetings, asked for some information about the future budget.
  Copies of the leaflet simply arrived one afternoon at local schools and the teachers, staff and heads were told to distribute them. Many chairmen of governors, not only Conservatives, have expressed great concern over the use of teaching staff to pass on to parents in our communities a clearly political message. I am glad that a number of
  1012
  head teachers in north-west Kent refused to send out the leaflet because they felt that it was a political message and not part of their duty and responsibility.
  Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend accept from me as a chartered accountant that the figures quoted in that leaflet were highly selective and designed solely for a political purpose? We must question the basis and the appropriateness of a director of education issuing such a leaflet under his name and whether he is able to continue to be an independent director of education, or whether he should get out of his bureaucrat's office and admit that he wants to play politics and become a politician.
  Mr. Dunn: The director of education in Kent has made known on several public occasions his hostilities to the policies of this Government. I am sure that he will read with interest the comments of my hon. Friend.
  With regard to the leaflet, none of us in this Chamber objects to the political masters and mistresses of lire county of Kent issuing a message if they wish to do so. What is unparalleled in my 16 years in the House is the use of the director of education for the purposes of party political activities. That is wrong. What is more interesting about that particular unfolding of events is that I was told by the chief executive of Kent county council—a professional man indeed—that he did not see the leaflet in draft form until it had gone out. That is a significant development. What is going on between the different arms of the county bureaucracy?
  I am fully aware that that development is not new. All of us—I welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to the debate—remember that, in the county council election campaign in April and May of 1993, neither the Labour or Liberal parties, nor any of my local Labour or Liberal Democrat candidates, made any reference whatever to their opposition to GM schools, although there was a reference to it in their manifesto kept in Maidstone. Many of them have since refused to back their local schools in ballots to become grant-maintained.
  Kent council is bypassing the governing bodies, has made a commitment since 1993 to do nothing to assist in the forward movement of Government policies and, of course, as we know, last week descended into the sort of anarchy that we used to associate with central London Labour-controlled boroughs, by refusing on a number of occasions to allow members of the Conservative group on the county council to speak on important issues. That led to a walk-out by the Conservative group, which, of course, has the full support of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  What was significant about the budget debate the other day was that there was no publication of staffing levels for the years ahead. Over the past two years of Lib-Lab control, central staff numbers in Kent county council have risen from 14,694 to 15,556 persons. Thus, we are concerned about the reduction in KCC's commitments, while the level of bureaucracy has risen.
  Mr. James Couchman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most shameful result of that swelling bureaucracy, as the council increased numbers of central staff, was that at the same time it was hacking savagely at three particular areas of education: discretionary grants for those over 16 years old who complete their A-levels

  1013
  and foundation courses at colleges of further education, travel expenses for the over-16s and the adult education service, much prized in Kent?
  Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is right in his interpretation of those matters. Of course, there are other examples of waste, not least conferences, the Kent partnership programme, leaflets being issued, and attempts to force schools on local communities that do not want them. All hon. Members can find examples of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money being spent in Kent for quite the wrong purposes. It is the nature of the beast at county hall to want to cut high-profile services in the way that my hon. Friend mentioned.
  Dame Peggy Fenner: The matter must be set against the background of half our secondary school pupils now in grant-maintained schools, for which Kent county council will have no budget at all, of no funding for further education, which is now the responsibility of the Further Education Funding Council, and of no careers service, and yet there is an increase in staff, and of the educational core staff in Maidstone. That is set against the background of a much declining role in education budgeting.
  Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is right. I shall quote the comments of the leader of the Conservative group, Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, who, on 23 February 1995, said:
  "The KCC has lost much of its responsibility and role; 50 per cent. of our secondary school children are in Grant Maintained schools out of KCC control; we have lost Further Education and now Careers and Police. Despite this loss KCC has not reduced its central administration accordingly".
  It is Conservative Members' duty to make every school, every grant-maintained school, every grammar school, every high school and every city technology college aware of the hostility of the Lib-Lab pact on KCC. KCC is not serving the people; it is frightening the people.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Surely one of the most shocking figures concerns the pay rises that the administrative staff have been awarded. They have totalled 7.1 per cent. over the past two years, which is 1.5 per cent. more than the teachers are receiving. Were not our Conservative colleagues on the county council right to oppose that increase?
  Mr. Dunn: The Conservative group on KCC put forward its own budget proposals, which could have funded the teachers' pay increase, restored the cuts that the Lib-Lab pact has made, and given Kent the familiar robust financial competence that had existed for more than 100 years. If it is a matter of the people or of Kent county council, it is our job, duty and pleasure to back the people every time.
  1.41 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on raising this important subject. I can do no better than deal with the ill-informed comments of the signatories to early-day motion 708, which was tabled last night by six hon. Members, none of whose constituency is within 100 miles of Kent. Indeed, most are in the north of England. I shall deal with their specific points.
  1014
  First, the signatories claim that 1 per cent. had been provided by the Lib-Lab pact for the teachers' pay increase in Kent. What they fail to state is that, simultaneously in the education budget papers, the Lib-Lab pact cut 1 per cent. from schools' delegated budgets, thereby taking them back to zero—in other words, no increase. Only last week, the Lib-Lab pact took a leaf out of the Conservative budget proposals to fund a 1 per cent. increase by drawing down from the over-provided GM schools common formula provision.
  Secondly, in my speech on 7 February, I thanked the Government for a 2 per cent. increase in Kent's external funding—that is, revenue support grant and the business rate allocation—from £754 million to £770 million for KCC and Kent police combined. The Lib-Lab pact has claimed a £5.5 million cut. It does that by bringing in other specific grants, and including one year's figures but not the next, to produce the cut that it wishes to allege. That is quite bogus.
  One can do anything if one is prepared to massage figures. In fact, I could create a massive funding increase for Kent county council by adding in the windfall of £20 million that KCC has saved from lower interest rates and £10 million from land sales, £30 million of which, incidentally, it has already blown.
  Thirdly, I refer to conferences. The early-day motion mentions the Great Danes conference at a four-star hotel, which cost £30,000. The signatories are very coy about the other KCC conferences, which cost the Kent council tax payer 10 times as much. The Great Danes conference was addressed by, among others, Roy Pryke, the most effective politician of the left-wing troika running Kent education, the others being the Lib-Lab co-chairs, who have been notably hiding behind Roy Pryke's skirts as the flak has rightly flown of late. Another speaker was Professor Ted Wragg, a consistent opponent of Government education policies. He has said:
  "The free market plans in curriculum and testing will restore and extend the stigma of premature failure."
  Professor Wragg has also said:
  "As the league table philosophy begins to predominate the less able will increasingly be seen as cripples."
  He further said:
  "Statethink was unknown in this country until 1988. It will be the norm in future."
  I cannot help but think that that party political stuff, if repeated at the conference, was no help at all. It was a Lib-Lab political fun day, but it wasted vast sums of council tax payers' money.
  Fourthly, the signatories to the early-day motion speak of cuts in the county council administration due to the departure of further education colleges. How do they know? As we have heard, the Lib-Lab pact has mysteriously left staffing numbers out of the budget book for the first time ever in Kent. All that we have to go on are the gross staffing numbers of the central organisation, which have risen from 14,694, when the Lib-Labs came in, to 15,556 today, an increase of 862.
  In fact, as has been mentioned, with the departure of further education colleges, 88 GM schools and the careers service and with contracting out, administration costs and staff numbers should have fallen sharply. In practice, they have not. The county auditor, Price Waterhouse, has reported that
  "This will not be sustainable."

  1015
  I contend that millions of pounds, which are tied up, could have gone to our school budgets.
  Fifthly, the signatories to the early-day motion claim that there are £1.8 million savings in central management costs. I have looked at the details. The Lib-Lab pact claims that £600,000 will come from income generation proposals, but no details of that are revealed, and that a further £416,000 is saved from cutting contingency funding. In other words, £1 million of savings is bogus. I could even further reduce the original savings figure of £800,000.
  So much for the early-day motion. My hon. Friends from Kent, in early-day motion 710, were right: the Lib-Lab Members' arguments are as remote to Kent as they are to their own constituencies.
  Mr. David Shaw: On the point that there were no staffing numbers included in the budgets that were put before Kent county council, is my hon. Friend aware that the council's accounts since the Lib-Labs have taken over have not been signed off by the auditors and that a number of people have raised questions about those accounts? Is he further aware that the accounts contain no information about directors' remuneration or the chief executive's remuneration? We live in an age of openness, supposedly, and the Labour party is trying to encourage openness, but much information about the levels of staffing and bureaucracy in Kent is not available.
  May I finally put to my hon. Friend the point that grant-maintained—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. That intervention was quite long enough.
  Mr. Arnold: My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) seems to make the point that the Lib-Lab pact councillors do not have a clue about how to run a vast organisation. We are talking about our children's education and an organisation that has a turnover of more than £1 billion a year.
  The debate has the elements of a tragedy. The Lib-Lab pact has underfunded our schools, slashed adult education, and hit discretionary grants, school transport and the youth service. It is all so unnecessary. I cannot make up my mind whether it is due to the breathtaking incompetence of the Lib-Lab pact or political malice to incite ill-informed Government-bashing. It is probably both.
  In a cavalier fashion, the Lib-Labs first tried to gag the Conservative KCC alternative budget, then they voted it down. That budget would have fully funded teachers' pay, protected the schools budget, and reversed cuts in adult education and the other services that I mentioned. Why can Conservatives on the county council do that? It is because they, the Conservative county councillors, have years of experience in managing that vast organisation. They have produced a realistic budget with the front line as the priority. It is a tragedy, because education in Kent has been making so much progress. In 88 schools, parents and governors have already opted to become grant-maintained, and I shall cite three rapid examples.
  St. George's comprehensive school in my constituency has a chairman of governors, Joe King, who is a Labour party supporter. But in his enthusiasm for grant-maintained status, he said:
  "GM schools are so much cleaner and tidier looking".
  1016
  He has also said that extra money is available because schools do not have to support central services and can buy what they need, and that the culture is not dependency based, but results from the self-confidence that comes from recruiting a good team and enabling it to seek the best for the school in its central task of teaching and learning.
  The Northfleet school for boys is in the strongest Labour ward in Kent, yet John Hassett, its headmaster, has said:
  "The freedom from KCC petty interference, and its politicians in Maidstone, who have far less awareness of local needs and of our pupils, has allowed this school to set its own local strategy—we are now a real community school".
  The results for that high school have improved so that 20 per cent., rather than the previous proportion of 10 per cent., achieve five grade Cs and above.
  Lastly, in Southfields school, a high school with a difficult catchment area, the redeployment of resources has improved its performance so that, whereas before it became grant-maintained 1 per cent. of its pupils achieved five GCSEs and more, 8 per cent. achieved that goal last year, and the school expects the percentage to double this year.
  Those educational advances are what the debate in Kent should be about. Either the Lib-Lab pact on Kent county council could not run a whelk stall or it is using the children of Kent as a party political battering ram. Which is it?
  1.51 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), who has done a service not only for his constituents but For everyone living in Kent, in drawing the attention of the House to the problems that he has identified within that county. He was eloquently backed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who rightly took the opportunity to demolish just about every word in early-day motion 708, and also by the presence of and the interventions by my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mr. Shaw), for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). [Interruption.] And, of course, by the presence of several more of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman).
  I hope and trust that the wise words uttered by my hon. Friends will be widely read after the debate and will be digested by their constituents. Understandably, by taking a significant amount of time, my hon. Friends have left rather less time at my disposal, but I do not complain on that score because the quality of their contributions merited full and frank exposure.
  I shall begin by commenting on the general issue uppermost in the minds of many parents and teachers—the education budget. The first aspect of education expenditure about which everyone in the House must be clear is that Kent county council, like every other local authority, is responsible for setting its own budget and for deciding its own priorities between and within services. It is the council that has the final say on how much is spent on education and how much on other services.
  It has been alleged elsewhere that Kent has been forced to cut millions of pounds from its education budget for the forthcoming financial year. But there is no reason why

  1017
  that should happen. Kent's education standard spending assessment will increase, and under the capping rules it will be able to spend more in 1995–96 than it is spending in 1994–95. In total, Kent will be able to spend more than £955 million—nearly £1 billion—on all its services.
  So where does the talk about cuts come from? The county council is not cutting what it is actually spending; it is drawing up a shopping list of additional spending, then cutting what it would ideally like to spend if it could buy all the items on the list.
  I know that Kent schools, like schools in other areas, will be concerned about the teachers' pay award. The Government have accepted that award, subject to consultation, on the recommendation of the independent schoolteachers review body. The review body acknowledges the fact that financial provision has been set on the basis that pay increases should be offset or more than offset by efficiency gains and increased productivity.
  Of course I acknowledge that the award will place local authority budgets under pressure. Ministers have made that clear in recent weeks, and I reiterate it from the Dispatch Box today. But local authorities are large, financially complex organisations, and they have a variety of means at their disposal to realise the efficiency gains needed.
  To draw a fairly obvious parallel, the Government expect the Further Education Funding Council to make efficiency gains of 5 per cent. over the coming year. That will be tough but we are confident that the council will make it, and we are entitled to look to local authorities to examine their budgets in a similar way and to learn to live within them, prioritising appropriately.
  Schools and parents will want to ask the county council other important questions. How much of its total budget does the county intend to spend on education? What proportion of its schools budget will it delegate to schools? I shall not bandy comparative figures about, because that would be tantamount to telling the council exactly what it should do. But I can say that it has some way to go to catch up with what many local education authorities are already doing on both those fronts. Governors are entitled to look to local authorities to give priority to front-line services such as schools, and I hope and trust that Kent county council will do that.
  My hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham, moved on to the general question of grant-maintained schools. As he is well aware, devolving power to institutions is one of the central themes of our education reforms. Our commitment to devolution is not the product of ideology or of some esoteric theory but is based on the commonsense principle that giving more power to managers who are closer to the customers is likely to produce a better service.
  Mr. David Shaw: While he is talking about the devolution of power, and the way that that can happen with grant-maintained schools, will my hon. Friend congratulate St. Edmund's school in Dover, which opted out of Kent county council control, became grant-maintained and has
  1018
  now increased the number of its teaching assistant staff by six to provide more teachers in the classroom? It needed no additional resources to do that.
  Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend has graphically, in one sentence, explained precisely the sort of reason why grant-maintained schools are so popular. Of course I join him in congratulating that school and many other grant-maintained schools, especially in Kent, where the concept of self-government has taken off so strongly. As has already been said, half the secondary schools in Kent are now self-governing.
  The aims of our policy on grant-maintained schools are clear. They are to raise education standards in GM schools—
  Mr. David Blunkett: What about all the rest?
  Mr. Squire: I hear what the Opposition education spokesman, who has just joined us, says—but another of our aims is to encourage LEAs to be more responsive to the needs of the schools that they continue to control. For both those aims, the signs are promising.
  It is clear that the grant-maintained option, combined with local management, has prompted LEAs to switch from a control to a support mode. There is also clear evidence that GM schools are achieving better results than their LEA counterparts and, not surprisingly, that they are popular with parents.
  Sadly, ever since the change of control in Kent county council, the LEA has made it clear that it does not support the policy of encouraging grant-maintained schools, selective schools or city technology colleges. I understand that Kent has decided to freeze building maintenance, other than essential health and safety work, for schools that are balloting parents on GM status. If that is so, it is unjust. GM status is aimed at extending choice for parents and allowing them to decide on the way in which their schools should be managed. It is morally wrong that when they are offered that choice, their school is discriminated against, especially when it is the pupils who suffer.
  Perhaps there is some confusion in the minds of the members of the Lib-Lab pact in Kent. Two weeks ago, the Daily Express reported that the leader of the Labour party was studying plans to allow all state schools to opt out of council control. I have news for the leader of the Labour party, which I am willing to give today, free of charge. That plan is unnecessary—the opportunity already exists. If the Labour party could, in the words of Lord Wilson, "take their tanks" off the lawns of schools up and down the country whose only crime is wanting to run themselves, there would be a large increase in the number of grant-maintained schools. That would be popular with parents and with teachers. It would also be popular with a growing number of Labour and Liberal Democrat activists, including Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend made a passing reference—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

  Mine Workings (Northumberland)
  2 pm
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise a problem that has existed for some time, but which is raising its head a little more. That problem is stythe coming from old mine workings in Northumberland. I might add that Northumberland is one of the oldest coalfields in Britain, and there are thousands of miles of underground roadways in Northumberland, and also in Durham, where mining has taken place.
  Stythe is a common oxide which eats up the oxygen in air. It is not methane, which is a poisonous gas which kills quickly. When I worked in the mines, we called stythe blackdamp, and it is very dangerous. The problem occurs throughout Northumberland, not just in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) are in the Chamber, and I am sure that they have stories to tell as well.
  The problem arose in a big way in 1985 due to the closure of the last remaining colliery on our side of Blyth, and began when the pumping of the water at the colliery stopped. All the people concerned with stythe in mines have buried their heads in the sand, and nobody has wanted to take the responsibility. My local council had to take British Coal to court to try to get it to do something about stythe. It did—as a matter of good will—but then said that it had no responsibility, because the areas concerned were not its responsibility.
  Perhaps the Minister can answer this question. Who is responsible for the old mine workings? It seems that the pits below the old mine workings where some of us worked are now filling up with water for the first time in years, and that is pushing the stythe up into the workings near the surface. The enormous pressure of the water coming in slowly over a period is pushing up the stythe.
  I received a letter this morning from Mr. R. Robertson, who was a ventilation engineer with the National Coal Board and with British Coal. He wrote to say that he had seen me on television making a statement, and that I was right. Mr. Robertson is now retired. He said that the situation will get worse due to the rising water coming into the workings where the pumps have been switched off. He was an engineer who began working on the problem in 1988. He mentioned the Pegswood site, where he was involved in an advisory capacity.
  Mr. Jack Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is evidence that stythe is under some houses in Pegswood? The problem arises because of the good neighbourly attitude adopted by British Coal, and now by the Coal Authority. I have just spoken to Castle Morpeth council, and I was told that any costs incurred in surveying the problem in the borough will fall on the shoulders of the local authority. Would my hon. Friend like some funding to be made available to deal with the problem by carrying out research and by providing a monitoring system throughout the county?
  Mr. Campbell: I could not agree more. Mr. Robertson's letter goes on to say that stythe is a serious matter, and it is getting more serious as time goes by. He has raised his concerns with me, and I am pleased to be able to put them to the Minister today.
  1020
  As I have said, the rising water is pushing stythe up the old workings. Where the strata is loose, the stythe could find a path anywhere.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Gentleman will know of the tragic death only a few weeks ago of Donald Tollett, who was overcome by gas fumes at Widdrington station in my constituency. He had gone there with a young child to prepare feed for a horse. The gas escaped from mine workings through an old drift. The hon. Gentleman will know, as I do, that there are old drifts and drift entrances all over the county. Does he agree that they must be carefully monitored if we are not to have a repeat of that terrible and tragic incident?
  Mr. Campbell: I knew about that tragic death, and it is a shame that a life had to be lost because somebody somewhere has not taken responsibility. That is my argument. Who is taking the responsibility? The Coal Authority has now said that the problem is not its responsibility, but it must be someone's responsibility.
  We need a survey to be carried out, because the position is getting worse. Where pits have been closed and pumping has stopped, the water is rising underneath and is pushing the gas up. It could come through anywhere. We do not know where, as some of the old workings are 100 years old and are not on any charts or maps.
  Mr. John Cummings: In my constituency we have 12 mines, and Seaham Harbour is a town founded on three mines with perhaps nine pit shafts. My village of Murton was founded upon Murton colliery, which has three large pit shafts, and that area is due to be reclaimed for a housing development. Does my hon. Friend have information that the Government now no longer agree with the "polluter must pay" principle? Does he think that mining communities which have suffered from dirt, filth and noise for 150 years must now stand the cost on their council tax to carry out surveys of what remains of redundant coal sites?
  Mr. Campbell: That is the thrust of my argument. British Coal said before that it would do that as a matter of good will. It said that it would put a fan in where it was needed, and possibly do some grouting here and there. But it would not accept responsibility.
  I want to refer to what happened in Cramlington at the same time as the man died in Widdrington in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. The incident was serious enough for the police, mines rescue and environmental health people to be called out. What appears to have happened—it has happened once before—is that the fan did not pull in the gas. There is another argument there, because we discovered following the incident that the fan there had been contracted out from one mining company to another mining company. We do not know who has got the contract. We know that British Coal has given the contract as a matter of good will, but it still will not accept responsibility.
  Has the contract been maintained properly? There was a high level of gas in houses in the area on that day, as atmospheric pressure was light and allowed it to come out of the ground and into the houses. At the environmental health meeting, it was said to be a fairly serious gas leak.

  1021
  We have found out that the nearest seam was only 15 m below the surface where the houses were built. There is only 2 ft of clay, which is a good barrier to gas. Stythe will not get through clay, but below that is porous sandstone, which the gas will get through—as an ex-miner, I am well aware of that. We found that some of the sewerage and waste disposal pipes were dug into the sandstone and that there was a crevice under the pipe—a path along which the stythe could travel to the manhole cover, up the pipe and into the house.
  People experienced great difficulties because they could not strike a match in the house or light the gas if the pilot light went out. They had no central heating. Hon. Members will understand the enormity of the problem. It has happened before, but it is happening more often because the water level is rising in the old mine workings, where we worked many years ago, and is pushing the gas up. As the workings are only 15 m below the houses, we can grasp the seriousness of the problem.
  The more the pressure builds up in parts of Northumberland, the more the gas will leak and the more we will want an early warning system. I am not an engineer, only a politician, and I do not know what can be done. I initiated this debate because the problem needs to be aired. Too many people are burying their heads in the sand. There has already been one death and I am sure that the Minister will agree that we do not want any more.
  If it is true that the problem is getting worse, the Minister has a responsibility to issue some sort of statement and to say whether the Government are trying to get some action or to have the areas of Northumberland where there are problems surveyed. I am afraid that it is our legacy. Unfortunately, Northumberland is one of the oldest coalfields in the country. The problem is there and it will not go away, so we need to tackle it. We need advice and we need mining engineers. I am sorry, but if it is going to cost money, the Coal Authority will have to take responsibility. Mine workings do not belong to anyone but that authority—I do not know about 100-year-old workings, but I think that the authority took over responsibility for old mine workings, so it is still up to the authority. That responsibility does not belong elsewhere.
  Environmental health officers have told me that since 1987 we have had 29 gas warnings in Blyth Valley. I do not know about Castle Morpeth, Berwick or other areas. We have had 29 scares in our area and the number is increasing all the time. Usually, it happens in spring or autumn, when the atmosphere is light and allows the gas to come out of the ground. That is okay if it happens in the middle of a field, but unfortunately, if there are houses or an industrial site, the stythe can find its way in and obviously it can kill. The symptoms are easy to overlook. One feels fluey, tired and nauseous and wants to lie down and sleep. One lady did fall asleep on the couch. She was lucky to be awakened by one of her family. She was lying on a low couch and the stythe was well above the average and reached couch level. Perhaps she would not be here if she had not been woken. That just about sums up the seriousness of the problem and I hope that the Minister can come up with some answers.
  2.14 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I thank the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) for setting out thoroughly the problems facing parts of Northumberland, which arise from stythe gas emissions predominantly from old coal mine workings. He has shown the particular concern that we all feel, not only for the plight of his constituents but for those in other areas who may be affected. We also heard a little about them.
  I join the hon. Gentleman in offering my condolences to the family and friends of Mr. Donald Tollett whose death he mentioned. Unfortunately, he lost his life in February as a result of stythe gas emission.
  Blackdamp, as stythe is also called, is a mixture of oxygen-deficient mine gas—predominantly carbon dioxide. As the hon. Gentleman explained, it is known as stythe in Northumberland. Blackdamp and firedamp, or methane, have long been a concern in coal mines. There have been a number of disasters in coalfields throughout Britain and elsewhere in the world as a result of those gases. Much effort has been spent by mine operators and the regulatory authorities to reduce the risk to miners, but that research effort has been focused primarily on improving the safety and efficiency of underground coal mining operations. More generally, much of the attention has been focused on methane, because it is explosive, rather than on carbon dioxide.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows and has explained, carbon dioxide is an insidious source of danger. It is colourless and odourless, but is an asphyxiant and is toxic. Breathing becomes difficult in air containing 3 per cent. of carbon dioxide and slight headaches may be experienced. At 10 per cent. by volume, headache, palpitations and breathing difficulties occur and can lead to unconsciousness after about one minute of exposure. In addition, carbon dioxide has a greater density than air and, as he said, that means that it can accumulate readily in confined, poorly ventilated places, forming a layer at floor level into which the unwary may stray without warning. Since it is not generally obvious why the initial victim has become unconscious, rescuers are often put at risk, and it was fortunate that the recent event in Northumberland did not claim more than one life.
  Problems of mine gas emissions are by no means restricted to Northumberland. Indeed, mine gas incidents have been recorded in all the major coalfield areas. Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained the Government's general approach to considering them.
  A "Review of the significance of natural contamination to planning and development" was carried out for my Department by the British Geological Survey. One of a series of reports which are to be published shortly by the BGS is entitled "Natural methane, carbon dioxide and oil contamination: relevance to planning and development". It deals with the relevance of natural strata and mine gas emissions in the overall context of surface gaseous hazards and concludes that the most significant actual and potential occurrences of surface methane and carbon dioxide emissions from mines are in areas of shallow coal mining.
  The report also concludes that the relatively small number of recorded mine gas emission incidents suggests that the hazard is relatively minor and of local significance compared, for example, with the extensive

  1023
  problems associated with mining-related subsidence or the gas problems associated with landfill sites. Individual instances can cause severe and sometimes expensive or life-threatening problems, however. The report recommends further studies of the importance and surface impact of gas emissions from abandoned coal mines.
  Further to the BGS recommendation, research is under way on "The planning response to methane and other gases from disused coal mines". That research is being undertaken for my Department by Wardell Armstrong and aims to establish the role of the planning system in reducing hazards due to gas emissions from disused coal mines and to prepare a detailed framework of advice for planners, developers, land and property owners, insurers and others. The research is due to be completed later this year.
  The research by Wardell Armstrong has included 'a technical review of mine gas sources, migration pathways and emissions. A study of a specific area, involving the gathering of all available data relating to the occurrence of mine gases and the mining, geological, and hydrogeological setting, has been undertaken at Gateshead.
  Mr. Michael Clapham: If the survey to which the Minister referred shows that extraction devices should be fitted to some of the mine shafts currently in my constituency, for example, is he telling the House that his Department is prepared to put up the money to have those devices fitted?
  Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the cause of the problem must be found before we look to the source of the solution. It would be appropriate for us to wait for the results of the research, which are expected later this year.
  Mr. Cummings: Will the Minister make it crystal clear whether the Government still subscribe to the policy that the polluter must pay, whether it be for surveys or the installation of fans or other associated equipment necessary to drain polluted areas of toxic gases?
  Sir Paul Beresford: We have made it clear that the polluter must pay, but in this case we must also work out the cause. Part of the survey will give some indication of that.
  Current research and guidance will be reviewed to assess its relevance to mine gas emissions and key legal and planning issues will be examined. The hon. Gentleman has jumped the gun. Although that research is not yet complete, much of the basic data have been gathered and are currently subject to analysis and reporting. Some interesting results are becoming evident.
  There may be little problem if the gas stays within an abandoned mine unless people enter that mine. In some cases, however, factors cause the gas to migrate from one place to another. Thus every mine gas incident requires three basic ingredients: obviously, an accumulation of gas within the mine; a migration pathway to the surface; and a triggering event.
  Mr. Jack Thompson: The Minister was present when I said earlier that monitoring equipment is being installed in the village of Pegswood in my constituency because of an incident in December 1993. That equipment was provided by the local authority with some help by the Coal Authority on a good neighbourly basis. Does he
  1024
  recognise that, while all those useful surveys and research are going on, we cannot stick pieces of paper on the ground to prevent the stythe from coming up? What we can do is monitor the problem and, if an alarm goes off because oxygen levels have fallen to below 80 per cent., we can at least warn people. We need help in monitoring now.
  Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman may agree that the problem is so widespread, even though it occurs in isolated areas, that we need to understand it and find out where it is likely to occur before we move in that direction. That is the most constructive thing that we can do.
  First, it is worth pointing out that carbon dioxide occurs naturally in soil and rocks and is generated by the oxidation of coal. The formation of stythe in old mines is a relatively slow process, but the gas is likely to be present in any unventilated or abandoned mine workings. Secondly, the processes and physical factors that may influence gas migration are varied. Those may include displacement of gas as water levels rise due to seasonal rainfall variations or the cessation of mine de-watering. Conversely, de-watering of a mine may allow gas to accumulate. The density differs between mine gas mixtures and air influence movements, as do variations in barometric pressure. Thirdly, the extent to which the mine voids are sealed off from the surface, for instance where mine openings have been capped or plugged, or if fissures in the rock are beneath a cover of homogenous clay, has an important influence.
  While any, or all, of these factors may be involved in a mine gas incident, a po006Frly ventilated space within which the gas may accumulate and which is entered by people is central to the existence of a hazard. However, it is by no means easy to define all the factors that lead to a mine gas incident because of the complexity of mined ground, which may contain numerous old workings at different levels. Some may have collapsed but others remain open. Mines may have broken through into neighbouring workings to aid ventilation or water control during working. Different levels are connected by numerous shafts and adits. Many old shallow workings and mine openings are unrecorded, as the statutory duty for mine owners to keep mine plans was not introduced until 1850 and the requirement to register abandonment plans was not introduced until 1872. For those reasons, it is also difficult to predict where mine gas incidents may occur, except in a general manner.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I have listened carefully to the Minister, who has given details of the gases and so on. But he has not touched on the nub of the problem, which is the possible loss of life. I explained the dangerous position in Blyth Valley. We must try to eliminate that, but the Minister has not yet dealt with the matter. He must give assurances to my constituents and those of my hon. Friends that nobody else will die as a result of those gases and that someone will come to our constituencies and put the matter right.
  Sir Paul Beresford: I am trying to explain the difficulties and why we need the research. I realise the urgency, which is demonstrated by the fact that, although the research is not yet complete, we are already working on the details that have come in. The full research is expected some time this year.

  1025
  The researchers, Wardell Armstrong, have collected details of mine gas incidents at 77 sites throughout the coalfield areas of Great Britain. About 25 of those related to carbon dioxide emissions, compared with about 72 per cent. which related to methane. As the effects of carbon dioxide emissions are less easily detected than those of methane, it is possible that more emissions occur than we recognise. Some 50 per cent. of the incidents were found to be linked, or probably linked, to emissions from abandoned mine entries. Another important means of passage of mine gas to the surface is through cracks in hard layers of bedrock.
  Most mine gas incidents have been detected because of chance events. While there has been an increasing incidence of reports over the past decade, our preliminary analysis suggests that that may well be due to an increasing awareness of gas hazards and to monitoring of landfill gas, rather than a real increase in the occurrences of emissions from abandoned mines.
  We must examine what may be done about hazards due to mine gas emissions. It is the responsibility of the developer to determine the suitability of land for a particular purpose. In particular, the responsibility and subsequent liability for safe development and secure occupancy rests with the developer and/or landowner. The local planning authority may treat the possibility of mine gas emissions as a material planning consideration and refer to that in development plans. In addition, the authority may wish to satisfy itself whether any land allocated for specific purposes in such a plan may be subject to mine gas problems. However, it remains for the developer to make adequate investigations including, for example, monitoring gas levels in boreholes or mine voids that may exist beneath a development site.
  The building regulations require precautions to be taken to avoid danger to health and safety caused by substances found within the ground to be covered by a building. While those mechanisms control new development and changes to the use of land, there is also the issue of existing development, which may be subject to problems.
  The Occupiers' Liability Acts place responsibilities on the occupier of land for the safety of employees, legitimate visitors and trespassers on their land or premises. In addition, health and safety at work legislation places responsibilities on employers for the safety of their employees. The same legislation also places on employers a responsibility for maintaining a safe place of work at working mines, including the protection of the public.
  1026
  The Environmental Protection Act 1990 gives local authorities the means to abate a statutory nuisance and to recover the costs from the landowner. This could include escapes of gas which may affect surface properties. A major constraint on early action is, however, the limited extent to which it is possible to predict where and when the gas may escape.
  Since the Coal Authority came into being, a single reporting procedure has been implemented irrespective of—[Interruption.] I am trying to answer the hon. Gentleman. Since the Coal Authority came into being, a single reporting procedure has been implemented irrespective of where the responsibility ultimately lies. International Mining Consultants Ltd. has been appointed by the Coal Authority to deal with reported surface hazards. IMCL will investigate reported incidents thoroughly and will liaise with local authorities and emergency services as necessary.
  Where the possibility of a problem is recognised, it is possible to take action in several ways. Mine openings may be treated so that gas is vented away from any existing or proposed structure. Precautions can be taken to prevent the ingress of gas into buildings by ensuring that confined spaces are ventilated adequately.
  Caution needs to be exercised when carrying out new activities that may provide routes for gas to the surface, such as the drilling of boreholes. The Health and Safety Commission recently issued a consultative document in respect of minimum requirements for the health and safety of drilling operatives in the mineral extractive industries.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I ask the Minister again, who initially has responsibility for the old mine workings? Whose responsibility is it—the local authority, the Minister, or the Coal Authority?
  Sir Paul Beresford: As I am trying to say, it is a mixture. I shall write to explain to the hon. Gentleman, if he has not picked it up. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that many of the sources of the gas date from the middle of last century, and there is the additional difficulty of predictability.
  The Health and Safety Commission recently issued a consultative document in respect of minimum requirements for health and safety of drilling operatives. Account needs to be taken, where appropriate, of mine gas emissions in proposals for new development and changes of use.
  Many of the general issues of which I have spoken apply to Northumberland. It would not be proper to comment on the sad event at Widdrington station, as the circumstances are still—
  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
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    South Africa
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with South Africa.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Our links with South Africa are strengthening rapidly through trade, aid, sport, science, culture, military help and parliamentary contacts. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister paid a successful visit to South Africa in September. Her Majesty the Queen's state visit this month will be a strong symbol of the warmth of our friendship.
    Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a tremendous amount of good will in South Africa towards this country, as was demonstrated by the visit of our right hon. Friends the Prime Minister. and the President of the Board of Trade to South Africa? Does he agree that the Government and British companies will have to work hard to ensure that they build on the good will which already exists in South Africa?
    Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree. Our exports had increased by 15 per cent. in the first 11 months of last year. They are more than £1 billion now, invisibles are a further £1 billion approximately and we are the biggest overseas investor in South Africa, so those links are strong and becoming stronger all the time.

    Intergovernmental Conference
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made on drawing up proposals for the 1996 intergovernmental conference.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): We are developing our approach to next year's intergovernmental conference, based on the principles outlined by the Prime Minister. We are determined to play a positive and constructive role in it, and to ensure a successful outcome which promotes British interests.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Is it not increasingly obvious that the convergence criteria set down in the Maastricht treaty and the timetable for achieving them are now utterly discredited? Does my hon. Friend agree that although the convergence criteria in themselves are sensible objectives of economic policy the timetable is a political tool and should be taken out of the treaty altogether?
    Mr. Davis: I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend says about the timetable, and that is reflected to some extent in the Government's stance on the 1996–97 aspect of that timetable. We emphasise the criteria as being more important than the timetable itself, and we are not alone in that. That attitude is also taken, for example, by the head of the Bundesbank, Mr. Tietmeyer, who has made it very clear that the criteria are the key issue and that we have to hit those before any further progress is made.
    Mr. Worthington: I have noted with interest what the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary have said
    1028
    recently about co-operation between Britain and France on defence measures. Following the withdrawal, in effect, of the United States from United Nations peacekeeping operations and the lack of logistical support, do the Government regard the intergovernmental conference as a suitable framework in which there might be more European co-operation to give logistical support to peacekeeping operations in Africa?
    Mr. Davis: That sort of thing is happening anyway, but the hon. Gentleman is right inasmuch as the sort of things being countenanced as the defence component of the IGC are what are called Petersburg-type actions, which involve peacekeeping and other similar measures, not as a replacement or in any way a supplanting or weakening of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
    Mr. Colvin: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that it is important that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary should go to the IGC with the whole-hearted support of the House and the people we represent. Does he agree, however, that if there were a referendum on any subject before the IGC, he would go to the conference not with our support but in a straitjacket and that any referendum—if there is to be one—should therefore be after the IGC and not before?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend has a good point. Any referendum would have importance only in the event cif a change that is of constitutional significance. To hold a referendum in advance would imply that we intended to negotiate such a change. That is not what we have in mind.

    China
    Mr Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has recently made to the Chinese Government regarding their human rights record.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): We frequently raise human rights issues with the Chinese authorities, both bilaterally and with our European partners. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did so during his meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister last September and I shall be doing so later this afternoon with the Chinese ambassador. At the UN Commission on Human Rights this year, the European Union is co-sponsoring a draft resolution on China.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Although I welcome that answer, I hope that we shall keep up the pressure. As the United Kingdom is the largest European investor in China and trade is increasing in both directions, will the Minister ensure that human rights are kept high on the agenda? I think in particular of the plight of the Tibetan people, the fact that 55 offences carry the death penalty, and the increasing number of attacks on anyone who argues with the Chinese Government. Will the Minister ensure that the right balance is struck and that our vigilance is kept up?
    Mr. Goodlad: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We of course share his deep concern about abuses of human rights in China, including imprisonment for religious and political beliefs and the repression in Tibet. We regularly raise those matters with the Chinese

    1029
    authorities; but we think it in the interests of the Chinese people as well as everyone else that the healthy trade to which the hon. Gentleman refers should continue.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this Government have done more than any other in the world to promote human rights and good government?
    Mr. Goodlad: Yes.

    Western Sahara
    Mr. Mudie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest situation in Western Sahara.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The United Nations Secretary-General stated in his report to the Security Council in December that, subject to further satisfactory progress, he hoped to be able to recommend in March that the referendum on Western Sahara be held in October this year. Security Council resolution 973, adopted in January, provided for the reinforcement of the UN's identification commission, which should enable the compilation of the voter list to be speeded up.
    Mr. Mudie: The House will be delighted with that reply. I should be grateful if the Minister would assure the House that he will instruct our representatives at the United Nations to take any necessary initiative if there seems any likelihood that the date will not be adhered to.
    Mr. Hogg: I am pleased to be able to give the hon. Gentleman pleasure. There is, however, a problem with the speed at which voter identification is taking place. The commission is processing voters at a rate of about 2,000 a week, so it might be difficult to make the October date, but we would most certainly like the referendum to take place at the latter end of this year.
    Sir David Steel: Is the Minister aware that since the United Nations peacekeeping effort in Western Sahara began about three and a half years ago, £87 million has been spent on the operation and there has been a great deal of foot-dragging? Will he note the evidence given by Ambassador Ruddy to the United States congressional committee in respect of this foot-dragging; and will he do his level best to ensure that the date does not slip?
    Mr. Hogg: I very much hope that the date will not slip. The Ruddy allegations are serious and the United Nations has sent a team to investigate whether they have substance.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Apart from the problem of registration of voters, has the Foreign Office detected any other problems which may impede the referendum? There has been quite a lot of opposition hitherto.
    Mr. Hogg: The identification of voters is a substantial obstacle to holding the referendum in October, although I hope that it will be possible to hold it then. I do not immediately call to mind any other problems, but knowing the nature of the business I suspect that there are some. However, the identification of voters is certainly the principal difficulty.

    Chechnya
    Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Russian Government concerning events in Chechnya.
    Mr. Hurd: We have told the Russian Government that we want to see early progress towards a political resolution of the conflict in Chechnya and full access for humanitarian relief. In Russia as a whole our main concerns are continued press freedom, continued economic reform and adherence to the electoral timetable.
    I raised those matters with the Russian Foreign Minister in Stockholm on 14 February and we shall take the opportunity of the visit of the Russian Prime Minister, Mr. Chernomyrdin, who arrives today, to reinforce that message.
    Mr. Clarke: Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that he will do everything in his power to form an Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe mission to Chechnya? If he agrees with me and others, can he say whether any efforts have been made to press the Russians to form such a mission?
    Mr. Hurd: Two days ago in Vienna I saw Ambassador Gyarmati, who led the OSCE mission into Chechnya a few weeks ago. A second mission is there now under Swiss leadership. They are seeking to press for observance of human rights, with all that that means, and access for humanitarian relief. That the Russians allowed the OSCE mission into the area is one of the few good signs to come out of Chechnya in recent weeks.
    Sir Peter Emery: In any negotiations with the Russians, will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that a successful conclusion on Chechnya and the points that he raised initially in answering the question have considerable effects on other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States and are therefore of great importance for the rest of the world as well as for relations between ourselves and Russia?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. The first to have suffered are, of course, the Chechnyans themselves, but the anxiety which has spread from that tragedy into all the countries of the former Soviet Union, and the controversy in Moscow itself, puts a cloud—a passing cloud, I hope—over the prospects for reform.
    Mr. Corbyn: When the Foreign Secretary meets the Russian Prime Minister, will he tell him that millions of people around the world found the behaviour of the Russian army troops and the bombing in Chechnya abominable and the destruction of civilian life disgusting? Will the Foreign Secretary ask the Russian Prime Minister whether his Government are prepared to meet representatives of the Chechnyan people who are now expressing a view that there can be no peace while there is no independence in that part of the world? What is the British Government's attitude towards that?
    Mr. Hurd: I have certainly made it clear in private and in public to the Russians that the House and the British people have been appalled and depressed by the brutality of Russian action in Chechnya. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second point, one of the difficulties is to know who are valid representatives of the Chechnyans.

    1031
    We do not think that Mr. Dudaev and his regime are, but one of the difficulties is precisely to identify who could speak representatively for the Chechnyans.

    Middle East
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the middle east peace process.
    Mr. Hurd: We are concerned by the slow progress, in particular on the Palestinian track. During his forthcoming visit, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will urge all the parties to carry out what has been agreed and to renew their efforts to reach a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement.
    Mr. Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Syrians providing a safe haven for the Damascus Ten terrorist group is completely at variance with their stated commitment to reaching a peaceful solution and accommodation with Israel? Will he tell the House and the Israeli Government what we arc doing to put pressure on the Syrian Government?
    Mr. Hurd: We are making two things clear to the Syrians, and to all concerned, in that respect. The first is the one to which my hon. Friend refers. The Palestinian part of the peace process cannot succeed if Hamas and those who encourage Hamas manage to disrupt it by violence. Secondly, on the Syrian track itself—the discussions between Syria and Israel—progress at the moment is invisible.
    Mr. Gerrard: Will the Foreign Secretary ask the Prime Minister to raise with the Israeli Government the continued harassment of Lebanese fishermen off Tyre and Sidon by Israeli gunboats, which is preventing them from earning any sort of living? That appears to he a response to the Lebanese army increasing security on the borders between the UN security zone and Lebanese-controlled territory. Such action is likely to do considerable harm to the peace process.
    Mr. Hurd: The House will understand the concerns of Israel about its security and the threats to its security from southern Lebanon. We have already urged the Israeli Government to cease their blockade of the Lebanese fishing ports.

    Denmark
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited Denmark to discuss bilateral relations.
    Mr. Hurd: I visited Denmark on 7 and 8 February. I met the Danish Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister of the Faroe Islands.
    Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is there any common ground between our two countries on cohesion funding, budgetary discipline and fraud within the common agricultural policy? If so, will that help us to win the arguments in the approach to the intergovernmental conference?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes. I found in both Denmark and Sweden—and, indeed, in Austria the day before yesterday—quite a wide welcome for some of our ideas
    1032
    about the future course of Europe. The Danes and the Swedes have no intention of agreeing to centralising moves based on the assumption that the nation states will wither away. They are also very strong against fraud, for the same reasons that we are, and on budgetary discipline.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Did the Secretary of State raise with the Danes and others our concerns about reports that the French Government are encouraging non-humanitarian commercial links with the cruel regime in Iraq? Given that Saddam Hussein continues to execute, torture and mutilate his own people, as confirmed by the United Nations rapporteur on human rights—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question refers to Denmark. Is the hon. Lady coming back to the subject of our bilateral relations with Denmark?
    Mrs. Clwyd: Yes, Madam Speaker. I am anxious to know whether the Secretary of State raised our concerns with Denmark and the other partners in the European Union, which he mentioned, about the business links that many countries are trying to establish once again with Iraq, in the light of the fact that at Geneva the Danes and other countries were very concerned about the UN rapporteur's report that Saddam Hussein continues to execute, torture and mutilate his own people. Will the Secretary of State unreservedly dissociate himself from those groups—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. That is a total abuse. It does not relate at all to the question on the Order Paper. I have already cautioned the hon. Lady. The question must be more related to discussions and relations with Denmark. I am afraid that the hon. Lady is all over the world other than in Denmark. I really cannot allow that question to continue and I am sure that the Foreign Secretary would find it impossible to give an answer to such a roundabout question.
    I call Mr. George Foulkes to ask Question 8.

    UN Fiftieth Anniversary
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit the United Nations in New York to discuss plans to celebrate the 50th anniversary.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans to visit the United Nations to discuss plans to celebrate the 50th anniversary.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister as fed up as I am at right wingers such as Rosemary Righter of The Times using the 50th anniversary to rubbish the United Nations? Will the Government support the idea of a United Nations parliamentary assembly to bring some democratic accountability and scrutiny unto the United Nations system so that the agencies and the UN can be looked at by parliamentary representatives?
    Mr. Hogg: I certainly deprecate efforts to rubbish the United Nations, although I am bound to say that I am not particularly troubled by the writings of the journalist to

    1033
    whom the hon. Gentleman referred. I did not find the hon. Gentleman's particular suggestion very constructive and I would not support it.
    Mr. Jopling: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the United States ambassador to the United Nations, will he make clear the House's concern about proposals in the US Congress to reduce contributions to the United Nations, which would have a disastrous effect on peacekeeping around the world?
    Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. The fact that the United States Congress proposes to put a cap on the peacekeeping contributions by the United States of 25 per cent. is unwelcome and I would hope that it might be possible to persuade Congress to take a different view.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the Minister knows, the cap to which he has referred takes effect on 1 October and is now part of the domestic legislation of the United States. Clearly much work must be done to persuade the members of the more Republican-dominated Congress that any further reduction would be substantially against the best interests of the United Nations and, indeed, those of the United States. May we assume that the Foreign Secretary will take the earliest opportunity to make those points—not to the American ambassador here in London, but to people on Capitol hill?
    Mr. Hogg: I share the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern. The attitude of Congress towards peacekeeping is a matter of considerable anxiety to us all. Naturally, our ability to persuade the members of another legislature to change their minds is limited, but we shall try to find ways of expressing our anxiety about the approach to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers.
    Mr. Lester: The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs conducted a serious study of the future of the United Nations, and as we travel around the world we find that the Canadians, Americans and Australians—and other countries and their Parliaments—have done the same. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider setting up a conference—something short of a parliamentary assembly—enabling parliamentarians who produce serious reports about the future of the United Nations to meet and discover what common ground can be used to ensure the survival and better use of the United Nations in the next 50 years?
    Mr. Hogg: I am not sure that I want to promote a large number of additional conferences, but my hon. Friend—and the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)—made an important point in stressing the need to reinforce the basic propositions that the United Nations contributes to peace and stability in the world, that it will do so increasingly, and that the Security Council is working constructively and as it was intended to do for the first time since its foundation.
    Mr. Cousins: I am sure that the whole House is thinking today of the Pakistani troops being withdrawn from Somalia. I echo what the Minister has said about peacekeeping, but will he acknowledge that there is now a real crisis in UN peacekeeping in Somalia, Angola, Burundi and Yugoslavia, with costs and material requirements rising five and sevenfold?
    1034
    Will the Minister assure us that—Prime Minister to President—the House's view will be made clear that the dangerous right-wing UNO-sceptics in the American Congress who are imposing this limit on peacekeeping provision must not be allowed to prevail?
    Mr. Hogg: As I have said, I consider the cap to be extremely unwelcome. I also believe that the United Nations has a major contribution to make to world peace and tranquility through peacekeeping, among other policy measures.
    I do not believe that there is a crisis in peacekeeping of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has suggested. I see a fundamental difficulty, however, which I think will remain a difficulty for as far ahead as we can see. I refer to the unwillingness of member states—with which I have some sympathy—to put national troops into the front line when the nation in question has no direct interest in what is going on in the country experiencing civil strife. That is an inevitable fact of life of which account must be taken.
    Mr. Fabricant: May I suggest that, instead of travelling 5,000 miles to New York to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the United Nations, my right hon. and learned Friend should travel just 400 yards? Is he aware that the UN's first meeting was held in the Methodist central hall right here in London?
    Mr. Hogg: Indeed I am, and perhaps I may take this opportunity to remind you, Madam Speaker, of the invitation for 26 June, which I know that you will accept.

    Social Development Summit
    Ms Church: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department is making in preparation for the world summit on social development in Copenhagen in March; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): With colleagues from other Departments, we have attended the four preparatory meetings held in New York over the past year.
    The Government are committed to achieving a successful summit. Our principal priority is to improve the focus of the international debate about the issues of development.
    Ms Church: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he accept, however, that a number of charities—including Oxfam—believe that the Government are not taking the summit seriously enough? In view of the Rowntree report on the growing inequality in Britain, should the Government not use the summit to address the inequalities in this country as well as others?
    Mr. Baldry: The hon. Lady has made two bad points. First, in answer to her point about Oxfam, we have a substantial aid budget—some £2.2 billion—which we put to very good use throughout the world. Poverty is also a bad point for the hon. Lady to raise as average incomes in the United Kingdom have risen by more than a third since we came to office. Average incomes are up for all family types. The less well-off have enjoyed a rise in the

    1035
    possession of consumer durables, and vulnerable groups have been much better protected. The hon. Lady will have to find much better points.
    Mr. John Marshall: When my hon. Friend goes to the summit, will he remind it that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, that minimum wage legislation destroys jobs and that youth unemployment in this country is much lower than in Spain, which has a minimum wage?
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes extremely good points. There has been much misinformation about the nature of the summit and some mischief making in seeking to confuse its purposes with those of the EU social chapter. They have nothing whatever to do with each other. The summit is about improving development throughout the world.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Is the Minister aware that the social summit will be attended by the Heads of Government of all the G7 countries except America, which is sending its Vice-President, and by the Heads of Government from all of Europe from Poland to Portugal except Greece, which is sending three Cabinet Ministers? Why are the British Government not sending the Prime Minister or even one Cabinet Minister? Does that not demonstrate the utter indifference of the Conservative party to fighting poverty at home or abroad?
    Mr. Baldry: We shall be sending my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey, who stands equal to anyone in the world with her knowledge of social development and overseas aid issues.

    European Union
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the French Foreign Minister to discuss the future of the European Union.
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet his French counterpart to discuss matters on the EU presidency agenda.
    Mr. Hurd: I meet my French colleague regularly at the Foreign Affairs Council.
    Mr. Dunnachie: Will the Foreign Secretary state whether the Government's policy is to veto proposals which would significantly change the British Commonwealth's relationship with the European Union? Is it their policy to veto proposals which would make any change in that relationship?
    Mr. Hurd: I think that on the whole British Commonwealth countries have benefited from the links between this country and the rest of Europe. If the hon. Gentleman has specific points in mind, no doubt he will let me know.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there would be much value in getting national Parliaments and the European Parliament working together, a subject
    1036
    about which I believe that the French presidency is enthusiastic? Will he raise that subject at forthcoming meetings if there is time?
    Mr. Hurd: We must try to make some progress on this. The difficulty is that it is not for Governments to decide. It is essentially for national Parliaments to decide how and whether they wish to come together to ensure that they play a democratic part together in monitoring what happens in Europe. The House has no difficulty in chivvying and making life difficult for Ministers when it feels the urge. I think that it is generally felt that national Parliaments as a whole should exert a greater influence over what goes on.
    Mr. Gapes: Will the Foreign Secretary impress on the French Government his strong commitment, unlike some of his colleagues, to continuing integration in Europe? Will he emphasise that this country will soon have a change of Government which will mean that integration will continue at a faster pace?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not know—and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman knows—what is meant by "continuing integration". We believe, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will shortly expound authoritatively, in a Europe of nations working more effectively together than they have ever done in history. I doubt whether we shall get similar light from the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. Elletson: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to discuss with the French Foreign Minister the French Government's decision to expel five American citizens from France on the ground that they were spying for the Central Intelligence Agency? What lessons does that teach us about the prospects for a common European security policy'?
    Mr. Hurd: No. I think I had better keep my nose out of that matter. I do not think that it has any implications for our work together on foreign policy.
    Mr. Robin Cook: While the Foreign Secretary was considering the future of the European Union, did he have time to see the appeal from the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) to the Whipless Conservatives, urging them to acknowledge the gains they have made on Government policy towards the European Union and to rejoin the fold? In order that those rebels and the whole House may be clear what policy gains they have achieved from the Government, could the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he thinks they are?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is almost as had as his hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who collapsed so singularly when she asked a question earlier in our proceedings. The exchanges between my hon. Friends are fascinating, but not matters that I would dream of discussing with the French Foreign Minister.
    Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend accept that with the first round of the French presidential elections coming up on 23 April, there is a great deal to be said for our Government having a clear and decisive policy on the single currency, so that when the French realise that the British are not going to accept a single currency, the French electorate, as compared with the French elite, can

    1037
    respond accordingly? We would then have a real opportunity to renegotiate that hopeless failure, the Maastricht treaty.
    Mr. Hurd: I know that my hon. Friend has close contacts with some aspects of French political life, but his comments are astray. I had a fascinating conversation with Mr. Pasqua this morning and he confirmed that he does not think that European issues will be dominant in the French presidential election.

    Israel
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British-Israeli relations.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Our relations with Israel are excellent.
    Mrs. Kennedy: Does the Minister agree that British-Israeli relations, good though they are, will be improved on every occasion that the British Government can do something concrete to assist the peace process? As I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree about that, will he give urgent and sympathetic consideration to the request from the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan for a 50 per cent. reduction in its debts to the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Hogg: On the question of our bilateral relations, upon which the hon. Lady concentrated, when Prime Minister Rabin met my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last year, he commented that Anglo-Israeli relations had never been better. As to the question of making concrete contributions, we have made many such, for example, we are spending around £75 million over three years in support of the peace process and Palestinians.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: When the British Prime Minister goes to Israel, will he take the opportunity to build on those cordial relations with that country and totally condemn the 10 per cent. increase in settlements on the west bank and close to Jerusalem, which endanger the peace process and which give great support to Hamas and all it is trying to do to undermine Chairman Arafat and the peace process?
    Mr. Hogg: As we have often made plain to the Israeli Government, we regard the settlement policy as an obstacle to peace and we would like to see it stopped.

    Intergovernmental Conference
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards a post-legislative referendum on the outcome of the next intergovernmental conference; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Davis: We do not exclude the use of referendums for decisions of major constitutional significance, but we do not expect the outcome of next year's intergovernmental conference to involve such decisions.
    Mr. Kennedy: That is very interesting. Can the Minister clarify that a little more, because the Prime Minister was somewhat more explicit in his famous Frost interview at the beginning of the year, when he said quite
    1038
    clearly that if issues of constitutional import arose, he would not hesitate to use the British veto? Is that the Government's position in the run-up to the IGC? If so, why are so many people in the Tory party suggesting, not least via the airwaves today, that we will have a referendum?
    Mr. Davis: The Prime Minister put exactly the position of the British Government. The hon. Gentleman has it right.
    Sir Terence Higgins: The question referred to a post-legislative referendum; does my hon. Friend know what that is? In any case, is not it just as bad as a pre-legislative one?
    Mr. Davis: A post-legislative referendum would he called only in the event of major constitutional change. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that such an occurrence would not arise after the IGC.
    Ms Quin: Did the Minister agree with the Prime Minister when he said that he was not in favour of a referendum in a parliamentary democracy and did not propose to put one before the people; or did he agree with the same Prime Minister when he said that, if the circumstances were appropriate, he would hold a referendum? With which of the Prime Minister's two opposing views does the Minister agree?
    Hon. Members: Just say yes.
    Mr. Davis: The hon. Lady makes a semantic point. It is extraordinary because, last Friday, during the debate on a referendum, she said that she thought the opt-outs were foolish. One of the options open to the Government arises solely because of those opt-outs, so she cannot give anyone lessons in semantics.

    British Council
    Mr. Fishburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the work of the British Council.
    Mr. Baldry: The British Council, with its worldwide presence and high reputation, has greatly enhanced our international standing and influence; done much to promote the worldwide acceptance abroad of British standards, services and goods in culture, education and science; helped to promote sustainable development in poor countries; worked with much success to improve the spread and standard of English taught overseas; and added greatly to the perception of Britain as a vibrant, cultured, innovative and liberal society.
    Mr. Fishburn: Is not one of the great assets that we have as a country the English language, and is not the British Council to be congratulated on the way in which it teaches it around the world efficiently and, more to the point, profitably?
    Mr. Baldry: Yes. The achievements of the British Council in this regard were best summed up in a recent leader in The Times, which stated:
    "The British Council can claim … to be probably the most effective pump-priming cultural organisation in the world … it has both boosted the demand for English language teaching and satisfied it. That industry is now worth some £500 million a year to Britain".

    1039
    In fact, the British Council has 75 teaching centres in 39 countries and teaches 100,000 students a year at no cost to the taxpayer. That is a very significant achievement.
    Mr. Janner: Sharing as I do the Minister's view, will he tell the House what he is proposing to do to enable the British Council to continue its work and improve its functions because the council is very worried that the Government will cut its money further and prevent it from doing the job that the Minister praises?
    Mr. Baldry: The council has no basis for such a belief. Funding to the British Council has risen by about 30 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79. In addition to the substantial increase in Government funding to the British Council, I am glad to say that the council is no longer dependent only on the grant in aid, which now amounts to just half its income. The British Council is much to be congratulated on the increased range of its activities which serve our national interests without additional cost to the taxpayer. I am thinking of things such as English language teaching, the organisation of examinations and the management of aid projects and scholarship. schemes. The British Council is an excellent example to many other bodies in the United Kingdom of what can be achieved in this regard.

    Pakistan
    Mr. Couchman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on British relations with Pakistan.
    Mr. Baldry: We have good relations with Pakistan. We look forward to deepening and extending our political, commercial and cultural contacts.
    Mr. Couchman: Will my hon. Friend impress on the high commissioner for Pakistan when next they meet, the grave concern felt by hon. Members of all parties at the persecution of Christians in Pakistan? Will he tell the high commissioner that to contemplate putting to death a child on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy is the sign of an uncivilised country? Finally, will he contrast the treatment of Christians in Pakistan with the treatment in this country of Christians from Pakistan such as the Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali, who was recently welcomed to north Kent as our diocesan bishop of Rochester?
    Mr. Baldry: The whole House shares my hon. Friend's concerns and will have welcomed the judgment by the High Court of Pakistan which overturned the verdict to which he referred. We have regularly urged the Government of Pakistan to protect minorities against discrimination and intimidation. The rights of minorities are legally protected under Pakistan's constitution but there is real concern about the significant increases in sectarian violence and extremism in the past year, not only against non-Muslims, such as Christian groups, but between different Islamic sects, as we have witnessed recently. These are matters of concern that we continue to raise, although it is fair to observe that the Prime Minister of Pakistan has publicly reaffirmed Pakistan's commitment to improve the situation.
    Mr. Watson: When the Minister next meets the high commissioner in Pakistan, will he raise the question of Kashmir, not only the part occupied by India, Jammu Kashmir, but Azad Kashmir? Will he remind the. high
    1040
    commissioner of the various United Nations resolutions, which call for a referendum to allow the people of Kashmir to have a say in their future? Will he insist that that referendum includes a third option for an independent Kashmir?
    Mr. Baldry: Our position on Kashmir is well known and well established. We believe that the best way forward in Kashmir should involve simultaneous progress on discussions between India and Pakistan, as provided for under the Simla agreement of 1972. There must be improvement in human rights in Kashmir, a genuine political process and a clear cessation of external support for violence in Kashmir.
    Mr. Waller: While stressing the need to stand up against the persecution of minorities in Pakistan, will my hon. Friend emphasise his support for the stance of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in resisting those among the Islamic extreme minorities, who have persecuted Christians very much in contrast with the essential message of Islam, which is perhaps more conciliatory in reality towards other religions than any other faith?
    Mr. Baldry: It is right to remind ourselves that any persecution of religious minorities in Pakistan is the work of individuals; it is not the work of the Government. We continue to provide a substantial aid programme in support of Pakistan because poverty is a contributory factor in the rise of sectarianism and religious extremism. We believe that if we can help Pakistan continue to promote literacy and its economy, those factors will help combat the problems of sectarianism and intolerance in the longer term. Certainly this is not the time to turn our backs on Pakistan.

    Council of Europe
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next meet the President or the Prime Minister of France to discuss the policy of that Administration to the partial travel arrangements now in place and their effect on members of those EC states which are members of the Council of Europe.
    Mr. David Davis: My right hon. Friend has no current or immediate plans to meet either Mr. Mitterrand or Mr. Balladur.
    Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that, in October, the Committee of Ministers at the Council of Europe agreed to investigate travel arrangements and that, since then, it has been established that the travel concessions for Members of the European Parliament are in place as a result of an instruction from the French Government? That hardly represents an acceptable situation since the taxpayers of member states have to pay twice as much as Members of the European Parliament when travelling to Strasbourg on official business.
    Mr. Davis: I am well aware of the problem raised by the hon. Gentleman. I understand that my noble Friend Lord Finsberg raised it at the February plenary session. The chairman of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers has undertaken to pursue the matter with the French authorities and I am perfectly willing and happy to take the matter up with my opposite number when I see him.

    Overseas Posts
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department is taking to create new posts overseas and to reinforce United Kingdom commercial efforts abroad.
    Mr. Hurd: With the help of efficiency savings and reductions in work of lower priority, I am planning a significant strengthening of the FCO's support for British overseas interests. This will involve more than 100 new commercial staff abroad and the creation of 14 new posts in the former Soviet Union and in emerging markets in Asia and Latin America. These comprise four new embassies, three new consulates and seven new trade offices with locally engaged staff. The reductions that I mentioned include the replacement of three consuls in Italy by honorary consuls and completion of the programme begun in 1994 to abolish more than 500 support staff over three years. Full details of these changes are being placed in the Library of the House.
    Mrs. Lait: I thank my right hon. Friend. for that statement, most of which will be of great interest to our exporters. Will he confirm that the staff who will be in place to help our exporters will be highly trained and experienced in commercial work and that there will be close co-ordination between our export promotion in this country and that in other countries?
    Mr. Hurd: That is exactly the point. The announcement that I have made means an increase of more than 9 per cent. in front-line commercial staff to match the increased activity of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and all those under his command, to stimulate exports from home. We are in an export-led recovery. Our embassies, consulates and trade offices can help to stimulate and sustain that recovery. What I have announced today is a redirection of our overseas effort to enable them to do that.
    Mr. Dalyell: The Foreign Secretary does support, does he not, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in his recent support for the British trade delegation to Baghdad?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not think that it was a British trade delegation. It was a number of people going to see how the land lay. They did not go there on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in any way.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his answer is very welcome indeed? Does he accept also that an increase in commercial representation abroad can be justified in its own right and that it does not have to be funded out of efficiency savings, as he put it, because staff can earn very much more than the cost of their salaries and overheads overseas? Will he take on board the fact that it is important that posts be extended, rather than staff being moved away, when staff are in the middle of a successful commercial posting?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with both my hon. Friend's points. On his second point, I am against moving people around too fast. There has been rather too much of that in recent years. My hon. Friend's first point is an argument that I have used with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but not always successfully; perhaps my hon. Friend will help me.

    European Union
    Sir David Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the German Foreign Minister to discuss future developments in the European Union.
    Mr. Hurd: Next Monday, 6 March.
    Sir David Madel: In all the diplomatic and other contacts that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has with the German Government, has my right hon. Friend noticed that they have any less enthusiasm for and optimism about the possibility of a single currency this century?
    Mr. Hurd: In recent weeks, German Ministers have emphasised that their support, which is undoubted, for a single bank and a single currency must not be taken to imply any support for a weakening of anti-inflation policy in Germany or any weakening of the criteria on convergence in the treaty. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State has already pointed out, they are powerfully supported in that view by the president of the Bundesbank, who said that, regardless of timing, the strict application of the criteria is essential. That has many implications for the timetable laid out in the treaty.
    Mr. Pike: When the Foreign Secretary meets the German Foreign Minister, will he discuss with him how Germany sees the reform of the common agricultural policy to allow widening of the European Union to admit countries such as Romania in the years ahead?
    Mr. Hurd: I tried to stimulate a little German discussion on that matter when I spoke on it in Berlin yesterday. I made the point that—I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree—it is not possible to imagine extending the common agricultural policy in its present form to cover the farmers of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and others. We in the existing 15 have to work to reform and change the policy substantially before we can consider enlargement.

    China
    Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit Beijing to discuss Anglo-Chinese relations.
    Mr. Goodlad: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans at present to visit China.
    Mr. Key: When my right hon. Friend meets the Chinese ambassador later today, will he tell him that there is growing interest in this country in trade relations with China, and that we should move as quickly as possible to reduce and remove cultural, industrial and economic barriers to such trade?
    Mr. Goodlad: Yes, I shall say that. As my hon. Friend will know, we have experienced an enormous increase in our trade with China. We are the largest European investor in China; we have more than 600 joint ventures there. The trade delegation in September was the largest ever. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will go to China in May.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister promise that, when he makes his efforts to improve cultural and commercial relationships, he will not confine them to Anglo-Chinese

    1043
    relationships but will extend them to Britannic-Chinese relationships? Many people who have great interest in the burgeoning economy and culture of China regard themselves not as English but as Irish, Scottish or. on this day of all others, Welsh.
    Mr. Goodlad: I am delighted that the Scottish economy, the Northern Irish economy and indeed the Welsh economy have benefited from the great increase in British-Chinese trade. As someone who is not English either, I rejoice at those benefits and hope that they will continue.
    Mr. Forman: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether any good came of the recent visit to China by the Archbishop of Canterbury?
    Mr. Goodlad: I very much hope that the mission to China by His Grace will increase tolerance for Christians in China and will have an overall beneficial effect on relations. [Interruption.] His Grace has indeed been there, and I hope that his visit will have had a beneficial effect on the lives of Christians in China.

    Human Rights
    Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what methods his Department uses to monitor human rights in other states.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We gather information from a wide variety of sources in monitoring human rights in other countries. Our missions report on human rights and we share information and assessments with other Governments, in particular our European Union partners. Committees and experts from the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe produce many reports on human rights. We regularly receive reports and representations from non-governmental organisations.
    Mr. Denham: But is the Minister aware that when right hon. and hon. Members write to raise human rights issues in the context of arms exports and other concerns, we frequently receive bland and uninformative responses, simply saying that the human rights situation is improving, or is acceptable, or is giving rise to concern? Those assurances are often at variance with what the non-governmental organisations in the countries concerned and organisations such as Amnesty International say. Is it not now time to bring proper openness and transparency into our assessment of human rights in other countries—for example, by formally inviting submissions from human rights organisations and others to the British Government, and making a formal response to the concerns raised therein?
    Mr. Hogg: The Government's reputation for openness and transparency is well established. As regards the answers given by my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, they are full and informative.
    Sir Cranley Onslow: When the Government monitor human rights in Burma, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that nothing would do as much to restore democracy in that country as the release of Aung San Suu Kyi?
    Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is entirely right.
    Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Gary Waller.
    Mr. Waller: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for his earlier reply to my question on Pakistan, and I shall forgo a second bite of the cherry.

    European Union
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on possible future enlargement of the EU.
    Mr. David Davis: Not everybody is allowed a second bite of the cherry, Madam Speaker. Further enlargement of the European Union is an essential element in the extension of security and prosperity to our east. We have also agreed that Malta and Cyprus will he involved in the next phase. That will all require institutional adjustments and policy reform both in the applicant countries and in the EU.
    Mr. Winterton: I welcome my hon. Friend's response, but does he not accept that the accession of the Baltic states—Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia—to the European Union would be a most desirable step? Are we positively moving in that direction, and giving those three important countries the encouragement that they need?
    Mr. Davis: The straight answer to my hon. Friend is yes. I believe that we shall discuss European association agreements with those countries in the near future, and that is the first step towards their eventually joining the European Union.
    Mr. Cox: In view of what the Minister said about Cyprus, can he give the House any idea of the time span within which Cyprus, with its close association with this country, will be able to think that it will really be admitted to the Union?
    Mr. Davis: As with all potential applicants to the Union, it is important first to meet the conditions for joining, both within the applicant country and within the Union. The latter will involve modifications to the constitution of the Union itself. The hon. Gentleman will know that under the current French presidency there is a major initiative to attempt to clear the way for Cyprus to join the Union. We are all watching that initiative for signs of success.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend meets with those nation states that wish to become a part of the European Union, will he take the opportunity to remind them of the experience of Germany and the United Kingdom of operating a single currency, which involved moving large sums of money from the wealthy areas to the poor areas while moving large numbers of people from the poor areas to the wealthy areas?
    Mr. Davis: I am not aware that we have had any experience of a single currency.
    Mr. Trimble: Will the Minister confirm that—as things stand at the moment—it would be contrary to the independence treaty between Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom which established the Republic of Cyprus for Cyprus to accede to the European Community?
    Mr. Davis: The initiative being taken by the French presidency is an attempt to bring together the Turks,

    1045
    Greeks and Cypriots to achieve Cyprus's entry to the European Union, and the initiative will deal with the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

    "Partnership for Peace"
    Sir Dudley Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in developing the NATO "Partnership for Peace" proposal; and what practical military co-operation has flowed from it so far.
    Mr. David Davis: "Partnership for Peace" is developing very well. Twenty-five countries have become partners, many of which have already negotiated individual programmes of activities with NATO. Three PFP military exercises have taken place so far, with UK forces participating each time. An extensive range of practical co-operative activities, including 20 exercises, are scheduled for 1995. The United Kingdom hopes to participate in many of these.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the central European countries are carrying on apace where the "Partnership for Peace" is concerned, and that they are becoming closely involved in peacekeeping efforts? Will he and the Foreign Office continue to do everything that they can to encourage such activities?
    Mr. Davis: Before I respond to my hon. Friend, may I take the opportunity to commend his activities in the Western European Union and other areas?
    We are doing all we can to make "Partnership for Peace" productive, and to ensure that it gives a useful outcome to the countries involved.
    Mr. Wareing: Does the Minister agree that it would be much more appropriate to develop the "Partnership for Peace" among eastern and central European countries than to develop NATO further in that direction, as the enlargement of NATO would undoubtedly cause much more unease inside Russia? Would not it be better to have Russia and the eastern European countries together in a European security pact?
    Mr. Davis: While the hon. Gentleman has a point in saying that the matter must be treated with care, the "Partnership for Peace" process should enable the accession to NATO of those countries that wish to—that is the key point—at an appropriate point in the future.
    Mr. Jenkin: Given our declared policy of giving primacy to NATO in the formulation of a European defence policy, why have we just agreed with France to joint command of air services outside the NATO command and control system? Does not that send the wrong signals to the Americans, who are already thinking about disengagement?
    Mr. Davis: The agreement to which my hon. Friend refers was made at Chartres in November last year, and relates to items outside the article 5 issues of NATO.

    Scholarships
    Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the amounts raised from the private sector by his Department for jointly funded scholarships.
    Mr. Baldry: The private sector has generously contributed some £14 million towards the FCO's jointly funded scholarship programme since it began in 1986. Thanks to these joint ventures we can now offer nearly 800 co-sponsored scholarships a year to overseas students on top of those fully funded by the FCO.
    Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that the importance to British industry of the scholarships is shown by the fact that it is prepared to contribute so substantially to them? Will he give the House his assessment of what effect the scholarships have had on the huge expansion of British exports during the past two or three years?
    Mr. Baldry: The scholarships will have made a lot of friends for Britain because, in addition to the jointly funded scholarships, the Department for Education, the Department of Trade and Industry and the British Council are between them funding about 21,000 scholarships and training awards each year, at a cost of about £150 million. That provides large numbers of overseas students with invaluable training and education opportunities here, but it also provides Britain with friends for life and will often lead to commercial and business opportunities in years to come.

    European Union
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if border controls will be one of the issues on the agenda of the next meeting of EU Foreign Ministers, which he will attend.
    Mr. David Davis: The next Foreign Affairs Council meeting is on 6 to 7 March. Border controls are not on the agenda.
    Mr. Riddick: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he and the Government will take whatever action is necessary to ensure that Britain's border controls are retained into the indefinite future?
    Mr. Davis: I can confirm that. My hon. Friend is virtually quoting the words of the Prime Minister. I take this opportunity to remind the House of something that was effectively said in public on 19 July 1994 by the House of Lords Select Committee on European Communities, in paragraph 109 of its report on visas and the control of external borders of member states. The Committee was chaired by Lord Slynn, who was a member of the European Court. He said:
    "We have not however changed our opinion that the Single European Act does not impose a legal obligation on member states to abolish controls on people at internal Community borders."
    That is an independent and highly authoritative view of the real position.

Sita Kamara
3.30 pm
Mr. John Austin-Walker: I am grateful for your indulgence and that of the House in this matter, Madam Speaker. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the impending deportation of an Ivorian refugee, Sita Kamara."
It is one of the strengths of the House that, while there may appear to be many greater issues on the agenda, we can find time to discuss the rights of, and threats to, an individual. My immediate concern is for the safety and well-being of an 18-year-old woman who has been in detention for seven months. My second concern is the general issue of the treatment of people fleeing oppression, and my third concern is the position of asylum seekers from the Ivory Coast.
Sita Kamara sought refuge in this country from the Ivory Coast and was refused, along with 320 other applicants—all from the Ivory Coast—refused last year. At the age of 17, she was detained by the Home Secretary at the Group 4 detention centre at Campsfield. Last week, I visited Campsfield, where she had been on hunger strike for some weeks. I found her in a weak and emotionally stressed state, terrified of returning home and alleging ill treatment and sexual abuse on the part of the Ivorian authorities.
I raised questions with the Home Office Minister, who said that he intended to remove Sita. I raised my concerns about her physical and mental well-being and was assured by the Minister that she was fit to travel. The deportation did not take place the following day because of medical advice that, although she was fit to travel, she was fit to do so only with a medical escort, which could not be provided.
Sita was not deported the following day either. It was alleged that there was an attempt at suicide. The Minister disputes that it was attempted suicide, but whether it was suicide or parasuicide, that young 18-year-old attempted deliberate self-harm and I cannot believe that a young woman in her position would have done so had she not been in real fear for what would happen if she returned to the Ivory Coast.
None of the refugees from the Ivory Coast whose applications were considered last year has been granted asylum, despite reports by Amnesty International and the American State Department on abuses of human rights in that country.
I hope that the House will find time to debate the rights of Sita Kamara and the wider implications for others. I hope that we will have time to discover the depths to which this country appears to have sunk, as we are not prepared to grant shelter to a vulnerable young woman in such a position.
Madam Speaker: I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. I must give my decision without stating my reason for so doing. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

BILLS PRESENTED
  ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY
  Mr. Secretary Heseltine, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Gummer, Mr. Secretary Lang, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew and Mr. Tim Eggar, presented a Bill to make provision for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to other persons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 61.]
  GAS
  Mr. Secretary Heseltine, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Gummer, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Secretary Portillo, Mr. Secretary Redwood and Mr. Tim Eggar, presented a Bill to amend Parts I and III of the Gas Act 1986; to make provision for requiring the owners of certain gas processing facilities to make them available to other persons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]
  CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) (WALES)
  Mr. Barry Jones, supported by Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Martyn Jones, Mr. Rhodri Morgan, Mr. Win Griffiths, Mr. Roy Hughes, Mr. Ray Powell, Dr. John Marek, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mr. Alan W. Williams, Mr. Donald Anderson and Mr. David Hanson, presented a Bill to make it unlawful in Wales to discriminate against disabled persons in respect of employment and in other circumstances, and to establish a Disability Rights Commission for Wales; to make provision for access to polling stations and voting by disabled persons in Wales; to place certain duties on local authorities, education authorities and other bodies in Wales in relation to disabled persons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 March, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

  Government Paperwork Reduction and Electronic Information
  3.35 pm
  Mr. David Shaw: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce a programme for the development of secure electronic information systems within Government, to reduce reliance on paperwork and hard copy files, and to ensure easier public access to certain information. I am grateful to the House for the considerable interest that it is showing in the Internet and the information super-highway. My Bill would increase the accessibility of central and local government; increase the openness of Government, in which great strides have already been made; improve and develop necessary security systems within Government; help people in terms of education, training and employment; reduce paperwork within Government; improve the efficiency of Government; and maintain the United Kingdom Parliament as the leading Parliament in Europe and the world.
  My Bill is timely because technology has advanced during the past 10 years in a way that enables 'people to have on-line access to worldwide information in their homes. Some 3.3 million households in the United Kingdom have home computers but only a small proportion are on line. The current growth in the number of people with access to on-line information is I million a year.
  Last weekend, a G7 conference took place in Brussels on the information super-highway. It was attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology, who admirably put the United Kingdom's position and, as a result, obtained for us an important role in developing a Government on-line system. We are now responsible for the worldwide development of Government on-line systems.
  Last October, the UK Government also went on line with a World Wide Web server known as http:\\www.open.gov.uk. In the past four months, some half a million people have gained access to that server, which is under the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science. The Public Record Office is the most recent Government Department to provide information and has gone on line this week to join some 30 Departments and agencies of Government which are currently on line.
  Three local government councils are on line, the most impressive being Conservative Brent council, which has published the Audit Commission information on its performance. One can find out how quickly Brent will reply to letters now that it is on line. The National Audit Office report published today also makes my Bill timely because it deals with information technology security in Government Departments. Public awareness of that matter is growing. The Internet is a worldwide network of telecommunications and communications access. It enables people, by direct or telephone access, to get on-line information. Many people around the world—some 30 million to 40 million—have access to it.
  The World Wide Web, through which people can gain access to databases through the Internet, is a British invention. It was developed by British people at the CERN nuclear physics laboratory in Geneva. It has
  1050
  enabled easy access to on-line databases. The only skill required by users is the ability to read a page and press a button on the computer.
  One of the main reasons why I believe that my Bill is necessary is that it will result in the Government helping to create new opportunities for Britain and British business. The White house went on line recently, and started receiving 40,000 electronic mail letters a month. The President and his staff could not cope with American systems, so they employed a British company to develop British software to deal with the mail that the White house receives.
  That British company, known as Kinesis, is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs). My hon. Friend is giving full support to that company in obtaining international contracts. It is a successful British entrepreneurial company, marketing world wide and showing the White house in America how British business works and how to make the White house work better.
  I believe that there are other opportunities for British business as a result of the information super-highway. Software companies in Britain lead the world in many fields. Hardware companies and systems design opportunities offer tremendous opportunities for British business.
  I shall now briefly outline the clauses of my Bill.
  There will be an accountability clause, which will require all Ministers' offices to be capable of receiving and replying to letters from Members of Parliament by electronic mail within 12 months. All Government Departments will publish their annual reports and accounts on the Internet within 12 months. All Government Departments should set up systems to receive and reply to electronic mail from the public within two years. Local councils will be required to make their accounts, their Audit Commission information and the telephone numbers of their major staff available on the Internet, so that our constituents can speak to real human beings at the other end of the telephone.
  The security of Government systems will be required to be improved, so that there cannot be unauthorised hacking and so that data protection can be ensured. One hopes that British companies will bid for new contracts, in which computer fire walls will be properly set up and methods to prevent external hacking will be implemented.
  The Public Record Office should be responsible for taking and securing historic back-ups of data, and Government Departments should be required to implement other back-ups.
  Education, training and employment are covered in a separate clause. We have Super-JANET, a world-beating computer network, developed in Britain by our universities as a result of the Government's support. I propose that schools training information should go on line, and my Bill will ensure that access to Super-JANET and university computer systems is available to United Kingdom primary and secondary school pupils. I also believe that training and skills opportunities might be developed as a result of the Internet and access to the Internet.
  I pay tribute to schools in my constituency which are helping their students to go on line, and the Kent training and enterprise council, which is supporting that.

  1051
  There will be clauses in my Bill to cover paperwork reduction, openness and efficiency of Government. Paper is slow and inefficient, and it requires large numbers of typists in Whitehall. It is time that we had type-your-own civil servants.
  There are about 6 million files in Whitehall on paper. Whitehall is awash with millions of pieces of paper. We could speed up the processes of Government if Whitehall went electronic. I propose that many files should go electronic, and that more information in those files should he made available to the public.
  Finally I propose that Parliament should go on line, that Members of Parliament should go on line, that we should all have electronic mail addresses within 12 months, that Hansard should be on line within 12 months, and that anyone in the world should be capable of reading what we say. Information about this Parliament, the mother of Parliaments, should be accessible to our constituents and to anyone in the world.
  Yesterday evening I was able to dial into the House of Representatives from my home in London to see what Congressmen were saying. I believe that Parliament should be on line. Ours is the leading Parliament in the world, and we should maintain our lead by going on line. My Bill proposes just that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Shaw, Sir Wyn Roberts, Mr. John Butcher, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, Mr. Nigel Waterson and Mr. Nick Hawkins.

  GOVERNMENT PAPERWORK REDUCTION AND ELECTRONIC INFORMATION
  Mr. David Shaw accordingly presented a Bill to introduce a programme for the development of secure electronic information systems within Government, to reduce reliance on paperwork and hard copy files, and to ensure easier public access to certain information: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to he read a Second time upon Friday 21 April, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]
  Opposition Day
  [8TH ALLOT-FED DAY]

  European Union
  Madam Speaker: I have two short announcements to make before we begin the debate. First, I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister. Secondly, so many Members want to participate in today's debate that I have put on a 10-minute limit from 7 o'clock; but I would hope that Members fortunate enough to be called before then will voluntarily limit their speeches. I want to hear as many voices as possible in this debate.
  3.45 pm
  Mr. Tony Blair: I beg to move,
  That this House does not support Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the European Union and does not believe it promotes the interests of the British people.
  The case that we make today is that it is in Britain's interests to be fully at the heart of Europe. So far from pandering to Conservative Members who may take a different view, let me say at the outset that I intend to try to deal with their arguments head on. Let me also tell our Ulster colleagues that I support the Government's position on Northern Ireland and that that support will not change. The crux of this debate, therefore, is not the parliamentary arithmetic but the policy towards Europe.
  At each stage I shall set out the Labour party's position, and I shall then ask the Prime Minister to clarify the Government's. Let us dismiss straight away, however, the bogey of some federal united states of Europe. The choice is not between a federal and a non-federal Europe. The true choice is whether Britain's interests are best served by remaining at the heart of Europe, engaging constructively with further European co-operation; or by retreating to a different relationship altogether with the European Union. Both are logical and sustainable positions, but they imply quite different visions of Britain's future.
  At one time the position of the Government was clear. It was the Prime Minister himself who said, just a short time ago:
  "It is absurd to believe that Great Britain would voluntarily separate itself from the mainstream of European development … Great Britain stands at the centre of Europe and will remain as such."
  Indeed, at an earlier stage he even said:
  "There is no more important issue facing the European Community than the path we choose towards economic and monetary union. We are all committed to this goal. That is no longer news."
  Of course the right hon. Gentleman was right to want to be at the centre of Europe. Europe and NATO have given Britain and Europe peace. The single market, now combined with a proper social dimension, offers huge opportunities to British business. British businesses such as ICI, British Steel and British Telecom can only gain if competition rules are enforced across Europe. The European Union acts as a powerful magnet to inward investment. And British people—we support this—have been given rights: decent health and safety, equality for women, fair treatment for part-time workers. In our view at least they would gain more were we to join other Governments, Labour and Conservative, in the European social chapter.

  1053
  Britain has enhanced its voice in the world through Europe, especially in trade. It offers, therefore, a range of chances across a range of areas, from research to the environment to technology and infrastructure, to act and co-operate where the nation state is insufficient.
  The question is: do the Government still believe that we should be at the centre of Europe in future co-operation, or has their position changed? That is the question in the debate.
  Mr. Richard Tracey: Will the Leader of the Opposition clarify one point? In recent years, the party that he leads has changed its mind five or six times on its attitude to Europe, and in his time in the House he has himself changed his attitude to Europe several times. How can Europe or Britain take the Labour party seriously on the matter of Europe?
  Mr. Blair: For those who do not know it, this is all set out in the Conservative research department brief. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will answer it. I would prefer to be leading a party that was anti-European and is now pro-European than leading a party that was pro-European and is becoming anti-European.
  Mr. Norman Lamont: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment not just on his party's position but on his own position and the views that he put forward in his election address in 1982 and 1983, when he actually stated that the EEC removed Britain's freedom to pursue its own economic policies? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether that reflected his own view and, if it did not, why could he not have pursued the course taken by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who made no mention of the European Community in his election address?
  Mr. Blair: I can think of no one worse to level the charge of inconsistency than the right hon. Gentleman, who took Britain into the exchange rate mechanism and the Maastricht treaty. With all due respect, he is the one who has to explain the changes—[Interruption.]
  I was asking whether—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. That includes the Government Whips.
  Mr. Blair: I was asking whether it was the case that the Government's position of being at the centre of European co-operation has effectively changed. I think that it has and, with gathering force, the centre of gravity in the Conservative party is shifting and shifting fast.
  Just consider it. The nine Whipless Tory Euro-rebels publish a separate manifesto calling, in effect, for withdrawal from the European Union. What was remarkable was not that document but the reaction to it. Almost immediately the Chief Secretary took to the airwaves to say that there was much common ground between the rebels and the Government. Not one single Minister condemned it.
  Indeed, at times over the past few weeks, the Euro-rebels have appeared to be almost like some alternative Cabinet. Perhaps in time they will be. Perhaps the fate that awaits the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is to become the Foreign Secretary in a future Portillo Government, or the hon.
  1054
  Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is to become the Chancellor in a future Government. At least, I suppose, that would mean that the top two economic spokesmen in the Government agreed.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blair: Later.
  The former Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that we should contemplate withdrawal from the European Union. A former vice-chairman of the Tory party says that he wishes that we had never joined. Daily, there are fresh converts to that cause, most noticeably recently the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). On Monday, another sceptic document was published. It was rewarded with a Prime Ministerial foreword no less, praising it as a lively contribution to the debate. The only people, apparently, who cannot debate Europe, are the Cabinet who have responsibility for it.
  Lord Tebbit, Baroness Thatcher: their views are well known. I thought it most interesting that, at the Tory youth conference a couple of weeks ago, when the row was at its very height, not a single Minister was called to defend the pro-Europe position—not one. The Home Secretary went. What did he do? He pandered to them. There was no defence of the Union, no explanation of its benefits. One can tell a lot about a party from the buttons that the politicians press for applause.
  There remains, of course, a group of pro-Europeans, but they are increasingly beleaguered. Indeed, Lord Tebbit, when asked whether the nine Tory rebels were not damaging the party, said, "There are nine MPs damaging the party, but unfortunately they are all in the Cabinet." [Interruption.] They may wear the badge with pride, let us say.
  The result of all that, at best, is immobility in policy, and, at worst, retreat. That is most clear over the single currency, to which I shall now come.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the right hon. Gentleman really seeking to persuade the House that he, surrounded by the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), and by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), leads a united party on Europe?
  Mr. Blair: In my speech I shall deal specifically with the issues of division in both parties. But let me tell the hon. Gentleman what the difference is: my position is clear. Is the Prime Minister's?
  That is most clear over the issue of the single currency. Let us remind ourselves: at the beginning of February, the Chancellor was calling for an open, sensible debate about the single currency and its merits. Is that not right? Within two weeks, such was the disarray that the entire Cabinet was asked to undertake some Trappist vow of silence. We are therefore in the extraordinary position that Ministers, including the chief economic spokesman of the Government of Britain, cannot speak on a vital issue of national importance.

  1055
  Indeed, let me draw attention to the Secretary of State for Employment, who, the day after the injunction not to speak, attended a Rotary club lunch at the Marriott hotel. I read from The Times:
  "Mr. Portillo toned down his usual Euro-scepticism so much and refused to comment on so many points, that guests were forced into asking him questions about the food they were eating."
  Dr. John Cunningham: They probably got better answers.
  Mr. Blair: As my right hon. Friend says, they probably got better answers.
  These issues do not demand to be suppressed. They demand to be answered and the principles governing them resolved.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Blair: I have taken some interventions from one wing of the Conservative party. It is only fair to take one from the other.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out, there are divisions on both sides of the House, as we well know. He accepts that the issue is important. He must also accept that people have changed their minds. Is the right answer, when we are very near the edge, simply to seek the views of the people of Britain as to which way they want to go? In a democracy, is not that the right way to go ahead, instead of throwing things across from one party to another?
  Mr. Blair: I am coming to the referendum issue. I have already said that, if progress is made towards the establishment of a single currency, it must be made with popular consent, whether that consent is established by a referendum or by other means. I must tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that a referendum will not ultimately absolve the person concerned of the need to decide what his position is. A referendum is a means of obtaining popular consent; it is not a substitute for government.
  The single currency raises three sets of issues—economic, political and constitutional. Let us take them in turn. In the context of the economic conditions, it is correct to say that if there were monetary union without real economic convergence, a single currency would be bad. If economies were locked together when they differed widely in strength and performance, unemployment in the weaker ones might result. If there were real convergence, however, a single currency could have benefits. That is the Labour party's position—and, indeed, following his recent speech, it seems that it is effectively the Chancellor's position.
  The political question concerns the issue of popular consent. Again, some agreement is possible in that regard.
  The key question, however, is constitutional. Is a single currency, as a matter of principle, inconsistent with our identity as a nation state? Does it imply a federal Europe? Is there, therefore, a constitutional barrier? If there is, we should not join, even if the economic conditions are right.
  On that issue, many Cabinet Ministers have expressed a concluded view. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says:
  "It is quite possible to have monetary union without political union."
  and again, in The Daily Telegraph, that a single currency is not
  1056
  "a threat to the nation state."
  A few years ago, the President of the Board of Trade wrote:
  "No truly unified market can exist without a single currency. A close association of monetary policies will be needed if the single market itself is not to be put at risk."
  Those two views are quite clear. So is the view of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who said a few weeks ago:
  "I don't want to see a single currency, period, for as far as I: can possibly foresee. I would hesitate for an eternity before I came out and said I would vote for a single currency."
  When asked whether he wanted a single currency, the Secretary of State for Employment replied, "No." He said:
  "A single currency is a long way towards political union. No British Government can give up the government of the UK. That is impossible."
  That could not be plainer either. No one would dispute, surely, that those views are diametrically opposed.
  Mr. Nigel Forman rose—
  Sir Peter Hordern rose—
  Mr. Blair: I will give way in a moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is your view?"] I am about to say what our views are. There is no sensible halfway house, because although the economic issues may vary, the constitutional issue is clear as a matter of principle. It does not alter over time. The question is, given that Cabinet Ministers have expressed concluded views on the constitutional issue—although they differ—which of the two opposing views is the Government's? That is what we need to know from the Prime Minister today.
  I will put five questions to the Prime Minister. What is more, at the conclusion of each question I shall answer it and then ask the Prime Minister to answer it. I cannot put it more fairly than that. First, does the Prime Minister agree with his Chancellor that a single currency is not a threat to the nation state? I say that his Chancellor is right; I assume that he says the same. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] He cannot say.
  Let me put this question to the Prime Minister. Does he agree with his Employment Secretary that having a single currency is a long way to political union, and would mean giving up the government of the United Kingdom? May we have an answer to that? I say that the Employment Secretary is wrong; what does the Prime Minister say? Thirdly—this is a question that he must surely be able to answer—
  Mr. Lamont rose—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) appears not to be giving way; is that correct? In that case, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) must resume his seat.
  Mr. Blair: I shall conclude this passage and then give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
  The Prime Minister has been unable to agree with either of those two Cabinet Ministers. If he is re-elected, can the Prime Minister say whether a single currency will be a possibility in the next Parliament, assuming that the economic conditions are right? It must logically follow from signing the Maastricht treaty that the answer to that

  1057
  question is yes. But what is the Prime Minister's answer? Is it a possibility or not? He cannot say. Let me put another question. [Interruption.]
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will give way later. Hon. Members should not persist.
  Mr. Blair: Conservative Members say that this is not a quiz, but it is precisely to hold the Prime Minister to account that we called this debate. Anyone would think that I was asking the Prime Minister to do something quite extraordinary. I am merely asking him to agree with his Chancellor. We have a situation, do we not, where I as the Leader of the Opposition can agree with his Chancellor, but he cannot get up and agree with him.
  The fourth question is that if the economic conditions were right, would the Prime Minister be in favour of persuading the country that it was right to join a single currency? He must be able to answer that.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Would you?
  Mr. Blair: I say yes to that. Is the Prime Minister able to answer the question? With all due respect, that is the position of his Chancellor. That is what the Chancellor said in his speech a couple of weeks ago.
  Finally, let me ask the Prime Minister whether he can agree with this statement:
  "Some observers hope—and others fear—that economic and monetary union as set out in the Maastricht Treaty will be a step in the direction of a federal Europe … I believe that such hopes or fears are unrealistic."
  Can the Prime Minister agree with that? I can; can he? Shall I tell the House the author of that statement? It was the Prime Minister. That is the position to which he has reduced the Government. I find it odd that he cannot agree with his Chancellor, I find it strange that he cannot agree with his Secretary of State for Employment and I find it unbelievable that he cannot agree with himself.
  The Prime Minister says that he cannot decide this constitutional issue now. But the point is that he decided it then. He was prepared to say expressly that it was not a step to a federal Europe. Now, of course, he cannot say. The truth is that this issue of constitutional principle is being postponed not because of circumstances that the Cabinet cannot foresee. The issue as a matter of principle is there: it is being postponed because the Cabinet cannot agree on it. Members of the Cabinet do not have open minds on the issue. They are not sitting round the Cabinet table wondering about the answer. They have the answer: it is just that there are two different answers for the different factions in the Cabinet.
  Sir Peter Hordern: If the Maastricht criteria were met in full, would the right hon. Gentleman sign up to a single currency?
  Mr. Blair: If the economic conditions are satisfied, the economic conditions that we have set out for real economic convergence; and if people can be persuaded on the necessary political consent—those are the two conditions—then I say yes. I also say that there is no constitutional barrier to joining. The question is whether
  1058
  that is the position of the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister speaks, perhaps the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) will put the same question to him and see whether he can get a straight answer.
  On this point I totally agree with the former Chancellor. He said the other day, and I think that he is right, that the issue of constitutional principle can and should be decided now. If, in truth, there is a constitutional barrier, such a decision makes a dramatic difference to our future foreign and economic policy. Not merely does it render void—indeed, in some sense deceitful—our participation in all the formulation of the institutions for monetary union, but it means that the whole of our future relations with Europe, the United States and others would change. We should prepare for that change now. It would be appalling to drift into a decision that there was, in fact, an insuperable constitutional barrier, without thinking through the consequences of that.
  Let me take that one step further.
  Mr. Lamont: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blair: No.
  The Chancellor recently made a speech on the single currency, and spoke about its potential benefits.
  Mr. Lamont rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member of the House and he knows that when another Member will not give way, he should not persist. I must ask him to remain in his seat for a while until the right hon. Member for Sedgefield is prepared to give way.
  Mr. Blair: If I have time, I shall give way in a moment.
  Recently the Chancellor gave a speech about the potential benefits of the single currency. Could the Secretary of State for Employment make such a speech? Would he make such a speech? Of course not. Has he made such a speech? Of course not. Have the Chief Secretary, the Secretary of State for Wales, the Secretary of State for Social Security or the Home Secretary made such a speech? They are not people postponing the decision on a single currency; they are merely postponing the fight over which side wins. That is not in the interests of Britain.
  Think for a moment that the Government were re-elected. Can anyone imagine the negotiations during the next Parliament and the state of our discussions with other countries in the run-up to monetary union? It does not bear thinking about. One day, our European colleagues may meet the Chancellor; the next day, the Chief Secretary; the day after that, the Secretary of State for the Environment followed by the Secretary of State for Employment. They would need not more interpreters but more psychoanalysts.
  Precisely the same problems beset our attitude to the intergovernmental conference. The Government are driven, once again, to raise the phantoms and bogeys of a federal Europe. In fact, there is little support for co-opting the intergovernmental pillar on defence, for example, into the treaty. There is support, of course, for extending the role of the Western European Union. The IGC needs to make progress on closer co-operation on foreign policy and defence. We have long urged that the role of the WEU should be reinforced as the defence component of the

  1059
  European Union and as the European pillar of NATO. The WEU Heads of State and Government might meet at a WEU summit in parallel with the European Council. Those bodies could he strengthened. We do not favour a European army, but we can see a case for greater use of co-operation between European forces. That would be a modest but worthwhile step.
  No one wants, or is suggesting that the Commission should run defence policy or that we should give up the national veto. There will, however, need to be change, primarily because of enlargement. A body of 20 members or even 15 is plainly different and requires a different form of decision making from a body of 12 or fewer.
  The Prime Minister said on the Frost programme that he would oppose and not countenance any extension of qualified majority voting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I note the cry from the troops behind him. With all due respect, such a stand is absolutely foolish and not in Britain's interests. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Let me give hon. Members an example. On trade or the common agricultural policy, qualified majority voting is plainly in Britain's interests; we do not want small countries to be able to block change that is in our commercial interests. Sir Leon Brittan made that very point the other day. A sensible policy would be to approach such issues, piece by piece, on their merits.
  Perhaps most absurd of all was the attack launched on me the other day in an early-day motion signed by 100 Tory Members. They launched it because I am in agreement, on some issues, with Mr. Santer, the European Union President. Who is responsible for Mr. Santer? [HON. MEMBERS: "You are."] I am, apparently. Next time, we may be responsible for the appointment of that President, but the Prime Minister was responsible this time. And why? For all the usual reasons. Mr. Dehaene was proposed, but he was then pilloried as someone who would impose a united states of Europe upon us. The Government panicked and opposed him. Mr. Santer stepped forward and was sold to us on the basis that he was something completely different. Literally within 48 hours, he was saying that his views were indistinguishable from those of Mr. Dehaene.
  Is it any surprise that in those circumstances our credibility in Europe is close to zero, or our influence minimal? A Danish diplomat was apparently recently quoted as saying:
  "When we saw Hurd last time, he could hardly say anything."
  Or, according to Geoffrey Howe—Lord Howe, I should say—writing in the Financial Times:
  "The ratchet effect of Euroscepticism now risks doing huge damage to British interests. For too many months, the debate on Europe within the Conservative party has been shifting destructively in the direction of disengagement and isolation."
  That is the view from all around.
  Of course, there are differences over Europe in every party. In a sense, it would be a poor reflection on our democracy if there were not because these are questions of fundamental importance. It is right that politicians do not treat them lightly or regard them merely as matters of party, but the view of the Government must be clear. There may and will be debate as to what the policy should be, but there must be a policy. There is only one choice—to be at the heart of Europe or to be in retreat from it. Both are coherent positions, but they take the country in different directions. What is unacceptable is to have no direction at all.
  1060
  In truth, the Government can have unity without clarity or clarity without unity, but they cannot any longer have both. Now is the time to decide. This decision is too vital to be pushed aside. In that I agree with the Thatcherites and the sceptics. The danger is that their view of Britain in Europe will prevail if it is not challenged. I challenge it, and I challenge it at its fundamental point.
  Recently, in a robust assertion, the Employment Secretary talked of what he called the defeatism of those who saw Britain's future as lying in closer co-operation in Europe. I say that, on the contrary, what is defeatist is to believe that Britain's identity is so fragile, its character so weak and its will so unimpressive that we cannot co-operate in Europe without destroying ourselves as a nation. I reject that view, and I say that this country should be and can be a leader of nations in Europe. That is its destiny. It should be leading in Europe and it can lead in Europe, but only under a different Government.
  4.17 pm
  The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House rejects the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition towards Europe, which would destroy United Kingdom jobs, erode the United Kingdom's competitiveness in world markets, place new bureaucratic burdens on business and industry, destroy the veto and diminish the role of Europe's nation states and their national parliaments."
  In the 20-odd years since we joined the European Community, as it then was, our membership has always been controversial, so I welcome this debate to set out what our policy is, what the choices are and what those choices may mean for this country in the future.
  None of those choices is easy, none of them is without risks and none is without opportunities, but the belief that those choices are simple, and the belief that those choices can be made without a detailed examination of all their implications for living standards in this country, is not something that I accept. I shall deal with those choices in detail when I come to the question of a single currency later in my speech, as I promise the House I shall most surely do.
  Some hon. Members on both sides of the House have always been instinctively hostile to our membership of the European Union. Others are uncritical supporters of the European Union, but most of us in this House—I believe on both sides of the House—believe that we are right to be in the European Union and that it is overwhelmingly in our national economic interest to be so but that we should be cautious about the way in which it evolves in the future. That is my belief and that is the Government's position.
  Over recent years, the benefits of the European Union have tended to be taken for granted and many of the negative aspects of the Union have been highlighted. The result has been that the debate over recent years has become more sour and public opinion has become more hostile than once it was to our membership of the Union.
  I think that there are essentially three reasons why public opinion has moved in that direction. The first is that people fear, not only here, but out in the country, that some aspects of the Community have changed from the Community that we originally joined. Secondly, they resent in many cases what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has referred to as

  1061
  "the nooks and crannies interference"
  of the European Union. But, above all, many people fear the direction in which they believe the European Union may go in future.
  I do not believe that we would be wise to ignore those fears—I shall address them directly in a few moments—but I think that, to put them in a proper context, it is worth recollecting precisely why we joined the European Union in the first place. We joined it because it was in our national interest to join it. It was not idealism or romanticism and it was not just because it seemed an appropriate thing to do at the time. It was a hard-headed decision to join because we saw that membership meant jobs, investment, prosperity and potentially greater influence and would make. a contribution to peace right the way across western Europe.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the Prime Minister give way?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall make a little progress first.
  The United Kingdom is perhaps more dependent on trade than any other large industrial economy. The European Union is the world's largest trading bloc. We trade far beyond it, of course. We have interests in every part of the world, and they are growing interests. We are not dependent on the European Union, but it is a very large slice of our trade and very important to us. We are the world's fifth largest importer and exporter and the Union now takes more than one half of our visible exports. The single market was fought for by a Conservative Government leading in Europe to change the nature of Europe from the heart of Europe.
  The choice that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) gave us on the future of Europe was only a partial choice about being at the centre. Being at the centre does not mean automatically agreeing with what everybody says. Being at the centre means fighting to move the European Union in the direction that we believe is right for this Parliament, as we did with the single market, as we did with enlargement, as we did with reform of the common agricultural policy, as we did with subsidiarity and deregulation and as we did with much else.
  The single market offers huge opportunities to this country and we are taking them, in car exports, at record levels—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  The Prime Minister: In a few moments I shall give way to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).
  We are taking those opportunities in record earnings from financial and business services, in record levels of inward investment, which have led to more than 600,000 well-paid jobs in the past 16 years that we would not have had but for our membership of the European Union, and in record business and increasing business for the City of London. Nine out of every 10 European cross-border equity deals now go through London. Even the Deutsche bank has moved its foreign investment banking to London from Frankfurt.
  1062
  Most important of all—a point often overlooked, but it ought not to be by a nation such as ours—the European Union, together with the NATO alliance, has delivered a prize without precedent to those of us in western Europe: 50 years of peace across Europe; the western democracies working together in world affairs to maximise their influence, and war between them made utterly unthinkable. They are huge benefits.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Accepting all that, does the Prime Minister agree that we did not join a static Europe, a Europe which will stand still? We joined a dynamic Europe and the choice for us is either to be part of that dynamism or to be moved into a second category, a second division. Is the Prime Minister prepared, by his negativism, to contemplate that for our country?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening. Of course it is not static. If we thought that it were static, we would not have been seeking enlargement. If we thought that it was static, we would not have promoted the single market. If we thought that it was static, we would not have changed the position on subsidiarity, deregulation and much else. If we thought that it was static, we would not be promoting the matters in the intergovernmental conference, which I shall come to in just a moment. The question is not whether it is static but what sort of Europe we wish to build in the future.
  Dr. John Reid: Will the Prime Minister give way?
  The Prime Minister: Let me refer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I propose to give way. If hon. Members will give me the opportunity to continue, I will make a little more progress. There will be occasions when hon. Members will wish to intervene on substantive matters.
  The often unspoken fear of many people—we should address it honestly and clearly and examine it—is that Europe might develop into a super-state, an overarching Government with no national veto, no control over our own borders, prescriptive decisions, a single currency imposed and the nation state retreating to a wholly subordinate role. That fear exists out there in the British nation, and we should recognise the fact that it exists.
  I am sure that in Europe there are a few people who have ambitions for that sort of European Union; rather more people do not have any such ambitions for it. I for one would find such a Europe wholly unacceptable for this country. I do not believe that it is remotely likely, hut, if that were to be the future, it would not be a future that would be suitable for this country.
  In 10 months' time, the intergovernmental conference will formally begin. The preparatory work begins earlier, but, in 10 months the conference itself will begin. Frankly, it is too early. It is too soon after the Maastricht treaty, and Governments right across Europe themselves know that it is too soon. The fact that it is too soon reinforces my view that there will be no majority for ambitious plans for centralisation in the intergovernmental conference. There will be no such plans because such schemes would not be ratified not just by the Government but by other Governments across Europe.
  Dr. Reid: Does the Prime Minister agree that the timing of the IGC, whether it is too soon or too late, does not alter the fundamental question that he has refused six times to answer in past weeks and as late as yesterday,

  1063
  when he said that he would answer it today? Does he agree with his Chancellor that a single currency is not a threat to our nation state? Will the right hon. Gentleman now take the opportunity to agree fully with his own Chancellor or to dissociate himself from that statement, but, for God's sake, go one way or the other and show some leadership?
  The Prime Minister: I indicated a moment ago to the hon. Gentleman that I shall refer at length to a single currency, and I will deal with those issues in my own way at that time.
  Europe's pre-eminent task for the coming years will be further enlargement of the European Union—enlargement to bring in the countries of central and then eastern Europe, and to bring in Cyprus and Malta. I believe that that is desirable to spread the benefits not just of the free market further across eastern Europe but of security further across eastern Europe, and to discharge what I believe most people in this country would regard as our historic obligation to the people of central Europe who, in many cases, have suffered so much in the past half century.
  That enlargement is now agreed. It is agreed overwhelmingly because of British pressure for that enlargement. What everyone recognises across the European Union is that a Union of 20 or more states—we can now foresee the date when there may be up to 25 or 27 members of the European Union—is bound to be more flexible and less prescriptive than the original tenets of the European Community when it began with a handful of nations. Unbending centralisation will simply not be feasible in a wider Union, and many of the fears that people have about it will be seen to be fantasy fears as the European Union develops.
  Mr. William Cash: My right hon. Friend refers to unbending centralisation. He is, of course, aware that the Maastricht treaty contains detailed recommendations—indeed, a legal requirement—for a central bank. What could be more centralising than that? If my right hon. Friend rejects centralisation, why does he not therefore make it crystal clear in principle now that he objects not only to a central bank but to the single currency that goes with it?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows of the position in the Maastricht treaty regarding a central bank. He knows that we have the option to decide whether to join a single currency at a later stage. As I said to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), I shall deal with that matter in a few moments.
  I shall speak first about the intergovernmental conference, which will begin in just a few months' time. I do not believe that it will make huge changes in Europe. No one can be absolutely certain what our partners will bring forward, but I doubt whether any serious significant changes will be proposed.
  However, the conference can and should usefully improve the way in which Europe operates, and we shall present a range of our ideas at the conference. We shall suggest ways of developing the common foreign and security policy, and ways of stepping up the fight against organised crime and terrorism. We shall set out ways of achieving a stronger role for national Parliaments. and more subsidiarity. We shall build on the steps agreed at the Essen summit to crack down on fraud.
  1064
  Under qualified majority voting, a larger say should be given to the larger states, and we shall set out our plans for that. At the intergovernmental conference we shall also seek to reinforce the democratic authority of the Council of Ministers. For reasons that will become apparent as my speech proceeds, we shall not accept the end of the national veto, or significant constitutional change that would impact adversely on the House.
  We shall argue that foreign, security and home affairs must continue to be agreed between sovereign Governments, and must not be collapsed into Community competence. On that basis they can, and in many ways they should, be expanded to the benefit of countries and people throughout the European Union.
  Reform of the common agricultural policy is bound to feature, but not at the IGC, for it is not a matter for treaty revision. But it will inevitably happen before enlargement proceeds, because the present CAP is unsustainable as we move towards a larger EU.
  Europe does not have just one agenda, as hon. Members sometimes seem to assume. There is not one agenda set by others that this country must blindly follow or reject. That is the choice that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield tried to put before people, but it is a false choice. We have the opportunity to set out how we think the Community will develop, and there are areas in which the United Kingdom has led and will lead in future.
  The right hon. Gentleman touched briefly on one central matter—the question of defence. The Western European Union, of which 10 European Union states are full members, is both NATO's European pillar and the vehicle for European defence co-operation. The intergovernmental conference will review that arrangement and we shall make our own proposals. I have written today to the European Heads of Government about the way in which we might develop those ideas at the intergovernmental conference, and I have placed a memorandum in the Library.
  The approach that we propose is both practical and intergovernmental. Some points are incontrovertible: NATO has been the most successful defensive alliance in history, it must remain the bedrock of Europe's security and its capabilities should not be duplicated. However, we also need a stronger Western European Union so that European countries can take on their proper share of the burden and act effectively in situations in which the United States may not wish to be involved.
  Our proposals fall into three parts. First, we must define the tasks that European countries could realistically take on themselves. The defence of member states and major combat operations will of course remain the task of NATO, but the WEU should be able to deal with lesser crises. It should be able to engage in support operations and handle embargo or sanctions enforcement, and it should be equipped for humanitarian operations of the kind seen in Rwanda, and for rescue missions such as the evacuations that we have twice undertaken in Yemen. [Interruption.] Hon. Members want to know how the European Union will develop; they should listen and find out.
  Secondly, new arrangements are needed to mobilise European collective capabilities. A separate European force would be wasteful, and might diminish NATO. NATO has proposed that we draw on, rather than duplicate, its own capabilities. We agree that that should

  1065
  be achieved through the concept of combined joint task forces, which NATO developed last year. NATO's resources would then be available on a separable—not separate—basis wherever that was necessary.
  Thirdly, we need to take high-level decisions of policy and military action involving western European countries at summit level. That would keep co-operation on an intergovernmental basis, and not on the basis of Community competence.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am sure that the House would welcome closer alliances within Europe and closer collaboration in terms of Bosnia-style operations and in the development of our high-technological defence industry in projects such as the European fighter aircraft and the future large aircraft. Will my right hon. Friend allay the fears of hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Western European Union may be integrated into the European Union? Can he assure us that that will not occur, and that the Government's capability to run our defences independently when required will be maintained?
  The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend both those assurances. It is necessary to co-operate on an intergovernmental basis, and it will operate on an intergovernmental basis. There is no question of the WEU being integrated within Community competence. It is precisely to make sure that that is the case that we have set out the proposals for greater co-operation, and that is the way in which, intergovernmentally, the Community will develop, not just in defence but on a range of other matters as well. That is the right way for European co-operation to develop.
  Let me now turn directly, and at length, to a single currency. I say at the outset that I still believe that Europe would have been wiser in its own interests to proceed first with a parallel currency—a common currency—which could have circulated alongside national currencies. It would have had the advantage of being market driven and, in my view, would have been far more likely to deliver worthwhile economic convergence. I believe that it was not wise not to proceed on that route. I still believe that Europe may find itself being forced to return to that route as it faces up to the necessity of economic convergence—which, when one comes to seek it, will not be easily obtained across Europe even among a small number of nations—and when it faces up also to the sheer technical difficulties of introducing a single currency. But we will see what Europe decides as it approaches the possibility of a single currency.
  As far as a single currency is concerned, I reiterate today what I have made clear before. Britain will not join a single currency in 1996 or 1997 and, frankly, I increasingly doubt whether anybody will be ready to do so. Europe is not ready for it, and the sooner that is universally recognised, the better. I see no chance whatsoever that the economic conditions set at Maastricht, or the other economic conditions which are also necessary, will be met, and I see no one suggesting that they should be weakened at present.
  Quite apart from the other arguments, the economic conditions are absolutely crucial to the success of a single currency. If a single currency were used to bind together artificially countries which were not marching in step economically, the strains upon the economies of Europe
  1066
  would be immense and unsustainable. I have been making that clear since 1990, and I am glad that the Opposition have finally caught up. That is relevant. [Interruption.] I was saying that while the Leader of the Opposition was still saying that he did not want to be in Europe. Those economic points are relevant—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is on his feet. He knows that hon. Members are attempting to intervene and I am sure that, if he feels so inclined, he will give way, but it is up to him. He does not need help or indications from Opposition Members.
  The Prime Minister: That is relevant because there are huge differences between the European economies. Italy, Sweden and Belgium have Government debts that are at or above their annual national income, whereas in Britain, Germany and France the ratio is only half that. Unemployment is 24 per cent. in Spain, 15 per cent. in Ireland and 12 per cent. in France, whereas it is 9 per cent. in Germany, 8.5 per cent. in Britain and 7 per cent. in the Netherlands. There are also big differences in labour market flexibility, which may leave some countries poorly placed to respond to the shocks that would inevitably occur in a single currency in future.
  Mr. George Foulkes rose—
  The Prime Minister: I will give way in a moment.
  There is a large body of opinion across Europe that believes that a single currency could proceed around the turn of the century.
  Clearly, all 15 members of the European Union could not join such a single currency around the turn of the century—there is no chance of the economics being right—but a core group of countries could conceivably be ready to go ahead then, a small group of nations that, economically speaking, could include the United Kingdom.
  If that core went ahead, it would radically change the nature of the whole European Union. At this stage, no one can safely predict what that would mean for those within the core and, equally important, what it would mean for the majority of members of the European Union, who would remain in the Union but beyond that core number of nations.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: My right hon. Friend clearly laid out where the real problems in the convergence criteria lie, should people try to move down those roads without following them correctly. Furthermore, he pointed out that those are essentially good management techniques. Surely the key factor is that the real problem lies in establishing a timetable that makes people drive to a point that they might not have arrived at naturally. Does he agree that at the 1996–97 intergovernmental conference we should do our level best to take out the timetable mechanism completely and to leave it so that countries may or may not converge?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right that the timetable is arbitrary but, under the provisions of the Maastricht treaty, the economic criteria set out in the treaty supersede the timetable. If those are not met in 1999, 2009 or 2019, the provisions of the Maastricht

  1067
  treaty are such that no one would proceed. That is not merely the view in this country—it would certainly be the view of the Bundesbank or others.
  Mr. Lamont: Does my right hon. Friend agree with Mr. Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the American Federal Reserve Board, and my right hon. Friend Lord Lawson of Blaby that monetary union inevitably means political union, or does he agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is possible to envisage monetary union without political union?
  The Prime Minister: No, I do not—[Interruption.] With one important qualification: I believe that it is possible to move forward to monetary union without necessarily moving forward to political union, but the qualification depends on the nature and style of monetary union and I will deal with that in a moment.
  If the core went ahead, it would need to determine very carefully what that would mean for the rest of the European Union. To consider whether we should join that core at some future date means that we should consider the practical implications of joining it and, equally important, the practical implications of not joining and letting other nations go ahead without us.
  Let me set out in detail what those implications might be, because I believe that both this House and the British nation concerned in that argument beyond this House need to know the practical implications of what going into the Union or staying out of it would mean for them, their political institutions and their economic future.
  Mr. Tony Benn rose—
  The Prime Minister: First, I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Benn: I listened carefully to the Prime Minister's arguments about the possible effect on the Union of two tiers, but has he turned his mind to the effect on the domestic democracy of Britain if two fundamental principles that have existed over many centuries are broken: first, that there is a route through the ballot box for electors to choose the policies and laws under which they are governed and, secondly, that no Parliament can bind its successor? If the right to tax, borrow and set interest rates is transferred out of this country, we face the serious danger that people will lose confidence in the ballot box as an instrument for remedying the problems that confront them.
  The Prime Minister: It is an interesting illustration of the unity on the Opposition Benches to have had that point put to me by the right hon. Gentleman.
  On his first point about a two-tier Europe and its implications, I think that, with respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he oversimplifies the position of the two tiers. What we are seeing develop—it is not new but has been developing for some time and will accelerate—is not just a first and second tier but a much more flexible European Union that does not base itself simply on one tier or two tiers but is wholly flexible across a range of subjects. That is bound to become more necessary as the Community gets bigger. Frankly, it is both unrealistic and impractical to imagine that 15 nations—soon to be 19 and, within a decade or so, up to 27—will operate inflexibly on the basis of rules determined entirely centrally. That simply will not happen in the future.
  1068
  Let me consider what it would mean if we were to decide that we were to go into a single currency at some future stage. If we were to join, we would need to lock exchange rates with other members; agree what the single currency should be—perhaps the ecu; and possibly abolish the pound and the Scottish and Northern Ireland pounds. I say "possibly" because—
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Oh no, no; you cannot do that.
  The Prime Minister: When I referred, a moment or so ago, to some of the practical implications of moving towards a single currency, I had not expected, in trailing my coat, that I would get such a splendid response from the Opposition. But the reality is that one can see the turbulence and difficulty of moving forward in that direction. The relevant difficulties in terms of absorbing the Northern Irish pound and the Scottish pound and just having the pound sterling are absolutely trivial compared with the difficulties of replacing sterling with a single currency across 15 nation states, so perhaps the large number of Scots in the shadow Cabinet might address their minds to the possible—
  Mr. John Home Robertson rose—
  The Prime Minister: Ah, I shall give way to a Scot.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Can the Prime Minister grasp the fact that Scotland and England have had a single currency since 1707?
  The Prime Minister: That is because Scotland and England are part of a single Union, and I am determined that they will stay so.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Surely the question at issue is: could Scotland and England currently have different currencies and still he part of a single Union?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman recalls what I just said, he will know the answer to his question.
  Let me reiterate the changes that need to be made. They are: locking exchange rates, agreeing a single currency, abolishing domestic currencies, making the Bank of England independent and passing control of interest rates and monetary policy as a whole to an international bank, on which this country would be represented as one among many. Those are the practical implications of going forward to a single currency, and the House and the country should be aware of them.
  In addition to that, we should accept the possibility—perhaps even the likelihood, although no one can be certain about that—that a unified monetary policy would require a far greater alignment both of spending and of tax rates. If the House were to proceed with them, such changes would be the most sweeping changes in fiscal and monetary management that the House, with its history of control of supply, had ever considered and accepted in all its long and proud history.
  The House knows, from the Maastricht negotiations and the opt-out that I negotiated there, that I am wary of a single currency for those economic reasons—wary of its economic impact and of the serious political and constitutional implications. However, if some of our partners do go ahead, there will be implications for this

  1069
  country in any event, albeit different ones. There is no way in which we can sit out that argument without affecting us in one way or another.
  If we go in, we shall have the changes that I have set out, but if we stay out there are other serious implications to consider, and I shall spell them out to the House. No one at the moment can be entirely certain what the implications of staying out might be. We cannot know what the impact of a single currency might be on the pound sterling if the pound were outside it. We cannot know what the impact would be on the reputation and work of the City of London as the pre-eminent European centre if we were outside a single currency. We do not know what the impact would be on domestic or international investment in this country if we were outside a single currency, and we cannot know what the impact would be on employment.
  Crucially, no one can possibly know at this stage the way in which market forces would react to the decision either to go in or to stay out of a single currency.
  Mr. George Stevenson rose—
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall make a little progress.
  The purpose of spelling out those implications is to communicate the fact that at the moment those matters are necessarily unknown. They will become clearer as we move towards the point of decision; that is beyond doubt. We shall be in a position to know more of those. However, as of this moment, the answer to those questions cannot possibly be known, except as a matter of hunch. It is for that reason that I believe that it is in our own national and economic interests to keep open the option of going into a single currency—[Interruption.]—and equally to keep open the option of deciding that it will not be in our national interest to go in.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  The Prime Minister: I shall give way in a moment to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson).
  I make no apologies now, nor will I in future, for deciding as an act of policy, in the interests of the country, that we should not make such a decision without the facts at our disposal to know the right answer. If a future Government decide to go ahead, they will need the consent both of Cabinet and of the House. They may also need the consent of the country in a referendum because, as the right hon. Member for Sedgefield said, we shall need to carry the opinion of the country with us, whichever way we proceed, but most definitely if we decided that we were to go into a single currency.
  If a decision of great constitutional significance were to arise over a single currency or, for that matter—although I do not for a moment expect it to be the case—from the intergovernmental conference, a referendum could be necessary; it could be desirable, and I am prepared to keep that option open.
  Mr. Stevenson: The Prime Minister has expressed his caution about entering a single currency, but will he answer a question? If the conditions are right and if the criteria are met, would he then agree to join a single currency—yes or no?
  The Prime Minister: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past 10 minutes—he has clearly not understood a single word. No wonder he is in favour of going in: he does not understand the implications of going in or staying out.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend has said categorically that we will not seek to enter the single currency in 1997. He will know that article 109j of the Maastricht treaty states that if we were to join on 1 January 1999 there would be a two-and-a-half year lead time. That means that, to keep the option open, we should have to join the exchange rate mechanism by 1 July next year. Is it conceivable that my right hon. Friend would put such a proposal before the House?
  The Prime Minister: I certainly do not anticipate joining the exchange rate mechanism in the lifetime of this Parliament.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Prime Minister would have us believe that he has not made up his mind and that he wants to leave his options open. Does he not understand that what we object to is the fact that he is prepared to tolerate the activities of members of the Cabinet who have made up their minds? They are saying no, no and no again. How long will he put up with that dissent?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find, when we get to 10 o'clock tonight, that the line that I have set out for the Government will receive the consent of the Conservative party—he need not worry about that.
  It is important over the next few months that people understand what this debate means. In recent months—from time to time in this House too—far too many people have been playing off against one another as supporters of Europe, opponents of Europe, nows, nevers, wets and drys and those who have been implacably for or against a single currency. Every phrase has been analysed, every nuance noted, every speech dissected to see whether it represents a shift in one direction or another.
  I must tell those concerned that such an artificial tournament is nonsense. I passionately believe that the freedom of choice which I obtained at Maastricht must be fought for and held in the interests of this country. It is by far the best vantage point from which to conduct a single-minded and successful campaign for our national interests in the European Union.
  We are going to maintain the option because the decision that may have to he taken will be the single most important economic decision to face this country this century. To take it at long range, without knowledge of the circumstances, without knowledge of the daily details, without an examination of what is happening in the markets or without anything else besides would be folly in the extreme.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: May I gently chide the right hon. Gentleman for his failure to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his assurance that in the lifetime of this Parliament the Government will not be defeated—unless, Madam Speaker, you are invited to discount nine votes?
  May I return the Prime Minister to the point about sovereignty, which he may touch on later? It was always clearly understood that there would be a pooling of

  1071
  sovereignty by all the member nations. May I ask the Prime Minister for an assurance that there will be no horizontal transfer of sovereignty to any other member state on a bilateral basis?
  The Prime Minister: From the moment we entered the European Community—now Union—there have always been areas in which we have pooled sovereignty and also to some extent lost sovereignty. But we also gained sovereignty over the actions of some other nations. There have been semantic arguments about that question, but it is a fact that there has been a pooling of sovereignty in some areas. That has not applied to issues of great national concern, and I do not believe that the concerns which clearly activate the right hon. Gentleman are ones that he need worry about. I do not believe that we are going to face the difficulty that he, envisages.
  I come now to some of the related fears about the Community that I mentioned earlier. Let me address directly some of the fears that people have.
  Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister was describing what he saw as the balance of economic advantage one way or another which would progress over time, but if, over time, the balance of economic advantage is, in his view, in favour of entering a single currency, is he in principle in favour of doing so?
  The Prime Minister: It is a matter of practice, not principle. What matters—[Interruption.]. It is a serious point. The right hon. Gentleman asks a serious question and he deserves a serious answer. What is relevant is what the practice of entering would mean for Britain—[Interruption.] Of course, predominantly, in economic terms. We have to make a judgment about what is in the national interest. I repeat what I have said in the past. If I reach a decision that it is in the national interest to stay out, I will stay out. If I reach a decision that it is in the national interest to go in, I will recommend to Cabinet and the House that we go in. But we cannot reach such a decision without having the information in front of us; the right hon. Gentleman has done so. I decline to do so as an act of policy because I believe that we need to make that judgment when we have that information before us.
  Mr. Blair: Will the right hon. Gentleman now say whether he sees a constitutional barrier to it? Does he agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is a threat to the nation state or not? Now let him answer.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to tie this up into tiny little parcels. It is a serious point. What is relevant is what the whole package means for the House, the country and our future. If the whole package says that it is in our interests to go in, we go in, and if the whole package says that it is not, we stay out. But there is no point dancing round semantically on these points. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is the British national interest. We cannot judge that except in the round. We cannot judge that until we have all the information available and we know the consequences of going in and the cost of staying out.
  I come now to the fear that I mentioned earlier that many people in Britain have—whether there will ever be what some refer to as a European super-state. In the sense of a European Government, I believe not, and personally I would prefer to leave the European Union before I
  1072
  accepted a European Government, but the degree of integration in Europe is a matter of dispute, not least between Government and Opposition in the House.
  Upon some things we are agreed. The Government are not prepared to lose the border controls that we have at present and the Opposition have said that they will support us in that. I hope that that proves to be the case. In any event, particularly to protect our improved race relations, we are not prepared to weaken our immigration and other controls for non-European citizens. The Heads of Government across Europe pledged their word on that years ago and we expect them to keep it. We shall lake whatever steps are necessary to that end.
  The right hon. Gentleman accuses us of divisions. He should look behind him a little more carefully before he levels that charge at us. We know what he has had to say about his Members of the European Parliament, but what is his attitude to his nearly 60 hon. Friends who opposed the Second Reading of the Maastricht legislation? What is his attitude to the 40 who rebelled against his leadership over the European finance legislation?
  What is the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who believes that
  "the nation state is outdated"
  and wants us to
  "accept the increased jurisdiction of a centralised European authority"?
  Does he agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who said:
  "I personally am in favour of a single currency"?
  Or does he agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who says:
  "I am not a fan of a single currency"?
  Not only is the Labour party divided, but the right hon. Member for Sedgefield failed to explain all the aspects of Labour's policy. He promised to, but he failed to keep that promise. I am not prepared to give up Britain's national veto. I am not prepared to give up the right to say no.
  Mr. Blair: Neither are we.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Neither are we," but he is. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention that Labour would undermine the veto by making majority voting the rule. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head but it is in the European socialist manifesto, co-authored by the right hon. Member for Copeland, who said, subsequently,
  "We stand by everything in this document."
  It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head and looking embarrassed. That is what the right hon. Member for Copeland said. With whom does he agree—his right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, socialist Members of the European Parliament or the European socialist partners whom he goes to visit and signs things with so often? Whom does he agree with? Does he agree with himself on this issue? Do we know?
  If we gave up the veto we could not only be outvoted on own resources, tax harmonisation, foreign policy, immigration policy, protected areas of environmental policy and any policies which, in the words of the treaty, are deemed
  "necessary to attain … the objectives of the Community".

  1073
  [Interruption.] It is a spirited discussion. If it were possible, I would give way to let the right hon. Member for Copeland intervene upon the right hon. Member for Sedgefield, but I am sure that they can discuss it elsewhere.
  Dr. John Cunningham: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] If anyone should resign around here it is the Prime Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends.
  The Prime Minister should withdraw his allegation that either the European socialist party manifesto or our own manifesto for the European elections last year said that we should abandon Britain's veto. Neither document did so and to suggest otherwise is to tell an untruth.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Labour party would make majority voting the rule. If it is the rule, what else could it be other than the abolition of the veto? He can wriggle and wriggle and wriggle, but he is on the hook and he knows it. Without that veto how would the Labour party protect our interests?
  The right hon. Member for Sedgefield had some other memorable omissions as well. He did not mention the memorable indication by the shadow Chancellor to have some renegotiation on our rebate. Our rebate was protected at Edinburgh. It saved the country billions, but without the veto it might not be possible to save it.
  Neither did the right hon. Gentleman mention those Labour Members of the European Parliament who voted to double the European budget and dramatically increase Britain's net contribution. I do not know whether that is Labour party policy or whether they were simply being infantile again. He did not mention that Labour wants
  "to avoid a tax-cutting competition between member states".
  What does that mean? At the moment British taxes are lower than those of our European partners. Does he want to raise British taxes to higher European levels or does he believe he can negotiate with the Europeans to bring their taxes down to our level when they all have fiscal deficits in their countries?
  We know that the Labour party would impose the social chapter and drive out investment and competitiveness. We know that the right hon. Gentleman has said that he will
  "never allow this country to be isolated … in Europe".
  Sir Russell Johnston: Will the Prime Minister give way?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not. I have given way on a number of occasions.
  How will the right hon. Member for Sedgefield win battles in Europe that are in our national interest if he is too frightened to be isolated in those battles? Does it mean that he would never be prepared to stand alone, never be prepared to defend any position, any principle, any vital interest, if it would mean offending his socialist colleagues across Europe?
  What happens if Europe wants to do something that is genuinely against our national interest? How would the right hon. Gentleman prevent it? He does not want to disagree. He does not want to use the veto. The fact is
  1074
  that the Labour party's policy is one of weasel words and soundbites. It is not a policy for Britain. It is an abject surrender by the right hon. Gentleman.
  We have fought for the changes that we want—the single market, enlargement to the east, a new accent on competitiveness and free trade, less new European legislation with national action as the norm and development of the Union through intergovernmental consent. None of that suggests that the Government would be dragged along by others in a direction in which we do not want to go. That may be the stuff of tabloid tales, but it does not stand up to detailed examination of our record.
  We are prepared to be isolated and fight our corner, and the House does have to choose—between our hard-headed, commonsense, pragmatic approach to Europe or the politically correct federalist posturings of the Opposition. It should not be a difficult choice and I invite the House and all my hon. Friends to make that choice tonight.
  Madam Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) I have some good news for the House. Because the right hon. Members on the two Front Benches have co-operated so well, for which I thank them, I can now bring the 10-minute limit forward to 6 o'clock. That means that I can call more hon. Members today.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The Prime Minister, in a speech that will, I suspect, in some of its places, come back to haunt him later, asked us at the end of it to express our confidence in the policies of the Government on Europe. To do so would require either blind loyalty to the Conservative party or a suspension of our judgment—probably both. The Government's policy on Europe has been a catastrophe for the Conservative party and a tragedy for Britain.
  The question of Europe, as the Prime Minister rightly said, and this country's part in the development of the European Union, is, in my view, without question the single most important issue now facing this country. That question should be the subject of a widespread public debate about the long-term best interests of our country. But it has instead been dragged down into an internal spat in the Conservative party about how far the Prime Minister is willing to appease a tiny minority of his own right wing, whom, so far, he has not had the courage to face down.
  The Prime Minister has brought this present predicament on himself. Right from the start, in the Maastricht Bill, he had the chance to lift Europe above party politics. If he had done so, he could have mobilised a cross-party majority in the House, which would have isolated the hard-core minority of anti-Europeans in his own party, who are now his scourge.
  Lord Howe put it clearly and fairly in an article in the Financial Times on 30 January, when he said:
  "When the UK joined the EU in 1973, and during the referendum of 1975, the governing parties of the time included"—
  as they do now—
  "irreconcilable cores of opposition, anxious to thwart membership. They were defeated by the determination of those governments to mobilise a wider majority in Westminster and in the country."

  1075
  He concluded:
  "The current government could have pursued the same approach. It had the opportunity to do so in 1992, when the Commons overwhelmingly endorsed its achievement at Maastricht But this position of strength has been progressively undermined … by a willingness to concede ground to those expelled from the parliamentary party in late 1994."
  Quite so. That is exactly what has happened. Or, to put it another way, the Prime Minister chose to put party before country and is now paying the price. Like all who venture down the road of appeasement, he has ended up not master but servant to those whom he has sought to appease.
  What is the Government's European policy, for which the Prime Minister now asks for our support? It is a policy driven not by the best interests of the country but by the divisions in the Conservative party and in the Cabinet. It is a policy that depends on internal appeasement and external obfuscation. It is a policy, the aim of which extends no further than to enable the Government to survive by any means until the next election, when they can wrap themselves in the flag and play the English nationalist—no, the Essex nationalist—card, not because they believe it to be right, but because they know very well that it is the only means to ensure the survival of the Conservative party.
  Mr. David Shaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ashdown: In a minute.
  So, as we heard in the Prime Minister's speech, he is now condemned to an eternal search for new words to describe a non-position. We heard that at length during his speech of nearly 45 minutes. He has become a Prime Minister permanently impaled on the fence, because he dare not get off it. While he sits there, his party drifts closer and closer to outright opposition on Europe, his Government remain divided, his authority continues to be weakened and Britain's influence in Europe is unquestionably damaged.
  The truth is that the Government are now so split and at war with themselves over Europe that they are no longer capable of governing effectively at home or of representing Britain's interests in Europe in the intergovernmental conference of 1996–97.
  The Liberal Democrats are clear about what the European Union must now do, and about what Britain's role in that process should be. After a thousand years of war and conflict on our continent, the purpose of the European Union is absolutely clear: to bind the nations of Europe more closely together to ensure peace, prosperity and new opportunities for Europe's peoples.
  Liberal Democrats are also absolutely clear about the way in which we want Europe to develop.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ashdown: If the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will give me just a few moments, I shall give way to him, and then to the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith).
  1076
  We want to see a democratic Europe in which the bureaucracy in Brussels is held to account by the European Parliament, and in which national Parliaments have greater control over the Council of Ministers. But that cannot be done without strengthening the powers of the European Parliament and without strengthening the powers of scrutiny of the House of Commons.
  We want reform of Europe's institutions, starting with the programme of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. But that cannot be done without an extension of qualified majority voting in the Council. It cannot be done if Britain is always sitting obstructively on the periphery, instead of working constructively with others to secure the changes that are in our nation's interest. The Government must understand that it is no good calling for reform without willing the means that make reform possible. If they stick to no further extension of qualified majority voting, the consequence will be that the CAP will not be reformed, and that is not in this nation's interest.
  Mr. Spearing: Of course the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that Ministers should be more accountable to the House for their actions in a secret Council of Ministers, but does he agree that, whatever we did, we would still be only advisory, because Ministers act there as our representatives, not our delegates? Are not the treaties an authority above all parliaments, including the European Parliament, and is not what he wants when he talks about more accountability and vision limited entirely by the treaties as they are?
  Mr. Ashdown: There is an interesting contradiction between what the hon. Gentleman said and what the leader of his party said just a moment ago, which, no doubt, will be noted by all those who read the record. Wherever power resides, whether it be in a local council, in this place, or pooled with others in the European Union, it should be made accountable to the democratic process. That is why we must strengthen the powers of accountability, and of scrutiny, not only in this place but in the European Parliament. It is hypocritical of the Government and others to say that they oppose the decisions that are handed down by bureaucrats in Brussels, and then to say in the next breath that they are not prepared to see strengthened the powers of the European Parliament that would hold them to account. Those are contrary positions.
  We Liberal Democrats want a decentralised Europe in which power resides as close to the people as possible, but that cannot be achieved without a clear constitutional settlement of powers between the institutions of the Union and those of the nations, regions and local communities that make it up. We want a Europe that integrates its defence and foreign affairs more closely—and some of what the Prime Minister said was very welcome, if it meant that the Government are at last moving towards such a position.
  We want that closer integration in our defence and foreign affairs to ensure that our voice is heard in the world, and so that we can project our power around our borders to secure peace in our area; but it cannot be achieved unless we are prepared to move towards a common European foreign and security policy. We want a Europe that opens up new opportunities for its citizens—opportunities for work and, perhaps especially, for education—that can be taken up throughout the Union;

  1077
  but that cannot be achieved unless we establish new rights for our citizens, and provide for free movement within the Union itself.
  We want a Europe with clean beaches, less polluted waters and cleaner air, but we will protect our shared environment for future generations only by working together and sharing the immediate costs of high environmental standards. My party wants a Europe in which—yes—our economies are more closely integrated, because that makes for a more efficient internal market within the Union and a better chance to win external markets outside it. But that cannot be done unless we strengthen the single market and work constructively towards a single currency.
  That leads us straight to the question on which both the Government and the Labour party are so uncertain and ambivalent. Having listened to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, I am bound to say that I do not believe that he is personally ambivalent on the matter: he has staked out his position, and has done so with admirable clarity. He knows as well as I do, however, that the question is not what he wants but what his party will vote for—and it must be said that his party has more rebels against his view on the single currency than even the Government. The question is not what the right hon. Gentleman stakes out, but whether he could carry it through if his party were in government. That is the question to which he and his party must address themselves.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I must return the right hon. Gentleman to the subject of peace in Europe. He constantly talks of achieving and keeping peace in Europe through ever-closer union and integration. Within the boundaries of the present European Union, which countries does he expect to go to war with each other if we do not adopt that course of ever-closer union? How will such integration achieve much?
  Mr. Ashdown: I can give the hon. Gentleman a very clear answer. First, however, let me say that we know very well—having seen it far too many times in this and in previous centuries—that, if Europe is seen simply as a collection of competing states, competition will turn into confrontation. The rise of nationalism and of fascism in some European countries should cause considerable concern about the way in which matters will develop.
  If the hon. Member for Chingford wants a straightforward answer to his question, let me give it to him: Greece and Turkey. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the developing situation in Bosnia could lead to European nations moving towards war with each other.
  I do not underestimate—and nor does my party—the pain that monetary union might entail for Britain. It would he folly to underestimate that, not least because monetary union will force us to accept disciplines that we have ducked for half a century. I am certain, however, that whatever the difficulties of being part of monetary union when it comes, the cost of being outside it would be immeasurably greater. If this country can be partf monetary union if and when it comes, it is clearly in its interests to be so.
  1078
  The Prime Minister has told us that we cannot assess the advantages and costs at this stage. He is wrong: there are four clear reasons why such an assessment can be made. The first is investment. As the world moves towards a truly global economy, industrial nations such as ours will depend increasingly on inward investment. If monetary union comes, the bulk of that investment is likely to flow into the core single currency area, not into countries that choose to be outside it. Both the Japan Times—speaking for Japanese car manufacturers—and Ford have recently warned of the effects on their operations and investments in this country if it chose to be outside the core of Europe. The cost will be measured in lost jobs, lost trade and lost opportunities; we know that now.
  Secondly, being within a monetary union will almost certainly mean lower interest rates and lower inflation. We know that now. Our long-term interest rates are already at least 1 per cent. higher than those of Germany because of the market's uncertainty over the Government's ambivalence on Europe, and question marks over their determination to keep inflation low. Our inflation record may have been good over the past two years, but the markets have a long memory. Over the past 25 years, inflation in Britain has averaged 8.7 per cent.—double the German average.
  Even if the price of being outside monetary union were no more than the present 1 per cent. risk differential, according to the Chancellor's own figures £25 billion a decade would have to be paid in extra costs associated with debt servicing by British industry. That cost would be met by British firms and British jobs, and added to the price of British goods in the global market. We know that, and we know it now.
  Thirdly, staying outside monetary union will not increase our control over our economy; it will decrease that control. We shall continue to have sovereignty over our short-term interest rates, but that will be largely illusory, for the markets will continue to have sovereignty over our exchange rates. That means that the markets will dictate long-term interest rates too. That is the practical reality—words used by the Prime Minister—of our theoretical economic sovereignty in a go-it-alone Britain. As a periphery economy outside monetary union, we would have as much control over our macro-economy as a cork has over the wake of an ocean liner. Inside monetary union, we would certainly lose the illusion of sole national control, but we would gain the reality of a share in genuine economic power strong enough to withstand the speculation of world markets.
  Lastly, keeping Britain outside monetary union would mean a further major loss of British influence in Europe and abroad. Our capacity to shape and reform Europe's institutions, including the common agricultural policy and monetary union itself, would be greatly diminished. As was made all too clear to me in Washington last week, so would our influence with our closest allies abroad, particularly those in the United States.
  For all those reasons, we Liberal Democrats are clear about where Britain's interests lie. We understand that the ambivalence of both the Conservative party and the bulk

  1079
  of the Labour party arises not from a calculation of national interests, but from a need to cover internal party divisions.
  Mr. Robert Key: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ashdown: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not.
  Of one thing I am sure: Britain needs a clear lead on Europe, and it will not get it from this divided, uncertain, weakly led Government. That is why they should be defeated tonight—and afterwards, as soon as possible, in the ballot box.
  5.28 pm
  Sir Edward Heath: I know that Madam Speaker wants us to be brief, and I think that I may he able to help in that respect.
  My views on Europe have not changed since I made my maiden speech on 26 June 1950. I can therefore dispense with the considerable amount of the time taken by both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister in exchanging quotations from their own past or someone else's.
  I shall come straight to the question of Europe. The Prime Minister rightly emphasised that in taking a decisive step such as entering a common currency one should do one's best to carry people with one. Of course I agree with that. I do not entirely agree that the option of a referendum should be kept open. One reason is that the Conservative party has always been opposed to referendums. We had them only when one was forced upon us by the Labour Government in 1975 and in the case of Northern Ireland where there was no Parliament. I do not want to depart from that principle because I believe that Parliament should take the sovereign decision and it is impossible to visualise the House voting against the result of a referendum. We should stick to our historic positions.
  Secondly, we well know from European experience that it is difficult to get voters in a referendum to vote on the point that is wanted. It starts with one question and ends with an entirely different one, and referendums usually produce a vote against the Government if people dislike them. The argument against a referendum on a single currency is absolutely convincing in all circumstances. What will happen to our own currency while we spend four or six weeks stumping up and down the country arguing whether we should go in or stay out? If a public opinion poll suggests that we will go in what will the speculators do? The next poll a week later may say, "No, we will stay out." Barings would be child's play compared with what the speculators would do then. It is unthinkable to have a referendum on the question of whether to enter a single currency. It would be exactly the same as a referendum on devaluation of any kind. Quite apart from the time factor it is just not possible. I am against a referendum in all circumstances and particularly on the question of currency.
  The Prime Minister said that the problem of carrying public opinion is now very evident, and that there are various indications that public opinion in the country has moved away from support for the European Union. He asked about the reason for that. I can give him one very sound reason. Not a single good thing has been said about
  1080
  Europe and the European Union by the Government or their representatives over the past 15 years. We have had nothing but quite unjustified condemnation and there has been no information for the public about the good things.
  The Foreign Secretary knows how much we did between 1961 and 1963 during the first round of negotiations and how much we did between 1970 and 1972 in the second round to ensure that everybody was fed with all the details. The pamphlets which were published have never been challenged. Nobody says that we gave out wrong information: it was correct. Some of it proved to be better than we thought. We thought that prices would go up by more than they did, and that was good.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Edward Heath: Who is it?
  Mr. Gill: I am flattered that my right hon. Friend should recognise me. I should like to ask him about information, or misinformation. I have a letter which he wrote in 1971—during his time at No.10—to fishermen in the west of England. The letter states:
  "For our part, as the White Paper said we are determined to secure arrangements which will safeguard the interests of British fishermen."
  Does my right hon. Friend know that today there is scarcely a fisherman in any harbour in the British Isles who believes that his interests have been safeguarded?
  Sir Edward Heath: If my hon. Friend looks up what happened in the negotiations and examines the agreement that we reached he will see that the fishermen got complete protection. What has happened has occurred in the past few years, not because of the treaty but because of the complete change in the fishing industry and in its technology and other matters. I hope that hon. Members with fishing constituents have the strength to point that out to them.
  The other reason is that we have not taken opportunities to move into other fishing areas that were open to us. We had the Iceland crisis and we were finally kept 200 miles away from Iceland. At that time I set up an investigation into fishing on the west coast of Latin America. The report said that the fish looked a bit odd but there were plenty of them and fishing there would be beneficial. Could I persuade any fisherman even to go to look at them? Not at all. We saved fishing in 1971 and i is all on the record.
  There is still much to be done in terms of the good things of Europe. At this moment the Prime Minister should set in hand a fresh campaign to tell people about the good things that come from the Union. His speech put all the questions and all the doubts but did not deal with the great possibilities that can come from Europe. Some 80 per cent. of people in business and industry want a single currency because they know that it would be beneficial to them.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Edward Heath: No, I am sorry.
  It would save industry much money in trading because instead of needing 12 or 15 invoices a company would need only one in one currency. It would also save businesses the cost of offsetting currencies in case they

  1081
  got caught out on the exchanges. That would be a great help to industry, manufacturing and sales and it would also be a great advantage to the consumer and the traveller who would not have to stop at every border and change his money. In a journey around 12 states he would save over 30 per cent. All those are good things about a single currency and they should be taken into account when looking at the difficulties.
  I should like to comment on the political side. We have heard little about the views of the rest of the Union but a great deal about standing on our own. I agree that at times one has to stand on one's own, but it is infinitely better when one has friends who will offer support and see one through. The past two years have shown that we have not had the friends. We did not have them over the devaluation of sterling or in the attempt to change the voting system. We were exposed and, diplomatically, that is not a good situation to be in. We have to make sure that when working for change we have the support of the other countries.
  On the question of voting, the small countries are determined not to give up their position. When the Community was founded those countries were given a more than fair position. Germany with 60 million people had 10 votes. Luxembourg had one vote, which suggests that its population was 6 million, but it is 450,000. The attitude of the European Union is to give more than a fair share to the weaker members in the organisation and in society. We should keep that attitude.
  I ask people to be realistic on the issue of new membership. The eastern countries will not be democratic by our standards and nowhere near our economic standards for a long time. To start thinking ahead and working out various projections over five years is to be out of real touch. We cannot encourage them to think that in five years' time they will all be just like us, because they will not.
  I am afraid that more and more some of the people who were in the old regimes have taken hold of the new regimes. That is worrying. Some of those countries have a standard of living which is only 20 per cent. of ours. We should consider how much they have to catch up before they start moving with us. We must be realistic. We do not need to work out voting positions for 20 or 25 countries until the next century. However, we can do everything else to help them.
  Mr. David Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Edward Heath: Yes.
  Mr. Nicholson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that signal of approval. I agree that there is considerable divergence, not necessarily in democracy but certainly economically and especially in agriculture, which concerns many of us. Does not that add weight to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about the need for the Union to develop flexibly so as to take account of those divergences?
  Sir Edward Heath: I shall deal with being flexible straight away; it is also tied up with the attitude of the rest of the European Union towards us. Flexible means one has no real control over what is going on. That is
  1082
  what it amounts to in the end, but no one is prepared to accept that. The great suspicion against us in Europe now is that all the talk of an enormous Union, flexibility and the rest of it means that we are trying to get back into the old European free trade area. The suspicion is that we want to return to that old free trade area, in which we just said what we wanted to, when we wanted to and there was no control over it. As a result, it made little progress. I sat on EFTA as the British Government representative for three years, so I know full well what it is like. One cannot get it to make any decisions. When one sees the speed at which the Community acts, the old free trade area has nothing in it.
  Our European partners suspect that flexibility means gradually getting rid of all the Community's mechanisms—getting rid of the Commission, weakening the power of Ministers and weakening all the Community's powers. I notice that we heard nothing today about more powers for the European Parliament, but that is important. We treat our European Parliament Members worse than any other country in the Union. We treat them thoroughly badly and that, too, does not pass without notice.
  We are subject to that suspicion from Europe all the time, but we must get rid of it. We must do so by showing that we are wholehearted members of the Union in every respect. That means getting the machinery to work fully. We must also put forward proposals to improve the Union, instead of trying all the time to take away its powers and merits. That has tended to happen.
  As for defence and foreign policy, we should get as close as we possibly can in our joint policies. I am not quite sure whether I agree with what the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, because I have been unable to get a full report of his remarks. I hope that he will not try to separate everything and say that we must become so nationalistic.
  Having sat in the House for 45 years, it is interesting to see the extent to which, suddenly, we are hearing about the nation state. Decades went by when no one spoke about the nation state—a form of nationalism. We were a country of which we were proud and we wanted to work with others in the Community. I wish that we could return to those days, because the Europeans do not like our remarks about the nation state. When we say, "Look what we have done," that prompts Europeans to say, "The British treat us like colonies. That is what they think we are." I was told that just the other day in Europe. We cannot possibly make friends and have successful policies if we treat those count in that way.
  Mr. Peter Shore rose—
  Sir Edward Heath: I am not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of being a colonialist.
  Mr. Shore: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman is worried and puzzled by the frequent references to the nation state and the loss of sovereignty. It so happens in this country that our democracy is coterminous with the frontiers of our national community. It is the loss of that democratic power to European

  1083
  institutions that are not democratic which is one of the principal worries of those of us who are serious about this matter.
  Sir Edward Heath: I do not agree that the countries of the Union are not democratic. Most of them are pretty sceptical about some of the things done by our democracy, so I do not accept that argument.
  As for the nation state, the right hon. Gentleman may be right, but when I am up in Scotland, I find that the Scots do not accept that we are a nation, nor do the Welsh. I will not mention the Irish, but the English think we are the nation. The situation is entirely different from that suggested.
  We are now in an entirely different world from what it was when there were two super-powers. We now hear about the emergence of a super-state, should there be any changes in the constitution of the Union. If that happens, why should we become a super-state? We do not say that we are off to New York to visit that super-state—never for a moment—nor do we say that we are going to the super-state of Moscow. That is ridiculous propaganda, but, of course, it is perpetuated by the press.
  Should our colleagues take the heavies on a Sunday, I wonder how many of them realise that 60 per cent. are foreign owned. Those newspapers do not have any interest in Europe, except to try to disrupt it and the royal family in the process, if they can. Nearly 50 per cent. of the daily press is foreign owned. Those papers are not concerned about our position in Europe and produce every sort of scandal they can make up.
  I had an interesting experience the other day with The Sun. It related to the European Court of Human Rights, which had made an award of £59,000 to a British person and said that the Government ought to repay it because they had no right to take it away. That was reported in a stinking leader in The Sun, which said, "Here it goes again—Brussels and the European Union telling us to give back £59,000." That paper had no idea that the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg has nothing to do with the Union in Brussels. That court was founded largely by Britain, four years before the first Community was formed.
  I wrote a polite letter to The Sun—well, the first two paragraphs were polite—to explain the true situation. It was sent on the day that that article appeared, Friday. Nothing happened on Saturday and so, on Sunday, my office rang The Sun. We were told that they did not realise that Mr. Heath wanted his letter published. My office said that if those responsible had read the third paragraph of my letter it said, "Will you kindly publish this letter and apologise to all your readers for misleading them?" They said that they would have to read it again. They did so, but on Tuesday I was told that they were sorry, but they did not have enough room to publish my letter. Presumably there were too many sex scandals. That letter finally appeared on the Friday. Why? Because they hoped that, by then, everyone would have forgotten what had been originally published. The British people who read that paper were misled. That is what we are up against.
  I took part in a discussion on Sunday morning with Lord Lawson—it was amiable and well behaved—on that subject. A report appeared on Monday in The Sun, which set out what Lord Lawson had said, but not a word about my counter-arguments. Is that impartial journalism? That
  1084
  is what it has descended to. We were brought up on the basis that all reporting should be impartial and the leader should publish the views. That has all gone.
  We are now in a new world with five powers. One is the United States, which is now having to learn a new way of life, rather painfully. Russia is still a great power militarily and behaving in a way that is absolutely unjustifiable. Have the western nations shouted about that? No, not a word. The next great power is the People's Republic of China. Of course, what happened in Tiananmen square and the 3,000 people affected is still held in horror. It has a population of 1.25 billion and the standard of living is increasing on average by 12.5 per cent. a year. It has enormous potential.
  The next power is Japan, which is ahead of us all in technology. Those four countries are the four powers. What is the fifth? The European Union. What chance have we got against those powers unless we are in the Union? What chance has the Union got unless we put our hearts, souls and minds into making it the success that it deserves to be?
  5.48 pm
  Mr. Peter Shore: I made my first point during my intervention on the speech of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), when I reminded him that the fact that our nation is coterminous with our democracy is a serious point. I did not say that we were handing over the powers of our democracy to other countries that are not democracies. That was not my point. I was saying that we were transferring them to European institutions that were far from being democratic in the way that we would accept for a mature country. That is a very different point but one that must be insisted on.
  I listened with great attention to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who made a scathing and intellectually very effective speech. In terms of the argument, he certainly won hands down in the duel that then followed. However, although I applaud the speech for its form and effectiveness, on two matters of judgment I cannot fully subscribe to what my right hon. Friend said.
  The first was my right hon. Friend's conclusion that there was no constitutional barrier to our joining a single currency. That is a very important matter, and I do not believe that my right hon. Friend has yet realised all the implications of transferring the powers of economic management which would certainly and necessarily be lost if we were to join a single currency. I shall develop that point a little further before dealing with what the Prime Minister had to say.
  We are committed as a party to an economic policy as well as a European policy. One of our problems is that our economic policy and our European policy are now in violent contradiction. No Labour Member would dispute the fact that our economic policy is to make our first priority the attempt to regain full employment as fast as we can. That is the great aim of our economic policy, as reiterated many times in the House and elsewhere. To that end, as outlined specifically first by John Smith and then by his successor at three successive Labour party conferences, we have said that to promote the goal of full employment we would use all the major instruments of macro-economic policy—interest rates, exchange rates, public expenditure and borrowing.

  1085
  How can that economic policy be reconciled with an acceptance in our European policy that we can go along with third-stage economic and monetary union, a European central bank and a single currency? We would lose control specifically of our interest rates. Control of them would pass, of course, to a European central bank. No one denies that—it is self-evident. We would lose the possibility of using exchange rate policy to assist our own economic recovery and goals. We would be bound to do so because permanently fixed exchange rates and a single currency inevitably mean that that very important weapon, or safety valve, is lost for ever.
  We have accepted, or at least the Maastricht treaty would make us accept in the provisions spelt out at great length in its protocols and articles, that the European central bank would discipline our borrowing requirement—the balance between our public expenditure and revenues—to a limit of 3 per cent. of gross domestic product.
  The macro-economic powers which I have outlined are still available, although sometimes with great difficulty, to the British Government. How can we possibly surrender them to European institutions, the most important of which—the central bank—is wholly independent of any influence from national or European Governments? That is a major problem that has yet to be resolved.
  The resolution may be in what was said about the economic conditions as well as the purely Maastricht treaty conditions being right. What we mean must be spelt out clearly, and the same is true for the Conservatives, too. I am thinking of what the Prime Minister said about the convergence criteria and "other conditions" that would need to be met before he could recommend that we join a single currency. It would be interesting to know what those "other conditions" were, and I hope that, in winding up, the Foreign Secretary will tell us. That is a critical point.
  The Prime Minister ended a recent speech by saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to state what the additional conditions for convergence not contained in the Maastricht treaty were. In the event, the Chancellor did not explain but made a speech saying something very much to the contrary, which delighted the Europhiles in the Conservative party and offended the Europhobes.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: The unsatisfactory part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that it reflects the theory of economic management, the theory of supply and the theoretical ritual of independent states, with their own parliamentary activity, acting independently of others. However, in the real world, currency management also has an external value expression. Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that people should be alarmed at the fact that, for example, the pound sterling—our national currency—has lost more than 90 per cent. of its value against the deutschmark, most of that slide having occurred under successive Labour Governments? Is that not more important than foolish theorising about a pretend world?
  Mr. Shore: I should not have given way to the hon. Gentleman. As the Germans have well known since the war, it is of course better to have an appreciating rather than a depreciating currency because that reflects the
  1086
  growth in output and the strength of the economy. Germany is now a more prosperous country than Britain, but let us consider for a moment the events of 16 September 1992—black, or white, Wednesday. We were then frozen into an exchange rate which was costing us an increase in unemployment of about 1 million a year, and we were uncompetitive with the pound standing at DM2.95.
  The present level is something like DM2.30 or DM2.35, although it might be a little better in other circumstances. The change is enormous and has made all the difference to this country's exports recovery in the past two years. To say that we should have been better off had we stuck with a permanent rate of DM2.95 beggars belief. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman, in spite of his great enthusiasm for all things European, can sustain that argument.
  Sir Edward Heath: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, had the Government joined in 1985 when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to do so, the rates would have been almost exactly what they are today and we should not have had the devaluation?
  Mr. Shore: I am not sure about that. I was going to mention the important fact that the convergence of the economies of member countries that share a currency is crucial. There are very great dangers in their not converging. I thought that the Prime Minister was remarkably frank in covering this ground. I give him credit for the fact that, despite much barracking and hostility, he put forward the idea not of a single currency but of a common currency. He put forward the idea of a hard ecu as a reserve currency for the growing European Union. It is a very sensible idea.
  I could go along with a common currency but I, and, I suspect, half of Europe, could not live with a single currency for the reasons that I shall develop in a moment. The importance that the Prime Minister has always attached to his opt-out is, I think, a reflection of his own fears and worries about the consequences for Britain if we were jammed into a single currency when our economies had not converged.
  A new and serious contribution to the argument about convergence and single currencies has been made in recent weeks. I am thinking especially of the Governor of the Bank of England's Winston Churchill lecture on 21 February. The Governor, of course, balanced his arguments very carefully, but I do not think that anyone who read what he said could fail to conclude that, in the Governor's judgment, the costs—the dangers—of going into a single currency were far greater than any possible prize that might be won through it.
  The Governor made the point, which is the starting point of any serious debate, that there is a real difference in the economic performance of different countries in Europe and that nominal convergence criteria, of the kind stated in the Maastricht treaty, are simply not enough. He cited in his lecture that the lack of convergence is reflected in the current unemployment statistics. Western Germany has 6 per cent. unemployment, Britain has 9 per cent., France has 10.5 per cent., Italy has 11 per cent. and the figures lead up to Spain with 24 per cent. It is true; those are enormous differences.
  The Governor went on to say that he did not think that those differences could be easily or readily resolved and that they would remain. He then, of course, made the

  1087
  point that to join a single currency with such differences in economic performance would sacrifice the great safety valve—it always has been in the past—of exchange rate adjustment and that we would be faced with continuing stagnation for the less successful economies and rising unemployment.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Shore: No, not at the moment. The Governor went on to say what, given that consequence, the alternatives could be. He cited two alternatives. First, he said that there would have to be a mass movement of labour from countries where unemployment was high to countries where jobs were still available. That, of course, is why we have the absurd emphasis on free movement of labour, with virtually no constraint, throughout the European continent. The second great danger which he posited—he did not posit it so much as a danger—was that there would have to be an enormous increase in the budgetary expenditure of the Community to compensate, if it were minded to do so, the regions and countries that had suffered from the consequences of a single currency.
  Mrs. Currie: The unemployment rate in my constituency is 6 per cent, the unemployment rate in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency—I believe—is probably about twice that and the unemployment rate in the constituency of, for example, Liverpool, where I was born, is more than 20 per cent. How come we can run with a single currency?
  Mr. Shore: It is not the same at all. If the hon. Lady were to think for the moment, she would realise that we have the resources of the British state. The 43 per cent. of our gross national product which comes to us in taxation is distributed around the country to the different areas to meet the different needs of our people. I admit that, in Europe, we are talking about a mere 1.25 per cent. That is entirely different and it would be very wrong to confuse them.
  As I said, the Prime Minister knows the costs of joining a single currency only too well. His speech today was, once more, pretty sceptical about the prospects of it. I wish that he had been more definite. In fact, I wish that he had followed his own arguments to their conclusions and said that he had come to the conclusion that, as far ahead as he could see, it would not be possible on economic grounds for Britain to join a single currency. Further, since he insisted on inserting the word into statements made by the Cabinet a week or two ago, I wish that he had said that there are constitutional and, indeed, political implications of membership of a single currency and not only economic implications, even though those are very grave indeed.
  The Government are divided—very obviously so. There is nothing necessarily odd about Governments being divided, but this Government have been peculiarly incoherent in their policy pronouncements on European matters. I would like that dissonance of voices to be stopped. I would like a more positive and single line to come out and I would like it to come out as a clear statement that the Government are opposed to Britain joining a single currency and that, as far ahead as they can see, it cannot be a course of action that the Prime Minister would recommend to his colleagues and the House.
  1088
  I hope that, in addition, we would agree—both the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition are very near to pledging it—on a referendum. For constitutional reasons, for the importance and significance of what is involved in the transfer of democratic power from Britain to Europe if we were to have a single currency, I believe that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition should pledge that they would hold a referendum before any further significant transfer of powers is agreed.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. David Howell: When I hear speeches about the weakness of Britain in Europe—I exclude the speech of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), to which I shall return—I have to ask why, if that is so, this country continues to attract the vast bulk of investment from overseas into the region of the European Union. Britain not only continues to do that, but, from all the evidence, is set to do so in future. That at least requires an answer from those who insist that we have completely denuded ourselves of power and influence in the European Union. I do not believe that that is so and going on and on without answering that question does not help our cause.
  I am genuinely grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for securing the debate today as it has already done a number of things. It has made it pretty clear that the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends are hell-bent on a single currency. Whether it happens or not does not seem to worry them; whether there are dangers, as I believe that there are, does not seem to worry them; what it will do to the whole of the Europe for which we have worked over 20 or 30 years does not seem to worry them; and whether it will be pro-European or anti-European does not seem to worry them. They are going that way and it is very good to hear where they stand.
  It is also interesting to hear Labour's view that there is a need for leadership in Europe, although listening to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), leadership seems to imply following the rest of Europe. If that is the kind of leadership that Labour Members want, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was quite right to say that there is a different kind of leadership in Europe, which is more pro-European than merely following the Franco-German agenda, as served by whoever happens to be in power in Paris and Bonn. It is very useful to have clarified some issues.
  I am less clear about why some of my hon. Friends want to continue rebelling, or being Whipless or whatever the state is, over European policy. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set out with the most excellent clarity what may be called a Euro-realist position, which commands a great deal of support throughout the party, in many other parties and groups throughout the European Union and among member countries that are to join the Union. I cannot understand what the remaining grounds for rebellion are all about. I honour and respect my hon. Friends' views and I do not question their motives, but it is very hard to understand what on earth they are rebelling about when the Euro-realist position has been set out with such clarity.
  The argument boils down to three issues, which I shall rattle through because we have so little time: the referendum, the single currency and how much muscle we put into the intergovernmental conference agenda.

  1089
  I do not have any great difficulties about holding a referendum. I see the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), that it would be silly to have a referendum on the single currency. However, there is a case after the next IGC, when there will be major institutional changes—perhaps not constitutional changes, but huge changes—for going to the British people and saying that, having reached that point, we should have another referendum, after the one in 1975. Provided that we were offering a Europe of nation states and not some sort of greater confection or construction that nobody—or very few people—wants, we would have the overwhelming endorsement of the British people and settle the issue for 20 years. I see no problem with that. I am one of the few ex-Ministers who have taken a referendum Bill of sorts—the Northern Ireland poll Bill—through the House, so I cannot object in principle to referendums. That is what we should go ahead and say that we shall have after the IGC in late 1996 or early 1997, or whenever.
  I now refer to the single currency. The first question, after listening to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield, who is all for it, is whether it will actually happen in the way that some enthusiasts say. We know what is going to happen. Inevitably, there will continue to be a deutschmark bloc of some kind. We can see its workings in the market now, causing enormous currency disturbance. The magnetism of a bloc that has Germany at the centre of it will remain, with other countries around it—perhaps the Swiss, in a currency union, although abolishing their currency is very unlikely, as they are not even a member of the European Community; perhaps the Austrians and the Dutch; perhaps the Belgians, although they will have great difficulty in converging; almost certainly not the Italians, unless the criteria are fudged; and presumably, I hope, not ourselves. The deutschmark bloc is inevitable.
  The other thing that is not so much inevitable as highly desirable is the convergence discipline. The convergence criteria are excellent aims and targets for any sensible and well-run monetary and fiscal policy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) said in an excellent speech on Monday night. That will happen anyway, and will remove much of the freedom and so-called sovereignty that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, who looked back rather nostalgically to the high days of Keynesian Labour policy, seems to hanker after. That does not exist any more. Ninety per cent. of the freedom of monetary and fiscal manoeuvre has gone anyway and will remain surrendered.
  Do we then move on from that, living in a world of 90 per cent. of sovereignty being surrendered to the disciplines of the global market, to 100 per cent? Do we lock the whole thing in permanently? That step is the crazy one. Any engineer, designer or architect will say that some flexibility, an element of adjustment and some freedom of movement make a structure much stronger, not weaker. Therefore, the idea that we move on from having to co-operate very tightly indeed in the global monetary system, to locking currencies in for all time, is engineering and scientific nonsense. It is out-of-date nonsense and it is centralising nonsense.
  1090
  Anyone who can understand the sensitivities of the currency market must begin to comprehend that moving from the close monetary co-operation and the discipline imposed on us, certainly from common currencies of any kind—I am all for those—to a single currency, the surrender of national currencies, is a huge step and it is bound to be dangerous and to open up all sorts of new tensions. As the Governor of the Bank of England said the other night, it means that it forces adjustment on to migration, as has been said, and on to fiscal transfers of a kind far greater than anything the Community or Union budget could conceivably cope with. Worse than that, it obviously splits the European Union—the Union that we have backed and fought for over many years.
  There is no way in which the Italians could meet the criteria which the Germans insist are necessary if, as they say, the new currency—not to be the ecu—must be stronger and as strong as the deutschmark. There is absolutely no way that that commitment can be squared with the state of the Italian, Belgian or several other economies.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Howell: I do not have time to give way.
  It is not really in Britain's interests—it is easier for me than for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to say that—to take our own global financial system into a regional, rigid currency framework. That simply is not in our interests. I can say that; perhaps my right hon. Friend cannot, but I believe that that is the position that we shall come to. All shrewd and far-seeing business men and financial people now are realising that that is the position and are beginning to question the generalised view that, somehow, it must be a good thing to be in a single currency. That is all that I want to say on the single currency, because that is all I have time for.
  On the IGC, I plead with my right hon. Friends that, although there may be no constitutional matters coming up in 1996—everyone will disagree, so the situation will be neutered—inevitably there will be major institutional matters, even if we confine ourselves only to the enlargement issues. I hope that we come forward with a very positive institutional reform agenda, which says, first, that we do not take the Franco-German line on everything as gospel; secondly, that we entrench multi-speed Europe; thirdly, that we enshrine our national Parliaments effectively in the decision-making system rather than just talk about it—we have some ideas in the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on that; fourthly, that we clarify the Council of Ministers' supreme role in the system; and, fifthly, that we limit and define the powers of the Commission.
  The Commission is much too powerful. It is much too insidious in trying to make its way into common foreign security policy and defence policy, which it is not qualified to administer or to pronounce upon. If we want to keep matters democratic and to build our security system on the successes of NATO, we shall ask the Commission to support clear delineation, clear definition and clear limitation of its own powers. Also, we must ask for the reform of the highly political European Court of Justice.
  Those are the things that we must do at the IGC. We should have the confidence as a nation to put forward a very positive agenda for the intergovernmental conference. Please do not let us stand back and hope that

  1091
  nothing much will happen if we keep our heads down. We need to be very positive, and we need to say that we can help to shape a Europe of nation states and put ourselves at the heart of Europe, but it has to be the right kind of Europe.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Peter Hain: I begin by nailing a lie that has been levelled at Labour Members. The Prime Minister said that we had abandoned Britain's veto in Europe. Labour's manifesto at the European elections last year stated:
  "The Labour party has long argued for qualified majority voting in important areas such as the environment and social affairs. But we have always insisted, too, on maintaining the principle of unanimity for decision-making in areas such as fiscal and budgetary policy, foreign and security issues, changes to the Treaty of Rome, and other areas of key national interest."
  In other words, we have said that we will keep the British veto, contrary to what the Prime Minister asserted.
  I welcome the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and join him in making a plea for a change in the terms of the debate on Europe. I am someone who voted yes in the 1975 referendum but no to the monetarist economics of the Maastricht treaty. I am pro-European, but anti-Euro-monetarism.
  Europe is imperilled not by the chauvinist fantasies of the Conservative right, but because it is straitjacketed by monetarism and gripped by the mania for deregulated free markets that has been so disastrous across the world. Instead of full employment, growth, investment and redistribution being the overriding goals of European economic policy, price, currency and interest rate stability are being obsessively pursued, together with tight restrictions on public spending, public borrowing and public debt.
  As a result, poverty across the European Union has shot up—53 million people were under the poverty line in 1992. Total European Union unemployment has been driven up to nearly 20 million in 1994, or 10 per cent. and, according to the OECD, on present policies, that will rise to about 14 per cent., or 30 million, by the end of the decade, with all the social disintegration that that 'would imply. The toehold on power that was established by the fascists in Italy, and the serious outbreaks of racism and Nazism across the European Union are disturbing enough with present unemployment levels without being fanned still further by rises in poverty and unemployment.
  The goal of European unity has always been noble. There could be few more desirable ambitions than overcoming the divisions that plunged the world into two devastating wars. But the central problem is that, in practice, the political goal has always been secondary. European unification has progressed by putting economics before politics and markets before democracy. Economic integration has occurred ahead of the democratic mechanisms to hold it accountable.
  European monetary union would bring undoubted efficiency gains by eliminating the costs of exchanging currencies, which are currently estimated at about £12 billion annually, eliminating risk due to exchange rate uncertainty and preventing currency speculation. Those benefits can he significant for an open economy such as that of the United Kingdom, which, in the past, was often
  1092
  prey to the vagaries of currency speculation. There are undoubted advantages in avoiding that through fixing exchange rates.
  Monetary union would impose major restrictions upon the use of macro-economic policy instruments. Without offsetting policies, that would give rise to increasing unemployment in less competitive regions. With monetary union, each country ceases to be able to change the price of its currency and has less control over its monetary policy. With monetary union, a worsening in a member country's competitive position inexorably gives rise to growing unemployment unless there are offsetting interventionist policies.
  Within existing "nation state" monetary unions there is substantial Government intervention, such as active regional and industrial programmes and redistributive budgets. Such intervention helps to offset the impact on weaker regions of the fact that they cannot price themselves back into competitiveness by devaluing their "currency" since those regions do not have a currency of their own. Intervention may be passive, through benefit payments from the centre offsetting lost income, or positive, through regional aid provision. Effectively, what happens through that process is a redistribution of income from more to less prosperous regions.
  National Governments typically appropriate and spend about 40 per cent. of national income to enable redistribution of income to poorer citizens and regions to take place. The equivalent European Union budget is just over 1 per cent. of EU countries' national incomes. Of course, the remaining national state budgets mean that a literal comparison stressing the 40:1 ratio of national to European budgets is not valid. But even taking account of that fact, the authoritative 1977 MacDougall study recommended a budget of 5 to 7 per cent. at a European level.
  The Governor of the Bank of England, Eddie George, pointed out in his speech last month that fiscal transfers from west to east Germany after the monetary union that followed reunification amounted to 4 per cent. of all German GDP. That represents the equivalent of a budget three times the present European one.
  The implications seem clear to me. Monetary union should be supported only if there is a much larger centralised European budget—perhaps four times its present size—and/or other automatic redistributive mechanisms, as well as highly interventionist regional and industrial policies.
  However, it is not desirable to shift member states' resources to the central European Union level without its thorough democratisation. That means much greater power for the European Parliament over the Commission and the Council of Ministers and also, crucially, over the European central bank. The policy, legally enshrined in the Maastricht treaty, of a European bank independent of democratic control and dedicated almost exclusively to price stability must be reversed at the next IGC. It is economically disastrous and politically dangerous.
  Putting monetary integration first is putting the cart before the horse. For managed exchange rates and, ultimately, monetary union to be feasible, let alone desirable, requires convergence in the real economies of member states. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow spokesman on foreign affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)

  1093
  said, we do not want convergence in the rate of inflation and in interest rates alone. That would be unsatisfactory and unacceptable. The right-wing monetarist policy of convergence by recession and by squeezing out demand should be totally rejected.
  Monetary union can proceed only on the basis of real convergence in growth, balance of trade and employment levels. If it is argued that those criteria are utopian, it must he pointed out that they are no less so than monetary union pursued without them. Above all, without a much larger European Union budget, monetary union is not worth having. The prospect of raising member states' contributions to about four times their present level may not be practical politics, especially for us, because Britain is one of the largest net contributors.
  Monetary union is also probably incompatible with enlargement. At present our taxpayers are subsidising the citizens of Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain as the main recipient countries—although I have no quarrel with that process. The three new members will be net contributors, but if enlargement includes Hungary, Poland and the Czech and Slovak Republics—indeed, the Prime Minister said that the EU could eventually include up to 25 nations—there will be real problems in imposing monetary union, because of the large size of the European budget tat will be necessary.
  To survive and to succeed, Europe needs to break from its current monetarist trajectory and adopt the socialist themes of full employment, economic equity, democracy and decentralisation. To achieve those aims, we need a change of Government. The Tories have no credibility in Europe. Under the Conservative Government, Britain is acting like a death's head at the feast. The Tories' miserable stance of grudging mean-mindedness towards Europe means that we cannot influence the debate. To influence it, we must be part of the European family, and our partners must feel that we are part of it. That is the only way to shift European policy.
  In conclusion, if we do not change our policy, monetary union may take place, even if only for some countries—but if it does, it will happen on the wrong terms and for the wrong reasons. As has happened consistently on Europe, Britain will be left outside until the multinationals, the unelected bankers and the deregulated financiers progressively corner us into joining a monetary union on their terms, rather than on terms that might favour our people.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me whether the rules of the House have changed? Is one now allowed to read every word of a speech?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Strictly not. The Chair is fairly tolerant, but perhaps I ought to restate the rule that, according to "Erskine May", it is not in order for Members, apart from Front Benchers, to read a speech, although recourse may be had to fairly copious notes.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As we have had one point of order, may I raise another? The Prime Minister said that our European election manifesto stated that we were against the veto. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath
  1094
  (Mr. Hain) has already mentioned that. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not a point of order."] It is a point of order, because I wish the Chair to get the Prime Minister to come to the House and withdraw that statement—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I can deal with that now. It is not a point of order, because the Chair is not responsible for the content of speeches.
  6.25 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: I should dearly like to follow what my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said about the press in the latter part of his speech, but I shall not be drawn down that road, because the most extraordinary feature of the debate is the fact that the Labour party should have had the nerve to table such a motion and to call for leadership on Europe.
  Had the motion been tabled by the Liberal Democrats I might have had some time for it, because at least they have been consistent—consistently wrong, in my view, in pressing for a centralised Europe, but at least they have stuck to their guns. But who can take the Labour party seriously on Europe?
  When I entered the House in 1970, Labour voted against going into the European Community, as my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Sir P. Cormack) will remember. In 1975, half the Labour Cabinet voted to come out and the other half voted to stay in. By 1981, the anti-European tide was running so strongly that most of the able figures in the Labour party left it to form their own party. In 1983, less than 12 years ago, Labour pledged that, if that party were elected, it would withdraw from the Community altogether. That is the leadership that Labour Members are talking about. If I led a party that had those credentials, I should go a bit easy on lecturing anyone on European policy.
  Of course, the Labour party now tries to rationalise the issue. The smart-suited public relations men and women who now speak for the new Labour party say with a wink and a nudge that it is the older Labour Members who hold that view. "What can one expect of those poor old codgers?" they ask.
  Mr. Thomas Graham rose—
  Sir Norman Fowler: I mean no personal—
  Mr. Graham rose—
  Sir Norman Fowler: I shall not give way, but at least I have woken up the debate a bit after the speech by the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain).
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) was absolutely correct about the Labour party. It was not only the older members who opposed our entry and said that we should come out of the European Community; the present Leader of the Opposition made a specific comment in his election manifesto in 1983, and I do not think the Labour party will be able to challenge this quotation:
  "We'll negotiate withdrawal from the EEC which has drained our natural resources and destroyed jobs."

  1095
  The same message came from the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who now speaks for the Labour party on foreign affairs, and from the deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
  The very last set of people from whom I will take lectures on European policy are the members of the Labour party.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was entirely right in saying that the debate today is about the kind of Europe we want. It is not about whether we are in or out of Europe, but about the kind of Europe that we want to fashion. Where does the Labour party stand after its debates on whether we should be in or out and the incredible political hokey cokey it has been doing in past years? It has ended by supporting a federal Europe, with more and more laws being made in Brussels.
  The Labour party's support for the social chapter is a prime example of that. There is no clearer division between the parties than on that issue. This party wants decisions on labour regulations left to individual nation states, and preferably to individual companies. We believe that European-wide laws of the kind envisaged in Brussels will add to industrial costs and unemployment, and will make European companies less competitive around the world. That is why Conservative Members welcome so much the opt-out which was negotiated successfully by the Prime Minister. I cannot think of any Tory who supports Labour's attitudes in that area.
  The Prime Minister was again right in saying that being at the centre of Europe does not necessarily mean agreeing with everything that comes out of Brussels. I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup who said that at no stage have the Government sought to set out positive themes in Europe. One need only think of the single market and all that the Government did with regard to that to recognise that that is simply an untrue statement of the Government's position.
  It would be a mistake—here I agree with the Leader of the Opposition—to believe that every issue of policy on Europe can he decided by the normal process of party politics, and I speak as someone who, in my time, was more party political than most. We must recognise that, on some issues, all political parties—certainly the Opposition parties—contain different views but that nevertheless there are profoundly important decisions to be taken.
  In my view, a single currency is one of those decisions. It is also my view that, if and when that decision is required, it would be best reached by a public referendum. I very much welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has so clearly kept our options open on having a referendum. If I were Prime Minister, I would have reservations about promising a referendum on Europe; frequently, the case against a referendum is put by his opponents on the European issue.
  For all that, it would be a profound mistake to reject the case for a referendum on the grounds of guilt by association. I cannot be the only person who supports our continued membership of the European Community while believing that an overwhelming case has now grown for giving the public an opportunity to vote. A single currency, and the single European bank which goes with it, raises obvious questions of the deepest political and economic differences. No party is at one on the issue, and
  1096
  the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) made that completely clear in terms of the Labour party. No party is at one, and no one knows in what circumstances a decision will be asked for.
  A referendum would allow industry and business to put their views, and would also allow the public to decide. A recent BBC programme on the subject of a referendum showed that the arguments can be clearly presented. It is patronising to believe that the public cannot understand the argument on the subject.
  In 1991, I committed the ultimate unsceptical act of defeating my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) for the chairmanship of the Conservative party European committee. Let me make it clear that I am not prepared to change my position now that I have been liberated from officially explaining the Government's policy. I entirely support my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's European policy, and he was entirely right to keep our options open on a single currency as an act of policy.
  I would say to those on both Front Benches that I do not believe that it is remotely possible for the single currency issue to be settled in cross-party deals between Front-Bench Members at Westminster. It is an issue of such importance that it deserves to be settled after a campaign of public debate which a referendum would allow.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: The Prime Minister today appeared to set out his commitment to a multi-speed and multi-layered Europe. He seemed to argue that that was both inevitable and possible to achieve. That may reflect the current state of thinking in the Conservative party, but we must ask ourselves whether it is realistic.
  The assumption underlying the idea of a multi-speed Europe is that different countries will proceed at different speeds towards European integration in different subject areas. That seemed to be what the Prime Minister meant before the European elections last year, when he talked about Europe being
  "multi-track, multi-speed, multi-layered".
  He went on, however, to give the game away by saying:
  "It is a Conservative idea in line with the mood of people everywhere".
  I doubt whether that mood extends far beyond No. 10 Downing street, and I also doubt whether it commands widespread support among the deeply divided Conservative Back Benchers. It is an idea to paper over the present political cracks in the Conservative party on questions to do with Europe.
  Why should I be so doubtful about that? Simply because, at Maastricht, the Conservative Government negotiated an opt-out for the UK in respect of both economic and political union, as well as in relation to the social chapter. It is necessary to look at the effects of that opt-out, specifically in relation to the social chapter, on the legal and constitutional coherence of the European Union.
  The opt-out allows the other 14 member states to make laws by majority vote in respect of social chapter subjects; those laws are binding on every member state, with the exception of the United Kingdom. It will leave UK citizens in a different legal position on precisely the same facts from citizens of other member states. Those citizens

  1097
  might well be working on standard form contracts. Yet the European Court of Justice must try to resolve legal and constitutional issues against the background of a different legal test according to whether a member state has accepted the social chapter.
  That builds a legal incoherence into the responsibilities of what is in effect the supreme court of justice for the European Union. It is difficult to imagine—even in relation to the social chapter—how the Court of Justice could apply one set of rules to 14 member states and a quite different set to the remaining member state, the UK; yet that analogy will have to apply if we are to proceed along the Prime Minister's route towards a multi-layered Europe.
  That will inevitably mean that there will be different legal standards in different subject areas according to the particular subject and the number of member states that have proceeded towards greater European integration. I do not believe that the Prime Minister believes that, and it seems to me to be no more than a device to try to unite—for the moment—the Conservative party.
  There is little doubt that the Prime Minister was opposed to the idea of a two-speed Europe relatively recently. In November 1990, he said:
  "I don't want a two-speed Europe. I think a two-speed Europe is unequivocally bad for Europe."
  In October 1992, the Prime Minister said:
  "No fast track, no slow track, no one left behind".
  That was his constant theme when referring to the European Union.
  The Foreign Secretary has made exactly the same criticism of the idea of a two-speed Europe. How is it possible to equate that clear objection to a two-speed Europe with the concept of a multi-speed Europe about which we now hear consistently from Cabinet members? It is unclear how that division can be breached, and it is unclear how the Prime Minister can resolve the differences in the Cabinet on these questions.
  The Chancellor has said:
  "We shall have to ask ourselves about the dangers that could be involved in assuming a marginal role in Europe. It would be a serious mistake to exclude Britain from the major decisions concerning economic and monetary union."
  On the contrary, the Prime Minister said that it was necessary for Britain to stand out and for the Chancellor to set out new conditions before we could accept the principle of economic and monetary union. He appeared to repeat the view that there were further conditions, over and above those contained in the Maastricht treaty, in his speech today. Yet, given the opportunity, the Chancellor significantly failed to respond to the invitation to set out the conditions when the country expected him to do so. Instead, he delivered a thinly disguised polemic in favour of a single currency, arguing that it was not a threat to the nation state. It is impossible to see how that view can be reconciled to the views of the Chief Secretary, who said that he would "hesitate for an eternity" before voting for a single currency.
  That is an uncertainty at the heart of Britain's Government—an uncertainty that is deeply damaging to this country's best interests at a time when our economy is ever more closely integrated in the European Union. Our future economic prosperity does not depend simply
  1098
  on the prosperity of businesses in the United Kingdom but must inevitably depend on the performance of the European economy as a whole. That is why we must have a British Government who clearly accept the principle of a single currency. Only then can they argue the case in the European Union positively. Only by accepting the principle can we influence the nature and conditions of the development of a single currency. The Prime Minister appeared to refer to the style of a single currency in his speech. We can influence whatever he means by the style of that currency only if we accept the principle and argue Britain's case as it develops.
  A practical example of the Government's failure to negotiate effectively on our behalf must be the position of the City of London. The Prime Minister talked about protecting the City as a centre of European financial activity, which it clearly is. As such, it must be the obvious place for the location of a European central bank, yet we are unlikely to be given that considerable political favour while the Government's position on the single currency is so unclear and ambiguous.
  The European Monetary Institute is the central bank in embryo and it is already located in Frankfurt, which has long nurtured ambitions to become the financial capital of Europe. The attitude of our Government is assisting in that process.
  Sir Archibald Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hoon: No. I am sorry, but I have only 10 minutes.
  That is why it is necessary for a British Government to be at the heart of Europe, but to influence the nature and development of the debate. Unless we do so, we will simply end up on the outside of a single currency. We will have had no control over its development. It will be difficult to see then how Conservative Members will be able to argue that Britain is an attractive place for third-country investors. How many companies will want to invest in the United Kingdom if we are on the outside of a single currency that involves the major countries of the continent of Europe? That is why the Labour party argues for the convergence of the real economic performance of the member states as a vital precondition of moves towards economic and monetary union. That is why we said last year in our European election manifesto—a manifesto that was overwhelmingly endorsed by the people who voted in those elections—that
  "Convergence must be based on improving levels of growth and employment, and not just on monetary objectives alone".
  That is why that progress towards economic and monetary union inevitably involves not only institutional questions, as the Prime Minister seemed to concede, but constitutional questions. That is why it is important that the Economic and Finance Council is democratically accountable and is developed as the political counterpart of a European central bank. We would expect that bank and ECOFIN to report to the European Parliament and to national Parliaments. In the United Kingdom, we would expect Treasury Ministers to report regularly to the House of Commons on the work of ECOFIN and the European central bank, and to a proposed European Grand Committee.

  1099
  We do not agree with the Prime Minister's charge that we simply accept all that comes from Europe. We want a developed European institutional solution to the changes that we believe are in principle necessary to bring about a single European currency.
  Clearly, different developments are likely in relation to that currency. Before 1996, we will discuss which countries can move to that idea. Secondly, we will discuss which countries will be ready before 1999 and whether there will be a majority. There is a clear danger that, unless we participate in that process, we will simply stand aside and watch the development of a deutschmark zone—a currency based on the deutschmark over which we will have no control or influence. I do not think that any hon. Member would be prepared to agree that Britain should accept the decision of the Bundesbank on a de facto Euro-mark or single currency based on the deutschmark. That is why Britain must play its full role—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Sir Archibald Hamilton.
  6.44 pm
  Sir Archibald Hamilton: It is a sign of the diversity of the debate that I find myself agreeing more with the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) than with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). Euro-sceptic that I am, I feel that far too much power has already been transferred to Brussels. Everyone in Britain, and increasingly everyone in Europe, is concerned by the lack of accountability of the Euro-institutions and about the fact that, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said, our democratic institutions are very weak. I have to differ with him, however, in that he wants to withdraw from Europe, but I do not think that we should consider that option.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) has suggested withdrawal. When I discussed it with him, he pointed out that if we joined some sort of free trade area we would have to be consulted on any measure taken by Europe. That would not be enough. Let us think of the objections that the French put forward to the import of Japanese-made cars from the north-east of England. If we had merely been asked to consult on such a measure, rather than negotiate from within the European Union, we would have had difficulty in getting that decision overturned. France demonstrates very protectionist instincts all the time and we have to be in a position to combat them. Even if that were not the case, if we were not part of the European Union there would always be a perception that goods produced in this country might be excluded from Europe. In those circumstances, inward investment would be very much less than it is at present.
  I am proud to be a sponsor of the excellent pamphlet that I have here entitled, "A Europe of Nations". It is remarkable for its endorsement by Members of Parliament from 28 centre-right parties in 20 different countries. I would not pretend that Europe is suddenly swinging to a Euro-sceptic stand, but this pamphlet is a good start—an embryo of a different attitude towards the institutions of Europe and a view that the nation state will have a much greater role. It is encouraging that it is not British
  1100
  Conservatives alone who are becoming alarmed about the powers that are being assumed by the Commission and the European Court.
  It is typical of the Labour party that, having swung from one extreme to the other on Europe—it once took the view that we should come out—it should start to embrace Euro-federalism when wiser heads throughout Europe are having second thoughts, but then the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is a past master at bad timing. We only have to look at the extraordinary debate that he has created over clause IV to realise that. It has produced extraordinary left wingers in the Labour party, who have come crawling out of the woodwork to praise nationalisation, when most of us thought that the issue was dead. When we consider movements throughout the world, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is remarkable for anyone in this country to advocate nationalisation. Such policies are followed only in communist China and Cuba—I do not know whether they are communist in North Korea. The issue has even split the Labour luvvies—some of them who are failed playwrights seem to think that nationalisation is a good idea.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he seems to be straying rather wide of the general topic.
  Sir Archibald Hamilton: My comments have a European dimension because no European parties or countries advocate nationalisation at present, and I find it unbelievable that the Labour party raises that issue. I admit that I follow the advice of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who told the Leader of the Opposition that the issue should not have been raised in the first place.
  I welcome the Prime Minister's analysis of a single currency. He referred in his speech to the "core" of nations that might join a single currency. Everything would depend on the number of countries that joined a single currency at that point. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said, a minority of member countries may decide to do so. It would depend on how many countries joined as to whether a single currency would even survive. If it embraces the vast majority of countries in Europe, as some of those countries' economies subsequently deconverge, even if they converged when they joined, that will produce massive strains. Hon. Members have already referred to migration and the need for significant fiscal transfers across Europe.
  Mr. John Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party has been handed the most wonderful gift this evening? We have been told that the Labour party is committed to a single currency. Opinion is rapidly changing in the City of London among more informed industrialists. We now know that hundreds of thousands of jobs would have to be shed in this country to meet the convergence criteria necessary to join a single currency. Cannot we now say, honestly and legitimately, that the Labour party is adopting a policy of high unemployment?
  Sir Archibald Hamilton: That would be consistent with many other Labour policies, such as a minimum wage and the social chapter, which would deprive this country of a large number of jobs.

  1101
  The ultimate question, when considering the effects of migration as people move from areas of high unemployment to areas where they could get jobs, is whether the people of Europe feel more European than, say, the French. There is no great evidence, for instance, that the French feel so European that they are prepared to take a broad-minded view towards Polish workers in the ferry industry. They might be equally intolerant of poverty-stricken Italians coming up from Naples to work on the ferries. Europe cannot be compared to America, which takes a much more tolerant view of its people migrating from one side of the country to the other. The difficulties in Europe would be far greater.
  What is needed is a wholesale repatriation of policies that concern purely domestic matters. There is a growing agitation in the country that Europe is interfering in far too many matters for which it does not have a mandate. Foremost among those should be the common agricultural policy. There is no doubt that if we want the Visegrad countries to join Europe, the CAP must be completely overhauled. However, we are limited in our ability to overhaul it further as long as it is held by the Commission. It should be repatriated in stages, the CAP budget should be reduced, and the cohesion fund should ultimately be phased out.
  The European Commission must be reduced to what it should be—a civil service to carry out the wishes of the Council of Ministers. The European Court, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford alluded, must stop making laws on the hoof.
  Finally, the motion before us has been carefully drafted by the Opposition to seduce my hon. Friends on the Euro-sceptic wing of the party into supporting a Labour party motion. But, let us face it, that Labour party is even more divided than we are on Europe. It is committed to the social chapter, which will increase costs and make many of our industries uncompetitive. It cannot quite make up its mind how quickly it would go into a single currency, but it would certainly be quicker than we would be prepared to go. We have now had a great argument about majority voting, but there is no doubt in my mind that we would see a massive extension of majority voting if Labour ever came to power.
  So I ask my hon. Friends—I am sad that there are not more present who are on the right of the party—to oppose this cynical measure root and branch, or they will fall into the trap that has been carefully laid for them by the Leader of the Opposition and support a party whose vision of Europe is the antithesis of everything which the Euro-sceptics, including me, stand for. I should like to see my hon. Friends back in the fold of the Conservative party tonight and I hope that they will support the Government in the Division Lobby.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: I welcome this debate and the opportunity to take part in it. I have listened to most of the debate and two speeches were outstanding. I mean no disrespect to any of my right hon. and hon. Friends, or to Conservative Members, but the speech by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was the best that I have heard from him and I compliment him on it. I may do the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and
  1102
  Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) harm if I say that his speech was another exceptional contribution to the debate. I judged it by the responses that he had from some of his colleagues behind him and I was reminded where the Opposition are, as opposed to where the enemy is. His speech was enlightening and well worthy of the debate.
  Tonight's debate is about government. It is about government of the European Union, but we should not overlook the fact that it is also about government of the United Kingdom. It is about national interests and sovereignty. This country is suffering because of indecisive government. The Prime Minister is a prisoner within his own Cabinet and party. Any Government should go that extra mile for their country, but, far from doing that, they do not want to leave the starting blocks. To judge by some of the comments that I heard this afternoon, some of them do not even want to move forward from the starting block but would rather run backwards.
  In my capacity as Chairman of the European Legislation Select Committee, I have a chance to meet colleagues who represent their Governments in other member states. I have just returned from COSAC, the Conference of European Affairs Committees, in Paris this week. Those who listened to the Prime Minister in the Frost interview recently will have had the impression that the intergovernmental conference in 1996 will be a status quo conference, but that is not the view of other member states. Hon. Members had better understand that they will not sit back and allow Europe to stagnate because of the domestic problems of one member state.
  My Select Committee has just started its inquiry into the IGC and hopes to report before the end of the summer. I suspect—I may be wrong and the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary may disagree—that the discussion of the 1996 IGC will cause great problems for the Prime Minister, and I honestly do not believe that he has any intention of going to that conference before a general election. I welcome the notion of a general election in the summer of 1997, but I doubt whether we shall have one. I say to my hon. Friends and to my party in the country, whenever I get a chance to do so, that we must prepare for a cut and run general election. I believe that the Government dare not go to the IGC as divided as they are; no doubt there will be some pasting together.
  The former chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), spoke about the Labour party coming and ebbing with its opinion on Europe. I remember him going to join his family and then coming back into the Government and then going back to join his family. He has done some ebbing in his time.
  Mr. David Faber: Cheap.
  Mr. Hood: I do not think that it is cheap at all. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to criticise the Labour party, he should look in before he looks out.
  On the single currency, I have to tell some Conservative Members that when they voted for the Single European Act, they should not have been surprised that the single currency was coming further down the line. When I hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer trying to say that there could be monetary union without political union, I think that he either discredits himself if he believes it, or he discredits the House if he expects us to believe it, because I suggest that it is nonsense.

  1103
  When the Prime Minister talks about enlargement of the European Union, as he did today, he talks about a super 25 or 27 membership in 10 or 15 years. Does he really believe that? The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said the same thing today. Are we being realistic when we say that?
  It is impossible to say that one wants to maintain one's veto, double the size of the Union and leave every small country with a veto and also to say, as did the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton), that one wants changes in the common agricultural policy. If anyone in the House tonight believes that we can change the CAP without getting rid of the veto or introducing qualified majority voting, they are kidding themselves. I do not think that those people are kidding themselves because, at the end of the day, we are all professionals. It is worse than that. They are kidding the public, and they are kidding the electorate. Of course it is impossible to reform the CAP without qualified majority voting. If the Prime Minister says that he wants to double the size of the Union and retain the veto, he argues the incredible.
  At Question Time today, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), mentioned the French initiative on Cyprus. Cyprus was promised that it would be allowed to apply to join the Union this year, but that has now been put off until 1997 after the IGC, as has been suggested by the French. In my opinion, the fact that our Government voted for that, when they are part of that guaranteeing power, has let down the people of Cyprus. I do not accept that that is the right thing to do. They were not doing enough to get Cyprus into the Union.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. At Corfu, it was agreed by everyone that, for the first time, Cyprus and Malta would be part of the next wave of enlargement. No date was set. It is now in prospect—it may be agreed next week—that there should be an undertaking for the first time. I support that. It is a very big step forward, and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus warmly welcome it. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is on about.
  Mr. Hood: I shall help the Foreign Secretary out. [Interruption.] In a recent Council of Foreign Ministers, there was a 14 to one vote about the position in Cyprus, when the Greeks voted against the proposal to leave the consideration of Cyprus until after the 1996 IGC. We know that moves are afoot to postpone that even longer, into 1997. We are walking away from our responsibility to Cyprus when we repeatedly put it off, as we have done.
  I am not opposed to the principle of referendums. They are part of a democratic process. However, I think that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said today that, before one has referendums, one should have leadership. It is nonsense to talk about referendums when any changes are two years away. I have been persuaded away from that point of view.
  The only referendum that the Union needs, and the only referendum that the nation needs, is a general election. The sooner that that general election takes place—the sooner we have a Government who will go into Europe and represent the best interests of the people, not the interests of the domestic party—the better.
  7.4 pm
  Sir Cranley Onslow: I shall not follow the speech of the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), even the parts of it that I understood, because I disagree with most of what I understood him to say. Specifically, I think that he was less than charitable. The best speech in the debate was made from the Government Front Bench, by the Prime Minister. It was straightforward and factual. It covered all the ground, and it should have given every possible reason for every hon. Member on the Conservative side of the House, or all hon. Members who ought to sit on the Conservative side of the House, to be in the Government Lobby tonight.
  I shall not be unkind about the Leader of the Opposition, because his speech will no doubt look very good on television, but if one analyses it one will realise that it is most remarkable for the things that he did not say and the arguments that he left out.
  If I may make an argument that is perhaps new in the debate, a great many people in the country are sceptical about Europe. I am talking not about in the House but in the country as a whole. Some are very sceptical and some are mildly sceptical, but it does not follow that most people want us to leave the Union. Being sceptical about Europe is not the same as opposing Europe. We should clear the confusion about that.
  If the Union cannot stand constructive criticism, there is something very wrong with it. If it cannot tackle fraud and cheating on the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, there is something wrong with the Commission; we should never forget that. We should never forget, as participants in a national Government, that national Governments in the Union are giving illegal aid to their industry to the detriment of our industry. We should seek to ensure that that is put right.
  I was especially glad to note the action that is being taken by the Department of Trade and Industry on the steel industry. The European steel industry is in a shambles. It is ironic that that should be so, because that was one of the original reasons why Europe combined.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Cranley Onslow: No; I will not give way. I am sorry but I have no time.
  The Department of Trade and Industry has found it necessary to set up a steel subsidies monitoring committee to gather information about illegal subsidies and to pass that on to the Commission for action. The Department, I understand, warned British contractors that if they buy steel from certain fabricators overseas, they need not necessarily expect that it will meet the tariff entry requirements, because it has been illegally subsidised by the Governments concerned.
  That state of affairs is not confined to the steel industry. Anyone who takes an interest in the subsidy issue at Commission level will know that there have been good grounds for criticising the Governments of Italy and Spain for subsidising their aluminium industry and good grounds for criticising the Government of France for subsidising their aviation industry. Both of those ran clean counter to the letter and the spirit for which the Union is supposed to stand.

  1105
  I think that the scepticism about those subjects extends to others as well. Most people in this country are pretty sceptical about the European Parliament. I found it interesting that, just as the Leader of the Opposition said that the Union was important to our steel industry as long as the regulations were enforced, but did not say that they were not being enforced, he did not pay tribute to his socialist Members of the European Parliament for the work that they do to defend British interests in Strasbourg or Brussels; I have no evidence that they do anything to defend British interests. I am not surprised that people are sceptical about that.
  We must recognise that there is a need for Europe to perform and to be judged by its performance, but that does not amount to a case for leaving and for turning our backs on Europe, which exists and in which we must live and fight for our own interests.
  Scepticism in this country extends to scepticism about a single currency. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)—I am glad to see him in his place—quoted at some length an admirable lecture given by the Governor of the Bank of England, but he did not complete the quotation by drawing on the last few paragraphs of the lecture, in which he said about monetary union:
  "it must be in the interests of the European Union as a whole that that decision is informed by a careful and dispassionate assessment of the economic arguments."
  If that is scepticism—it is certainly not a full commitment in either direction—then it is shared by the Governor. He went on:
  "It is not a decision that can or should be taken now. We all have our work cut out to achieve economic and monetary stability, and to address the problem of structural unemployment within Europe, through our independent national efforts and through European co-operation … The important thing at this point … is that we all carry forward this work patiently and with an open mind."
  That indeed is the spirit in which the House should approach tonight's opportunist motion. It is not a motion tabled by people who are prepared to be patient or open-minded. The only thing that unites the Opposition is not Europe but a lust for power and for office. All their actions are conditioned by that. I believe that they will be disappointed. In the meantime, it is important for us to support to the hilt a Government who genuinely defend the national interests of this country. They work patiently and cautiously and keep their options open. The referendum option is an important one, and I am sure that the Prime Minister is right to keep it open. It is extremely important that we show our resolution and unity in the Lobby tonight by supporting the Government amendment.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Derek Enright: The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) got just one thing right in his speech, which was that tonight's debate is about differing visions of Europe. The Opposition certainly have a distinct vision of Europe. Perhaps I may illustrate it by referring to shops. Do people want Flash Harry's cut-price shop, selling cheap goods of cheap quality, and giving no training to the staff; or do they want Marks and Spencer, selling quality goods, giving staff decent training, paying them decently, consulting
  1106
  them and giving them consideration when they have to be moved from one branch to another? That precisely illustrates the difference between us.
  I should like to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) and various Conservative Members about the social charter. I remind hon. Members of the Coal and Steel Community treaties. Fundamental to those treaties was the manner in which the workers of the European Community should be treated. The whole idea was to improve their treatment and raise their standard of living. The same idea is to be found in the EURATOM treaties, and it permeates the treaty of Rome, article 119 of which covers equal rights for women, and did so well before we started to do anything about them.
  Essentially, the European Union is about people and their welfare—not just the people of one small part of the Union, but all its people. We are concerned for other people just as much as we are concerned for ourselves. Unless we hold true to that ideal, we are finished as a nation.
  This evening I have heard a series of thoroughly depressing speeches containing no vision for Europe and showing a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works. Hon. Members seem to have a misconception of how the Commission is controlled, and about what the European Parliament can and cannot do and does and does not do. Hon. Members share a misconception about Pauline Green, leader of the socialist group. She has worked extraordinarily well, drawing together a programme for all the peoples of Europe, including the people of this country. I have heard Ministers praising her efforts, and rightly so.
  We seem to be hung up on the question of sovereignty. What on earth do we mean by sovereignty? It means giving people power over their own lives. That in turn means enacting, at the right level, legislation that defends people, that acts positively in their interests and that encourages them.
  My constituents ask what happened to sovereignty when it came to pit closures. It was not the bureaucrats of Brussels who got rid of the pits; it was Whitehall and Westminster that infringed my constituents' sovereignty and deliberately stopped them having work. The result is that one in three men in the area is out of work and actively seeking work.
  My constituency is a good example of the need for a social chapter. We used to have what were disgracefully referred to as women's jobs, because they paid enough only to supplement a wage. People work 40 hours for £100 or £120, but these salaries are no longer an adjunct to other people's wages; they are now the wages for whole families. What sort of pay is that on which to keep a family together?
  I applaud the idea of a minimum wage, which should apply across the European Union. The EU can ensure that we do not go in for competitive beggar-my-neighbour policies. Hugh Gaitskell's speech, which I saw on television that evening, contained a basic illogicality that depressed me enormously. He said that we could not wipe away a thousand years of history. That was an appalling statement, because it did not recognise the fluidity of history. It looked to the past, not to the future. It did not regard history as something to be built on and looked out from. The Government are falling into the same trap.

  1107
  We have to face up to the problem of monetary union which, for the first time, the Prime Minister mentioned this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, mentioned what I am about to say as well. It is clear to me, having talked to representatives from Germany, France and the Benelux countries, that they are looking to monetary union: it will come. It may not come in 1997 or in 1998, but it will come as soon as possible after that. The House should be in no doubt about that, and it will impinge cm our sovereignty. Once a bloc of countries has entered into monetary union, the leeway that we shall enjoy to manage our own economy will be restricted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said that our policy was one of full employment and that we could not achieve that under the terms of the Maastricht treaty. But we cannot have full employment by regarding ourselves as an island, putting a fence all round so that no longer do we consider ourselves part not only of the European economy but of the world economy.
  Instead of pretending that we can solve problems within these islands, we must perform the much harder task—it is harder, let us not kid ourselves about that—of persuading our partners within the European Union that by bringing our policies together we can tackle the problem of unemployment. There is no lack of willingness on the continent to adopt such policies. It is Her Majesty's Government who have opposed every single proposal that has been made by the Commission with the support of the majority of the Council and who have blocked the really substantial measures.
  Monetary union can and should help in that respect. It is what we use monetary union for that counts. No one can tell me that monetary union takes away our independence as we now know it.
  Mr. Shore: Of course it does.
  Mr. Enright: My right hon. Friend says, "Of course it does." Yet this weekend we have had an example of a young bit of a lad on almost the other side of the globe who can bring down a bank, ruin the value of the pound and send shivers throughout the entire world community. If that is some sort of sovereignty, I do not know what we are coming to.
  We must be realistic about sovereignty. We must pool our sovereignty to obtain more power over ourselves. To do that, we have to know in what direction we are going, and that, I am afraid, is what the Prime Minister did not tell us today.
  7.21 pm
  Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): The aim of the Opposition's motion today is purely party political. It is an attempt to create an unholy alliance between Labour, Liberal Democrats, Scottish nationalists, Ulster Unionists and those of my hon. Friends who wander in that nether world between heaven and hell, the Whipless ones, in the hope of embarrassing the Government and defeating them tonight. I am sure that, as some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have already said, the Opposition will be defeated in that aim and I hope that all Conservative Members will vote firmly in the No Lobby.
  1108
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a wise and balanced speech. One aspect of it on which I wish to concentrate in the few minutes available to me is his remark that Europe does not have just one agenda, and here I pick up the remarks of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright). Of course, that is true. Germany has a different agenda from us. Its agenda is to maintain the strength of its currency and its fantastically strong record on low inflation and low interest rates. France, too, has a different agenda, which is to bind Germany into the European Union while Germany is still interested in being so bound and before, as could happen after unification, Germany turns its eye eastward and is not that interested in membership of the European Union.
  We have a great challenge in that respect. How do we, as a wholehearted member of the European Union
  "help to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"?
  Those words cause shivers of apprehension in some hon. Members on both sides of the House, but they are not new words. They appear in the original treaty of 1951. That original grand purpose, always undefined, has been reaffirmed many times. For example, article 1 of the Single European Act signed by my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher in 1986 has as its objective
  "making concrete progress towards European unity."
  Ever since 1973, the Conservative party has been a willing signatory to treaties that contain those words.
  The free trade area is nearly complete and, as we look ahead to new challenges, there are great problems, which I fully understand, in working out how that ever closer union is to be achieved. But hon. Members should not think that that concept will go away, especially as we move from a European Union now of 15 countries to one of 20 or more as east European countries apply for membership.
  Organisational changes are already required in the European Union. The roles, portfolios and numbers of the Commissioners need to be redefined; the rules about qualified majority voting need to be reconsidered. I am not one of those who in any way thinks that the present structures and administration of the Union are perfect, but we cannot and must not expect that 250 million of our European neighbours will turn their back on the concept of ever closer union just because some in Britain have momentary doubts, agonies and hesitations about it.
  I have no doubt that the progressive solution will lie in what Churchill foresaw in 1950 when he referred in his book "Europe Unite" to
  "some sacrifice or merger of national sovereignty"
  along with the
  "gradual assumption of that larger sovereignty by all nations concerned which can alone protect their diverse and distinctive customs and characteristics and their national traditions".
  What does that mean? It means that we all voluntarily give up some individual national sovereignty in order to play an effective part in a wider sovereign organisation of which we are part.
  Up until now, we have pooled sovereignty over such matters as trade, agriculture, fisheries and the implementation of the single market programme in order to have more force in the world as a trading bloc, but we have kept it, for example, on tax harmonisation, foreign policy and defence.

  1109
  Those boundaries are bound to move as the European Union develops and I understand that over each move there will be fierce argument, but the moves will take place, and that is one reason why I regard it as essential for the issue of subsidiarity to be properly defined at the intergovernmental conference so that there is clarity between what does and does not lie within the competence of the European Union.
  The main issue that lies immediately ahead, which has occupied the House much this afternoon, is that of a single currency. I fully agree with all of those, starting with the Prime Minister, who say that much rational discussion is obviously needed about how much control over monetary and fiscal policy should pass to centralised European authorities when a single currency is likely to happen. That discussion must take place before Parliament decides whether to join a single currency and whether at that time to recommend a referendum.
  I disagree very much with the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) over his wish to force the Prime Minister to take that decision now. It is much wiser to stand back and not take the decision but to wait until the arguments are better known. That may not be an exciting posture, but it is a sensible one. It is much better to do that than to take the wrong decision now.
  My own judgment is that in about the year 2010 there will be only four major trading currencies—the yen, for Japan and the Pacific basin; the dollar, for north and south America; the Chinese currency unit, which would embrace mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong, and a European currency unit. Other minor currencies will continue in existence, such as the rouble, but they will be subject to the regular risk of devaluation.
  Before then, Britain as a trading country and a financial centre will have joined the European currency unit with all that that implies of no risk of devaluation and therefore of low interest rates and low inflation and higher employment. We will join it because it will be self-evidently in our interests at that time. But it is not a decision for today.
  I remind the House of two dates. First, it is the 21st anniversary of my election as a Member of Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thank my hon. Friends for their support. I came to the House as a member of the Conservative party, which had just taken this country into the European Community, and ever since then, unlike the Labour party, we have been a lead player in the development of the European Economic Community, to the advantage of Britain. We have always believed in a powerful Britain at the heart of a powerful Europe. We believe in being a participant, not a spectator. I trust that that will remain a basic plank of the Conservative platform.
  Secondly, we are only two months away from the 50th anniversary of VE day. I remember that day very well. I remember the mixed feelings of triumph and relief. We have now had 50 years of peace in western Europe—a longer period of peace than at any time in the past 120 years. I believe strongly that the development of the European Union—its steady progress from a Coal and Steel Community to a European Economic Community and to the Union—has played a key part in bringing
  1110
  western European nations closer together in peace. I look to the European Union and to our active, positive membership of it, to give us peace for the next 50 years.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Peter Mandelson: I compliment the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). I agreed with much of what he said. I found his speech all the more welcome because it was in such stark contrast to the normal diet of speeches that we hear from many of his colleagues, which so often consist of false claims about the secret, socialist, centralising European agenda of the Labour party, coupled with attacks on wild, federalist ambitions across the channel, which only the Conservative party is capable of seeing off; about wicked continentals, in league with my colleagues in the Labour party, who, apparently, spend every waking hour dreaming up new ways of suborning the British way of life—one Aunt Sally heaped on another, for the Government to knock down.
  It is quite clear to me why the Conservatives have had to construct such a ludicrous spectre on the continent. After all, they have made so many enemies of each other within their own party that the only way in which they are capable of coming together is by creating even bigger ones outside. Of course, it is very tempting to allow them to stew, to delude themselves, fighting one another, edging themselves steadily but surely out of office. But, in my view, the process in which they are engaged carries far too many dangers for our country for us simply to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of the Conservative party tearing itself apart, however enjoyable that is at one political level.
  As I think the Prime Minister's speech revealed this afternoon, the Conservatives are incapable of uniting on anything other than platitudes, short-term postures and a postponement of every important decision that our country faces in relation to Europe. What, after all, were the Prime Minister's most frequently used words in his speech this afternoon? "Don't know"; "not yet"; "perhaps"; "maybe"; "wait and see". Why was that the theme of his speech? Because, on any long-term vision of Europe, the Tories have a fundamental, gut, irreconcilable divide between those who merely want the loosest possible European free-trading area and those who see Britain's economy, our trade, our defence, and foreign policy, intimately linked to Europe, and rightly so. That is why Government policy, as confirmed during the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon, is seemingly permanently on the fence, alternately paralysed or in retreat—never going forward, because looking ahead means falling out among themselves.
  The Prime Minister is well practised now at looking both ways. Nothing in his Jekyll and Hyde performance this afternoon alters the fundamental reality of the divide in his own party. In my view, he has only himself to blame for that impasse. From the very moment he prevailed over his Maastricht rebels—thank God he did—in the summer of 1993, then inexplicably, to many of us, decided to cave in to them with his appeasing article in The Economist of that autumn, they knew full well that they had him on the run. He has been running ever since.
  These are intolerable conditions in which to conduct Britain's European policy. We are heading, as the Prime Minister said, towards another European intergovernmental conference of great magnitude.

  1111
  Although it is likely to fall well short of being a Maastricht mark 2, for there seems to be no great appetite anywhere for any great integrationist leaps forward in Europe, the IGC is forming an extensive tidying-up and reforming agenda, which Britain must address seriously and play a full part in shaping, on the basis of a clear, coherent and, above all, consistent vision of where we want Europe to go and what we want our place in it to be. If we do not—if the IGC fails, from our point of view—it will harm Europe's ability to co-operate more effectively on matters that are of key national importance to Britain: our economy, foreign policy, defence, environmental protection and much else besides.
  That is why the Tories' fight over Europe is so damaging to Britain. The Government are so hamstrung by their need to condemn everything that their own sceptics label "integrationist" that they cannot embrace the necessary moves towards greater co-operation which are in Britain's interests, and they cannot take proper and full advantage of what I believe is a more realistic and practical political mood throughout Europe. I do not believe that that is any way to serve Britain's interests. I say that not because the Labour party wants to put Europe first, as is often bayed by Conservative Members, but because Britain's interests can be put first only by fully co-operating in Europe.
  Let me offer some examples of where I believe that greater European co-operation is signally in Britain's national interest. I believe that we need a strengthened single market and guaranteed British access to it, and that often requires a strong Commission to enforce the rules if that single market is to work properly. It also requires, from time to time, a speedy and effective European Court, to provide adjudications of disputes, to ensure that we and our British companies gain access to that market. It is in our interests for the European Union to pull its weight on trade, to liberalise in some areas and to combat dumping in others; yet, for some, that is just portrayed as the European Union throwing its weight around.
  We would benefit from common action, on unemployment and competitiveness, yet all we hear from Conservative Members is constant talk of deregulation, Government doing less. At the moment, there is even resistance among some to closer working among the police and judicial authorities. We would have much to gain from the formation of a Europol, yet for some that is too much like supranationalism. We need the decisions and actions taken through the common foreign and security policy better prepared and executed, and that will mean closer and stronger, not weaker, co-operation. As for defence, we need not only a bigger role for the Western European Union but moves to create common procurement procedures and greater burden sharing in defence expenditure.
  Enlargement towards the east is in the interests of our peace and security; but does any hon. Member seriously doubt that it has implications for Europe's workings, the size of the Commission, the operation of the Council of Ministers and the performance of the European Parliament? Of course not. All that must change. Are we really going to block any extension of qualified majority voting, with small new members being given the same veto rights in the Union as Britain, Germany and France on matters of crucial importance to us? Of course not. All those matters must be on Britain's agenda; they are certainly on the Labour party's.
  1112
  There is, in fact, a big agenda for Britain to get right in time for the intergovernmental conference. We must identify the areas in which action is needed and the changes that we want, and frame proposals for the necessary reform. The Government must accept, however—this is important—that we shall get nowhere with those proposals unless we are in a strong negotiating position. We shall succeed only if we have already won friends and influence in Europe, and have created such an atmosphere and commitment that our partners are anxious to reach agreement with us. That is what is missing now, and that is the crux of this debate. It is why the Government—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.
  7.41 pm
  Sir Peter Hordern: About a fortnight ago, I feared that the single currency could be discussed only by consenting adults in private. I am pleased to note, however, that today hon. Members on both sides of the House have indulged in the practice. I was particularly interested by the way in which the Leader of the Opposition so clearly expressed himself to be in favour of a single currency.
  I do not think that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) had any idea of the extent of the disagreement that emanated from the Labour Benches behind him. The idea that the Labour party is united on the single currency is absurd. I do not believe that the Leader of the Opposition himself has any notion of what being tied to a single currency really means, particularly in view of all that we know of past Labour Governments. I shall say more about that later.
  I welcomed the Prime Minister's approach. As he said, we must wait and see exactly what the conditions are—and they certainly will not apply before the turn of the century—before deciding whether to join the single currency. However, I am not one of those who believe that monetary union necessarily leads to political union: it seems to me that political union means losing control of defence policy, foreign affairs policy and the budget.
  Although we are making sensible arrangements in the Western European Union, we manifestly have our own defence policy. The same applies to foreign affairs—although we clearly could not have secured the terms and conditions that we managed to secure in the negotiations on the general agreement on tariffs and trade without the offices of the European Union. As for the European budget, it is controlled by the Council of Ministers, but it must be passed by national Parliaments—in particular, by the House of Commons. I therefore do not see why monetary union should necessarily lead to political union.
  Indeed, it would be dangerous were monetary union to do so. It is important for democracy never to depart too far from its grass roots. Whatever may be said about democracy in the European Parliament, it evidently does not enjoy the sustained support of people in this country; we need only look at the turnout in European elections to see the truth of that. While national Governments retain a majority of support, it is clear that that is where power should reside.
  The single currency is, however, of constitutional importance, if only because the European central bank will have to manage a monetary policy. If we adopted a single currency, we would give up our right to devalue.

  1113
  That has been a precious right for past Labour Governments; it is absurd for Labour to lecture us about the benefits of a single currency, given their progress in that regard—rake's progress, I should say.
  In 1974, the exchange rate was just over DM0.6 to the pound; only five years later, it was DM3.8 to the pound. The result of that slide in the value of sterling against all other currencies was that interest rates had to be significantly higher than they would otherwise have been. They were just below 15 per cent. in 1974, and finished at just below 15 per cent. in 1979, having risen to 18 per cent. at one stage. That is the price of a policy that allows the currency to devalue. Whatever we may think of the philosophical benefits of floating the pound, our experience is that it has always floated downwards.
  That has consequences. In the case of medium or long-term loans, the market will insist that a higher rate of interest be applied to sterling securities because of the fear of devaluation. That is why our interest rate on loans for between 10 and 20 years is always at least 1.5 points higher than the deutschmark rate.
  Arguments about whether we should join the single currency tend to be conducted in a vacuum. Now, in 1995, we are arguing about whether it is a good idea; but in 1999 at least three countries will qualify—Germany, France and the Netherlands. We currently have 40 per cent. of our visible trade with those countries, and the decision will therefore be extremely important. I believe that those countries will adopt a single currency. We shall not be able to avoid that; we shall not be able to opt out of it. The currency will be widely traded—probably more widely traded in the City than anywhere else in the European Union—and a great many businesses and people will want to deal in it.
  There will be an obvious advantage in businesses doing so. The interest rate on the European currency will be significantly lower than that on sterling, making it extremely attractive to European businesses. It will not be a single currency at first, but it will be a very powerful common currency. We can no longer discuss the desirability of such a development in a vacuum; it is going to happen.
  Whether the currency will spread more widely, and whether that is desirable, is another matter. We cannot possibly know until much nearer the time; but if, for example, the Greeks, Italians, Spaniards and Portuguese by some miracle qualified to join the European single currency on nominal terms, I would guess that the currency would be extremely unsafe, simply because the margins between employment levels in Spain are so different from those in Germany. I do not think that such a policy should commend itself to those countries, although of course it is entirely up to them. Whether we join a single currency must surely depend on the number of countries that join, and the terms and conditions operating at the time.
  As a common currency will be formed in any event, I think it likely that we shall join in due course, because it will probably be in our long-term interest to do so—particularly as the interest rate will be substantially lower than the sterling rate. The outlook for sterling in such circumstances, however, cannot be so strong. The currency will be not only weaker but less widely held than it is today. Consequently, the shifts of fortune, which are
  1114
  bound to occur, and the fluctuations in the value of sterling are likely to be much sharper even than they are today.
  It will eventually be in our interests to join a single currency as long as it is confined, which I think it would be, to the stronger countries of the Union. It is important to retain control of the budget as at present and carry out the reforms which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelt out in his speech. We should also try to extend Europe's boundaries. All those features work in our national interest.
  Clearly, joining any monetary union must exert considerable financial discipline on this country of a kind that we have not experienced for many years. For 300 years we used a currency convertible to gold and for 20 years after the war we abided by the Bretton Woods agreement and were tied to the US dollar. That suited us very well. When I first came to the House—I have been here a little longer than my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton)—interest rates for Government borrowing were 4 per cent. for 20 years ahead. Low interest rates have much to commend them, and I hope that we can return to those conditions. However, it is rather too early now to say whether we shall be able to do that and it is much better to reserve judgment.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. Mike Gapes: I get the impression that many Conservative Members are positioning themselves for the battle to come in six months, a year or two years. Many speeches seem to be shifting slightly towards a more sceptical position. I refer in particular to the speech by the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who has become a Euro-sceptic. That is clearly a sign of the way that the wind is blowing for a party that faces defeat at the coming election.
  I was with the right hon. Member for Guildford two weeks ago in Bonn with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. We also went to Rome in the course of an inquiry into these matters. I was struck by the clear, unanimous view in Germany, which was emphasised by Chancellor Kohl in all his public statements and by the Social Democratic party and even extended to the Greens, that Germany believes in European integration and not in the European Union as some kind of glorified, Thatcherite free market. It believes that the political side of the process is as important as the economic and monetary sides. We must recognise that now because when the single currency is established—not if, but when—it will undoubtedly be based on the German economy. As is the case today, Germany, with a population of 80 million people, will be the motor of the overall, integrated west European economy.
  The right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) spoke about the relationship between Germany, France and the Netherlands. It is clear that they will be in the new arrangement. One of the few things said by the Prime Minister with which I agreed was his allusion to the fact that it would cost us if we stayed out of a single currency. We should consider the problems that we would face with speculation, and people wanting to trade internationally and using the European currency rather than ours. For those of us who represent London constituencies with large numbers of people who work in banking and insurance in central London, that rings an alarm bell. If

  1115
  we are outside the system, there will be job consequences for my constituents and those of many other hon. Members.
  The timetable for the intergovernmental conference has been mentioned. If I recollect correctly, the Prime Minister said that it would start 10 months from now. I was not aware that a firm date had been set for the start of the conference, so perhaps that is new information. I understood from the discussions that we had in Germany that the date was flexible. It might start in 1996 or it could be delayed until 1997 to make sure that the preparations are right. Perhaps in his winding-up speech the Foreign Secretary will clarify that.
  Preparations for that conference are going ahead in other countries, on an agenda which is not the same as that of the British Government. Our Government's agenda is minimalist and it is one of stopping, restricting, pulling back and reducing. Other Governments recognise that they must take actions that will make the European Union successful. That includes going forward in some areas. Unfortunately, we heard little about that in the debate, but that is not surprising because we have a hamstrung, lame duck Government.
  The German agenda will be to keep the Bonn-Paris link central to the relationship. It will also concentrate on economic questions and on enlargement. For Germany, that cannot be done without democratic changes to make the European Union less remote and more accountable. The clear call from the European Parliament and from all those to whom I spoke in the German Parliament is for the question of the democratic deficit to be addressed. By that they do not mean some mythical repatriation of sovereignty to a centralised Westminster Government. They mean democratic accountability, with more power to national Parliaments and the European Parliament. That would do far more than spurious talk about referendums.
  While I am on the subject of referendums, perhaps it would be appropriate to hear the words, generally wise, of the then deputy Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, in his letter to Prime Minister Churchill on 24 May 1945. He said:
  "I could not consent to the introduction into our national life of a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and Fascism."
  I accept that that is a strong statement, but Mr. Attlee had a point because Governments who write the question, control the expenditure and fix the terms of the debate can easily rig a referendum to get the result that they want. When the Conservative party calls for a referendum, which is probably inevitable, we should understand why it is doing so.
  Sir Norman Fowler: You had one.
  Mr. Gapes: I shall come to that in a minute.
  We should understand that such a call is not for a democratic device, but for a device to maintain a Government who are in such desperate trouble that they can find no other way out. I tell the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) that I voted no in 1975. I stand by what I did at that time, but the world has moved on.
  People of my generation, those who were born after the second world war, must recognise that we are talking about a European Union that consists not of six or of nine but of 15 and potentially 20 or 25 states. We must recognise that it is not a free trade area, but a political
  1116
  and economic union, which we must build in co-operation with the rest of the peoples of Europe to establish peace, prosperity and an outward-looking Europe for the future.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. Charles Wardle: I am grateful for the opportunity in the time available to express my concern about the vulnerability of Britain's frontier controls under European Union law.
  At the outset, I should like to make three things clear. First, there has never been any difference between my right hon. Friends and myself about the need to maintain our immigration controls. There is a fundamental difference between us, however, about our ability to keep those controls in place under EU law, as it now stands. Secondly, there is a highly topical element to my concern. The legal action in the European Court taken by the European Parliament against the Commission; the decision of the Schengen countries to begin dismantling their internal frontiers, thus leaving the United Kingdom increasingly isolated; the response of Mr. Santer to the court action; the National Audit Office report underlining the far greater effectiveness of our port of entry controls over the European style in-country enforcement measures; and the Flynn case now before the High Court, have all lent a fresh urgency to the problem. The immediacy of the need to act positively at this juncture is dictated by the Government's own call for an open debate on the agenda to be decided this summer for next year's IGC.
  Thirdly, my underlying concern is that of someone who is in favour of a Europe in which the United Kingdom can compete and trade without hindrance, but not a Europe in which our quality of life is jeopardised by a provision in the treaty that we failed to tackle.
  The fundamental difference between the Government and myself has been about the legal status of the declaration negotiated at the time of the signing of the Single European Act in 1985. The Government have asserted time and again during the past decade that the 1985 declaration preserves the right of individual member states to retain their own frontier controls. I maintain that it does nothing of the kind; we need something in EU law that does.
  The House will be aware that, in 1985, the Luxembourg IGC agreed the Single European Act, which inserted a new article 8a in the treaty of Rome, requiring an area without internal frontiers. At Luxembourg, the then Prime Minister was rightly concerned that that article would create a new Community objective of bringing an area without internal frontiers into effect with which the United Kingdom would, sooner or later, be forced to comply. Article 5 of the treaty—I believe that it has now been changed to article B—imposed a duty on member states to take measures to facilitate Community objectives, or otherwise face infraction proceedings by the Commission.
  Advised by the Foreign Office, Margaret Thatcher, therefore, took two forms of evading action. First, she had added to article 8a the eight extra words:
  "in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty"

  1117
  in the hope that that would limit its effect to EU citizens. It rapidly became clear that that advice did not limit the primary objective of the article. Her second tactic was, therefore, to negotiate a general declaration, which began:
  "Nothing in these provisions shall affect the right of Member States to take such measures as they consider necessary for the purpose of controlling immigration from third countries."
  Indeed, the then Prime Minister told the House when we ratified the Single European Act that without that declaration, she would not have been prepared to sign the Act.
  That view of the declaration as the British opt-out from article 8a was reasserted by two Home Secretaries—by my right hon. Friend, now the Foreign Secretary, at Madrid in 1989 and by my right hon. Friend, now Lord Waddington, in Naples in 1990. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has clearly accepted the same interpretation, because he has stuck consistently to the same line. In the House and elsewhere, he has continued to pray in aid the Luxembourg declaration. He did so again this afternoon. The declaration has therefore been accepted as a copper-bottomed opt-out, but the trouble is that it is nothing of the sort and it was never regarded as such by our European partners.
  My right hon. and noble Friend, Baroness Thatcher, has said in her memoirs, in a chapter ironically entitled, "Jeux sans frontières", that neither the Commission, the Council nor the European Court would be prepared in the long run to uphold what she had agreed in the declaration. So at some critical point, she concluded that the advice she had been given had been duff. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) said in his recent autobiography that he was advised by Home Office officials, before Maastricht, that the declaration was worthless. He asked my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to negotiate a proper opt-out. He has recently repeated that claim. Presumably he received the same advice that reportedly was given to my right hon. Friends before Maastricht, making it clear that the declaration did not constitute a derogation from article 8a.
  As I have said, it is no secret among other member states that the declaration cannot deprive the now entitled article 7a of its practical effectiveness. That article establishes a clear and simple objective, which allows no margin of discretion, which is that passport controls exercised only on the occasion of crossing an internal frontier would be contrary to EU law. The Commission made that clear in its May 1992 paper addressed to the European Parliament.
  It is also pointless to claim that our EU partners will consider that the declaration, which is not legally part of the treaty, will have any bearing on the objective clearly established by article 7a. Declarations are not part of the treaty texts; they are declarations of the conference representatives and are not, as the treaty texts are, the acts of the high contracting parties themselves. Declarations are not, as such, ratified in the same way as treaty texts.
  There is no practical advantage either in reminding other member states of some sort of moral commitment to a declaration that has no legal force in a treaty. There can be no comfort either in Jacques Santer's hints that the Commission would somehow accommodate our concerns about our internal frontier controls, when he said in his
  1118
  speech the week before last that he had an unfailing commitment to enforce EU law. In any case, it is open not just to the Commission, but to any private individual to challenge the legality of our internal frontier controls through the British courts, which will then be advised to refer the case to the European Court of Justice under article 177.
  As I said, the Flynn case has already reached the High Court this week. When, sooner or later, there is a European Court ruling against us, it will not be something that we can simply ignore, because non-EU passengers arriving at our internal frontier ports would be able to apply for judicial review if they faced an immigration check that the European Court had declared unlawful. A flow of similar cases would follow quickly, paralysing the judicial system and rendering our frontier controls useless. The administrative confusion and the cost to the taxpayer of many of those who then entered unchecked would cause massive public disenchantment. Uncontrolled immigration is not what British people, regardless of their ethnic origin, want. They have never been asked whether they want to leave Britain's back door open; if they were, their answer would be an emphatic no.
  By and large we are a civil nation, welcoming millions of visitors here from around the world each year. That is quite different from letting in the world and his wife to settle here indefinitely. An influx of migrants, freely walking into this country without so much as a by your leave, would quickly heighten racial tension. The first to suffer from those tensions would be British ethnic minorities, born and bred here and peacefully and constructively contributing to British life.
  For those reasons, I urge my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to put article 7a openly on the IGC agenda and to insist to our EU partners that the purpose intended by Margaret Thatcher for the 1985 declaration, but not achieved, must now be embodied in a substantive change to the treaty itself.
  That is a pro-European argument. It is a Conservative solution, which has already left the Opposition hopelessly divided, as every recent debate on immigration has shown. It is an issue on which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister can lead the way and which, I can assure the House, will continue to command a great deal of public support.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): We have had a lot of interesting contributions to the debate, which has at least given us the opportunity to consider some of the wider aspects of the European debate, in particular, the steps that we need to consider in the run-up to the intergovernmental conference in 1996 and the discussions leading to a single currency either in 1997 or 1999.
  As well as looking at the single currency, I should like to consider the institutional changes that the Community must face as we consider the possible applications for membership from a number of central and eastern European countries. I should also like to consider the ways in which the Union needs to become more democratic and accountable. We must consider the means of carrying the population of Europe behind the momentous changes that we inevitably face.

  1119
  Some argue—some have done so today—that the Union that we joined in 1972 is vastly different in 1995. In other words, the Community, as it was, is now a vastly different animal. We have to recognise that the principles enshrined in the treaty of Rome in 1957 have their inevitable consequences in what was decided at Maastricht. Although the decisions taken at Maastricht were clearly a compromise, and even a fudge, we must recognise that the seeds of Maastricht were sown in 1957.
  I remind the House that the treaty stated that the original signatories were
  "determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union amongst the peoples of Europe."
  That has to be the basis on which subsequent developments have to be judged. The imperative for action was clear. The continent of Europe had been devastated by two world wars in a generation but, while the instruments of co-operation in the early days were economic, the impetus was clearly political. In the immediate aftermath of the second world war, France and Germany decided that it was in their best interests to move towards economic integration.
  The need for such action was recognised by Winston Churchill in his famous Zurich speech in 1946. He posed the most pregnant question of all: how should Europe respond to the devastation inflicted by war? He answered it thus:
  "It is to re-create the European family, or as much of it as we can, and provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe."
  We may agree or disagree with the prescription, but it is clear that in that speech Winston Churchill recognised the importance of political and economic integration.
  Britain's refusal to join the original six was based on a profound misunderstanding of its position in the post-war world. The British economy, as we have heard from hon. Members of all parties tonight, could not hope to compete outside the Union, and its political influence was severely diminished. However, when that realisation dawned, it was too late to shape the kind of Community that many people in Britain wanted. The original six had pressed ahead, and the terms of the treaty of Rome, and subsequent developments, were fixed in 1957.
  The debate in Britain on the single currency has echoes of the past. There is no doubt in my mind that every decision taken since 1957 has led to the setting up of a single currency as envisaged at Maastricht. It should not have come as a surprise to anyone. In fact, there is very little debate on the issue in other member states. They do not have an opt-out or the kind of sterile debate that we have in the United Kingdom.
  I cannot understand the argument about the loss of sovereignty because that argument should have been faced in the debates leading to the Single European Act. It did have consequences for the sovereignty of member states because its purpose was to set up an internal market by bringing down trade barriers, removing customs controls and moving to harmonisation of indirect taxation. The move to harmonise indirect taxation impinges directly on sovereignty.
  The Government agreed to the formula set out at Maastricht to achieve a single currency. It is now a treaty obligation. The convergence criteria apply here. We constantly have to ask ourselves what will happen with price stability, reducing Government deficits and
  1120
  borrowing and so on. What happens in 1997 or 1999 when the criteria have been achieved, if they are achieved? How can we agree to the convergence criteria and set our targets accordingly but, once the targets have been achieved, say that we wish to remain outside the single currency? It is inconceivable that, having got that far. any Government would want to say no.
  Alongside the debate on economic and monetary union, we must consider the Union's lack of accountability and transparency in its decision-making process. It must also become demonstrably democratic. For example, the Council of Ministers should open its doors and allow its proceedings to be publicly scrutinised and, as has been said, the European Parliament should be given greater powers of co-decision and new powers to amend the Commission's proposals.
  In the short term, my party would like the Committee of the Regions to develop in such a way that it can take responsibility for regional policy, including structural funds and Community initiatives and, in the medium term, become the second chamber in a European bicameral parliamentary system.
  I also want a change in the way that portfolios are allocated when Commissioners are appointed. The initial choice should be in the hands of the President of the Commission, subject to the approval of Parliament. This year's proceedings were a total farce because the horse trading between member states meant that it had already been decided which Commissioners should have which portfolios.
  The Commissioners appeared before Parliament but it was merely a facade to suggest that Parliament was involved in some form of scrutiny. I should like the President to be able to decide on the portfolios, subject to real scrutiny, and the European Parliament should be given the opportunity to reject particular portfolios being allocated to particular Commissioners in certain circumstances. That would make the Commission more accountable to the European Parliament. I can see no problems with that. One cannot say that the European Commission is unaccountable and unelected but then deny it the legitimacy that it should have through its responsibility to the European Parliament. They are some of the institutional changes that should be taken on board at the 1996 intergovernmental conference.
  Plaid Cymru recognises that the Union has to take further steps to achieve political as well as economic union through institutional change and the development of a common approach to defence and foreign policy. In that development, it is right that institutional and constitutional change is not limited to the European stage. There should be accountability at all levels. That is why there has been a growth in autonomy and self-government throughout western Europe—in Germany, Spain and Belgium and the small member states of the European Union. The best way to make progress is to ensure that, while it is necessary for some decisions to be taken at the European level, others can be taken at a local, national or regional level.
  In recent years, Wales has forged new and exciting links with the motor regions in Europe, but those other regions possess a degree of autonomy and self-government that is denied to Wales. If one takes the small—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. William Cash: I heard the Prime Minister's speech with some misgivings and sadness. I believed that we had a tremendous opportunity today to hear a speech that could have defined a new way forward for a new Europe, instead of which we heard, in effect, an endorsement of the position under the Maastricht treaty. Unless and until we renegotiate that treaty, I fear that we are locked into a legal framework from which there is no escape.
  The Prime Minister spoke today about a number of matters, including the question of a single currency, without giving us any hope that we would find a way out of the trap that Maastricht has presented. I believe that we have now reached a point where it is becoming ever more evident that the people not only of this country but elsewhere in Europe have increasingly moved against the single currency.
  Opinion polls in Der Spiegel in Germany recently indicated that people there do not want a single currency. In a Harris poll of 250 top executives in the City of London, 63 per cent. wanted a referendum. On Central Television on Sunday, I debated against one of my positive European colleagues and we had a phone-in after the debate on a single currency. The motion that I put forward to reject the single currency was carried by 71 per cent. of the people who phoned in, compared with 29 per cent. who favoured a single currency.
  What concerns me is that we are not making the kind of progress, which seemed to be implicit in the language of the Prime Minister and for which I had been looking over the past few years. Certainly there has been a trend in the right direction. Unfortunately, the promise has not been matched by the performance. For example, in The Economist on 25 September 1993, my right hon. Friend said:
  "I hope my fellow heads of government will resist the temptation to recite the mantra of full economic and monetary union as if nothing had changed. If they do recite it, it will have all the quaintness of a rain dance and about the same potency."
  I would have very much liked to have heard such language again in this debate.
  In the speech that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave in Leiden on 7 September, almost exactly a year later in 1994, he said:
  "I see a real danger, in talk of a hard core, inner and outer circles, a two-tier Europe. I recoil from ideas for a Union in which some would be more equal than others. There is not, and should never be, an exclusive hard core either of countries or of policies."
  The problem is that the Maastricht treaty has created that very situation. By failing to veto economic and monetary union and by allowing it to take effect irrevocably on I January 1999, as I indicated in my intervention during the Prime Minister's speech, the circumstances are being created; the trap has been fallen into. The result is that our Government are truly on the line. By that, I mean that it will be impossible for us to escape from the question that I put to the Prime Minister in the confidence motion over the Maastricht treaty. I asked him if he had not presented the British people with the unnecessary question of whether we would have to leave the European Community after 1996. There is a deadline.
  1122
  Today I was looking for a commitment that we would not have a single currency at all in principle. When the Prime Minister said that we would not yield to any unbending centralisation, I made the point, with which people surely cannot argue, that a central bank goes with a single currency, so if we make a commitment to refute unbending centralisation, we must be absolutely clear that we will reject the single currency. It is a practical question as well as a matter of principle. It seems, therefore, that there is no contest on the argument. The question primarily is one of timing. I have to say to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the logic of his position is that we would say, "Not yet; we will make the decision later." He is pretty well saying that we must be practical about it and we must view the circumstances at the time.
  Let me turn the minds of hon. Members back to the circumstances of the exchange rate mechanism and apply a practical application of the same principle. When we went into the exchange rate mechanism, we were not bound into a legal framework from which there was no retreat. As we know, although we were ignominiously ejected from the ERM because the Government refused to listen to those of us who were saying that it was a disaster—we had to get out and the sooner the better—at least we had the option of being able to get out on our own terms, however expensive that may have been for the British economy and however disastrous the policy.
  If one applies the same principle to economic and monetary union under the Maastricht treaty, who is to say what will happen by 2001 or 2002, bearing in mind, for example, what the Governor of the Bank of England has said about the dangers of monetary union—the practical application of the principles that I am advocating—to jobs?
  As we know from a recent survey, Europe is suffering the worst unemployment for 30 years—despite the Cecchim report; despite all the promises that were made. Therefore, if we get ourselves into a position by not rejecting a single currency now and kick the ball into the long grass, which is basically what the Prime Minister is suggesting, we shall end up being told in the treaty negotiations that everything was decided in the Maastricht treaty.
  When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister refers to the fact that there will be no constitutional implications with respect to the Maastricht arrangements, which I would not resist if they were to have a significant constitutional impact on the United Kingdom, which is what he said virtually the other day in the "Breakfast with Frost" programme, he is effectively saying that we have adopted a position already, through the Maastricht treaty, which is a matter of principle, but that if we go further down that route, it would be construed as a constitutional issue with very severe practical implications. In fact, it is already a constitutional issue. That is a problem. It is the lack of logic in my right hon. Friend's argument that I find so difficult.
  If we get to the point, as we did with the exchange rate mechanism, that we do not want any more truck with economic and monetary union, yet we find that we have locked ourselves into it, there is no way out. As a matter of principle, we should be getting out of it now.
  If we had the leadership and the determination to look to the landscape of the next few years and consider the fact that the French presidency may last for seven years—that will be decided in April or May this year—there would be a real possibility that we could change, by that

  1123
  leadership, the nature of the debate in France. If we said that we were not going to have a single currency and said it soon enough—now—the people in France, let alone the leaders who are squabbling with one another, would realise that they faced being pretty well left in a Europe on their own with Germany, just as in the Maastricht referendum, which got through by only a whisker and would not now if it were put back to the French electorate. We would, therefore, present circumstances in which we would change the nature of the debate in France and, at the same time, ensure that we could renegotiate the Maastricht treaty on those practical considerations to which I have referred.
  There are profoundly good economic reasons as well as political reasons for rejecting a single currency, but above all else, it is a question of principle. It is a question of the democracy of the United Kingdom and the question is, who governs Britain—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: We listened with great interest to the speech by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle). It is a notable illustration of the tensions and divisions which afflict the Conservative party over Europe that there is a long list of ministerial victims, who have been either pushed out or have fallen on their swords because of Europe. Indeed, it is a long and prestigious list of names: Lawson, Howe, Ridley, even Thatcher, to which I suppose that we must add the name of Wardle. As consolation for the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, he can at least be sure that he will not be the last—others will go the same way.
  The reason for the fundamental division within the Conservative party on the issue of Europe is that the Conservatives simply do not understand Europe. They certainly do not like it; they have no affection for it, but they do not understand it, either. They do not understand Europe because they do not really understand Britain. They do not understand what Britain is all about.
  We have heard much this evening about Britain being a nation state. Of course that is true; Britain is a nation state in one sense—it is obviously a state—and we all feel a national attachment towards the notion of Britain. We all feel British in an important part of ourselves. But, at the same time, Britain is a multinational state. It is a union of four nations: Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. We can have a multinational state, a multinational identity, and a strong British identity as well. We can be both Scottish and British. Truly to appreciate that should put to rest the exaggerated worries of some Euro-sceptics about the dangers to national identity of further integration within Europe.
  I do not argue or recommend that the pooling of sovereignty within the European Union should lead to a multinational union such as the United Kingdom. The way in which the European Union will evolve will be completely unique—it will evolve in its own original way. It will not be like the United Kingdom, the United. States of America or the federal constitution of Germany. Indeed, I would not want it to be like the United Kingdom, because, in the 20th century, in particular, the United Kingdom is a model of a multinational union which is much too centralised economically and politically.
  1124
  The United Kingdom shows the absurdity of the fear that European integration will lead to a loss of national identity. British integration has not lead to a loss of Scottish identity. With European integration, we are not losing identity; we are gaining a new identity. In addition to our Scottish, English, Welsh and British identities, we will develop a European identity. Indeed, that is already happening throughout Europe and within the United Kingdom. That factor has been missing from the debate. In particular, it has been missing from Conservative Members' speeches. People are beginning to feel European. They feel wholly British, of course, but they are beginning to feel European as well. It has become more natural for young people in particular to think of themselves as Europeans.
  If Conservative Members really understood and empathised with the new European identity, they could concentrate on the real agenda—the real issues—instead of the bogeymen that they constantly raise. I refer, for example, to the need for radical reform of the common agricultural policy. The Government claim to be in favour of reform, but their claim is completely false and spurious. The Government were one of the main parties to block the fundamental changes which Ray MacSharry wished when he was Agriculture Commissioner. The reason for that is that, although the United Kingdom is a net loser through the CAP, a small but politically powerful group of farmers gain greatly out of the CAP.
  Twenty per cent. of farmers receive 80 per cent. of all CAP funds. The bulk of funds goes to a small minority of farmers. That is a fundamental iniquity that the Conservative Government would never even think of challenging, and that is why we need a Labour Government to push through fundamental reform of the CAP.
  The same could be said of the common fisheries policy. Again, there is need for a fundamental reform to make its operation more regional and more sensitive to the new enforcement mechanisms. Again, the Conservatives simply do not have the will to pursue such radical reform, because they simply do not care about fishing communities.
  The Government are now claiming some credit for trying to move along greater co-operation within Europe on defence. But the Government, year after year, resisted the notion of building a strong European pillar on defence. They constantly told us that that would accelerate the withdrawal of the United States from involvement in the affairs of Europe. Now they are beginning to turn. I welcome that, but I cannot believe that their hearts are really in that development, either. That is a fundamentally important development to pursue. Without a common defence policy as set out in Maastricht and without giving substance to it, there can be no credibility or substance to a common foreign and security policy.
  I will not say much about the social chapter, because my colleagues have covered that matter comprehensively, but how can the Government talk about increasing the conditions for genuine convergence among the different European economies when they opt out of the social chapter? Surely social convergence has to exist along with economic convergence.
  On the issue of the single currency, the reality is that it will come. It is not a question of whether it is a good thing for Europe or whether Europe should go ahead. Europe will go ahead. There will be core countries,

  1125
  probably by 1999—France, Germany, Benelux, and probably Austria. The question for Britain is: when that European core goes ahead, should we be part of it or stay outside? We have only to ask that question to receive the answer. It is inconceivable that the United Kingdom should stay outside. We really would then be in the second division.
  I give a final warning that, if Europe goes ahead and Britain tries to stay outside, we could not retain the status quo in Britain. If that happened it would set up tensions within the United Kingdom itself, particularly in Scotland, which could lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. The status quo is not a serious alternative. We have to be part of the process of European integration.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: The whole House will have listened with great interest and attention to what the Prime Minister said this afternoon, but I refer to a speech that he made at the beginning of February to the Conservative Way Forward group, when he said:
  "Europe's future matters to us … we should debate it. And we have an obligation to shape it and make it more congenial to us."
  He then went on to say:
  "Popular opinion across Europe cannot be ignored."
  I agree with that, and I am sure that the whole House would agree with it, but the fact of the matter is that, especially in this country, every stage of the process towards European integration has been rammed through Parliament, to the virtual exclusion of what people outside this place are thinking. The treaty of accession was rammed through the House against the better judgment of several prominent and principled Conservative Members of Parliament. The Single European Act was rammed through Parliament after a guillotined debate. The Maastricht treaty itself involved a vote of confidence. More recently, of course, the European finance Bill involved a motion of confidence to which seven of my colleagues and I declined to respond.
  Since then, I and my eight colleagues have been on the receiving end of thousands of letters, the majority of which have said three things: first, "We agree with you on the issue"; secondly, "Thank goodness someone is at last standing up for what we believe in"; and, thirdly, "Don't give in!" Very sadly, many of them sign off as "Disillusioned Tory", "Ex-party Worker", or "Former Tory Voter".
  Those are signals which our Government simply cannot afford to ignore. With a general election two years away, those are messages which they must heed or face the consequences. It is no longer a question of appeasing foreign Governments, placating querulous Cabinet Ministers, or wooing the Whipless Back Benchers. The Government must listen to the people. Sooner or later, the political classes will have to obtain a mandate for their European policies from the very people who put us here. Sooner or later they will have to recognise that there are only two ways of doing that—either through a referendum or by offering a real choice at the next general election. To my colleagues I say simply that if by the next general election the Conservative party does not offer that real choice, make no bones about it, others most certainly will.
  1126
  I make no secret of my own preference. It would be for the Tory party to be seen as the party offering a clear and unambiguous alternative to the sell-out promised by the socialist Opposition parties. I should like to hear my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has been kind enough to write the foreword to a pamphlet entitled "A Europe of Nations", say that he stands four-square behind the 49 conclusions that my 11 colleagues and I published in that pamphlet.
  Those conclusions are supported by 28 centre-right parties in 20 other European countries. They are not the findings of an isolated minority but the considered opinions of respected mainstream politicians in this country and on the continent—indeed, across the whole of Europe.
  The conclusions are in no way demands. They represent a series of serious and thoughtful suggestions that in our opinion would strengthen the Government's hand at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference and significantly improve the Tory party's prospects at the next general election. Whether the Government adopt those suggestions is of course a matter for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to decide. But that is a judgment that they must now make—and by their judgment they will themselves be judged.
  I shall make one final point. There is at the moment a depth of disillusion with politicians, and a contempt for the arrogance and deceit of the political classes that will not be dispelled by empty rhetoric. To use a modern idiom, the voters want to see the beef.
  It has been a long time coming, but the moment has finally arrived when we must start unbundling the European Union so that different groups of members can co-operate flexibly in different areas of policy, all within the constant nexus of the single market. Areas of policy that are of purely domestic concern should be ring-fenced or reserved exclusively for national Governments. That arrangement should be enshrined in national constitutions, which in the United Kingdom would entail an Act of Parliament guaranteeing national sovereignty in specified internal areas.
  The institutions of the European Union must be overhauled to reverse the current one-way drift to federalism. The Commission should be reduced to the role of a civil service, and the European Court must stop making law on the hoof. The European Parliament should be prevented from competing with national Parliaments for power. Last but not least, all articles that provide for monetary union should be removed from the treaties so that a single currency could come about only by evolution and with the full consent of all participating countries.
  I believe that the whole nation would rejoice to hear the Government endorse a message of national sovereignty, of national self-confidence and the reassertion of the Conservative party as the only truly national party in British politics.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Denis MacShane: We have heard three speeches tonight—one for Europe from the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), one for the nation from the Leader of the Opposition, and one for and to his party from the Prime Minister. If I put myself in the position of any other member of the

  1127
  European Union, or of its newspapers or of its politicians, and went through the Prime Minister's speech looking for some guidance or direction, I should find none.
  On a Euro-currency the Prime Minister said, "Yes, maybe, not sure, wait and see." On a referendum he said, "Possibly, could be." He said something strong about defence, but I am not sure whether our friends and partners in NATO would be quite as keen as the Prime Minister seems to be to regard Britain as the Gurkhas or the Spartans of Europe in exchange for being left alone to pursue our own course in so many other areas.
  A key part of the debate has been about a single European currency, although more properly under the treaty we should be talking about economic and monetary union. We have not heard much this evening about the aspects of economic union that go far beyond the simple, single market, free trade area that is the lowest common denominator uniting members of the Conservative party.
  The debate has been extremely interesting, and listening to it has made me realise that the Conservative party, or some of its members, oppose economic and monetary union because it requires a pooling of sovereignty. They believe in the mythical concept of a currency of which this country must under no circumstances lose control.
  If the British currency were so powerful and of such great value, and if in the past 15 years it had maintained a common value against any other currency for more than 18 or 20 months, there might be some sense in that argument. But the plain fact is that since 1979 our pound has been the sick man on the roller coaster of other world currencies. Some Labour Members demand the right to devalue, saying that the weapon of devaluation should always be in the armoury of a national Government. I tell them, and some Conservative Members, too, that devaluation was, is and always will be the soft option.
  The hard option—the socialist option, or at least the social democratic option—is to remake our labour market and our economy on the basis of partnership, of industry and of fairly distributed growth to ensure, as in Germany and in the dynamic Asian economies, that we become a world beater rather than a country whose companies are taken over one by one and whose banks collapse when some wide boy from Watford goes on a spree in Singapore.
  In a nutshell, I am a hard currency and cheap money man; I favour a hard currency outside and low interest rates inside. I am glad to say that, after many deviations, that is a policy for which I hope the Labour party now stands.
  However, we must go beyond the currency question, because the historic duty of 300 years of British statespersonship has been to ensure that there does not develop on the continent a military, an ideological or a religious bloc so powerful and predominant that it reduces our capacity for independent and sovereign manoeuvre.
  I tell both my colleagues and Conservative Members that with the formation of a Franco-German deutschmark bloc—surely that will come—there will exist exactly such an economic hegemonic unit that will control so much of the European economy that from the people who will then be running Europe the message will come to Britain, as an offshore island with an offshore currency, that the line has been determined and that Britain can play no part in determining what that line should he.
  1128
  A point that has not be raised much today concerns the present fundamental democratic deficit in Europe. Yes, the people of this country and of the other European nations are unsure of the direction in which they are being taken. The answer to that problem is not to opt out again and again but to make the procedures of Europe more transparent and to make the Commission, whether it is a civil service or consists of former Ministers, far more accountable and to put it under democratic control.
  That will mean accepting that we must tackle the problem of the free movement of people, which is a fundamental part of the more integrated European model that we are trying to create. The free movement of people, which has been wickedly confused with the question of immigration from outside the European Union, is very precious to Europe. We cannot have the free movement of goods and capital without the free movement of peoples, and anybody who pretends otherwise and puts up border patrols and road blocks at every port, road and tunnel into the UK will find that if that is how we treat our partners' people, they may start treating our goods in a similar way.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the citizens of the European Union moving about freely within the Union, and that is one thing. There are 5.5 million people inside the European Union from other countries. Is he suggesting that they should be able to move about freely within the Union and come to the UK without restriction?
  Mr. MacShane: If Europe recreates the controls over all roads and methods of transport which it had immediately after the war, it will be a disaster. If Britain alone recreates or overemphasises those controls, the rest of Europe will not necessarily be happy when dealing with other areas such as the movement of goods, services and capital.
  The point has been put that the IGC is simply a minor tidying-up affair and the Prime Minister said that, in due course, the Government will put the proposals to the House. He may be indulging in some wishful thinking, because the IGC will have to look at the substantial question of how European nations—those now in the EU and those seeking to join—relate to each other. Every enlargement of the European Union has led not to a loosening of relations, but to a tightening of them. If we want the free movement of goods, capital and people, we need regulations.
  There is an idea that 27 countries could exercise a veto over all the issues. We know which issues are important to us, but other issues are important to other countries. What if Poland, for example, said that it would veto any changes or reforms to the common agricultural policy? Placing the veto on a pedestal outside the specific area of military or defence co-operation is extremely dangerous. That will not bring the Europe which the majority of Members want. It would create a conglomeration of principalities, like Germany in the 17th century.
  The only way forward is through dialogue and partnership with our partner countries, between all sectors of our society and—above all—with the workers and employees who have so far been excluded by the Government from the European debate. That dialogue and partnership is not available from the Conservative party, and only a change in Government can deliver it.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. David Martin: I cannot remember when I last spoke on European matters in the House. In recent years, I have been closer than some to the trials of the Government, who have often wrestled with a party and a Parliament rightly sensitive to the increasing impact of the European Union on British interests in crucial spheres of our domestic policies. Animal exports and immigration and border controls are merely two examples currently in the news.
  The European Union also has elements which are ambitious to gather to themselves defence and foreign policy matters. Among those who describe themselves as positive about the European Union, there is bewilderment that people do not share their enthusiasm about the benefits of our membership. They blame the Government for not being positive enough, when heaven knows, the case has been put by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and by many other Ministers for many years.
  What obscures the advantages of our membership is that there is a pervading sense of being carried along at a forced pace towards European political union without any hope—which in the event proves to be real—of having significant allies in the European Union on crucial occasions to arrest the process.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his speech that there are many in Europe—there are some in the House—who do not want to arrest that process at all. They speak of the destiny of a united Europe, in the sense of one people, one state. They are disdainful and dismissive of concerns about sovereignty, nationhood and the major constitutional changes that are required. It is like a faith to them. There have been such visionaries before. Theirs is an old concept in modern form.
  Whether we like it or not, the question of a single currency in the context of the Maastricht treaty is plainly set to dominate the European agenda in a way which will dwarf the "will we-won't we" debates which preceded our entry into the ERM. The Prime Minister was right in accepting that a single currency is more than an economic or business matter, but that it has serious constitutional and political consequences. It would be, of course, an enormous step towards political union, just as the single market has taken us inevitably further down the centralist road.
  The opt-out has been negotiated, but that begs the question—which will not go away, as 1999 grows nearer—whether the Government will exercise that opt-out or recommend that we participate fully in the single currency in 1999, less than four years away.
  Why should the Cabinet have to pretend to be united on this great subject? We know that some Cabinet members have no objection in principle to signing up, and we know that some do object in principle. Throughout the ages, all Cabinets have found difficulty on such matters. All Cabinets and Governments are composed of the principled, the more flexible; the bright, the pedestrian; the cautious, the impetuous; and are as subject to folly and wisdom, sound judgment and profound misjudgment as any body of people thrown together by caprice, merit, fortune, sycophancy or necessity.
  1130
  There is no way that any Government—whatever the Leader of the Opposition may naively believe—in this Parliament or the next can be united on the question of a single currency, when the question whether to opt in or out will have to be decided before 1999.
  I wish that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would announce now that he is still of the view that he expressed to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee when Chancellor of the Exchequer in July 1990—that a single currency would involve a
  "transfer of sovereignty from the UK Parliament of a sort neither Government nor Parliament would find themselves able to accept".
  I recognise that we as a party are as split as Labour is—and most certainly would be in government—on such a question.
  Although I heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and others have said, I would say that—as with Balfour, who was faced with the equally explosive tariff reform question before the 1910 general election—the best way forward for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister lies in promising a referendum. I am convinced that my right hon. Friend believes that, but has not yet found the moment to say so.
  The mechanism that I would prefer would begin with a vote in Parliament. Then, if Parliament voted to join a single currency—only if it so voted—a referendum would ensue.
  Finally, despite the Government's self-inflicted minority voting position in the House, I hope that they will achieve a majority tonight with the help of the Whipless. [HON. MEMBERS: "The witless?"] I said the Whipless.
  If I were the "Chief Whipless"—that position is unenviable, and is a sort of parliamentary Moloch—I would recommend that course upon my colleagues. That is not only because I want to see the Whip restored to all of them without preconditions as soon as possible—a quiet letter from the Chief Whip would suffice—but because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has moved as far as reasonably can be expected at present. The rebels, or the Whipless, have had a real and lasting effect on that. In addition, the experience has proved salutary for the Government. Since removal of the Whip from so many, they have found control of the agenda even more difficult than usual.
  All Conservative Members who see disunity as the main threat to our fortunes and as doing the work of opposition—work that official Opposition Members are incapable of doing, as we witnessed in all its glory today with either their people or their policies—must hope that harmony will be restored in the Government's victory tonight.
  9 pm
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Earlier today we heard the Prime Minister, who was going to make a statement to the nation and make it clear to the rebels why they should back the Government tonight. Our motion is that
  "this House does not support Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the European Union and does not believe it promotes the interests of the British people."

  1131
  The past 15 years have shown that the Conservative Government are totally incapable of managing the country. They have sent the wrong signals to the rest of the world and especially to the people in Europe. They have an absolute xenophobia—something that the Opposition and the rest of the nation must reject. I have always believed that British people are not anti-foreigners. We welcome all cultural divisions.
  When I hear the Conservative rebels and look at the divisions on that side of the House I find it unbelievable. Who would believe that the Prime Minister is coming here tonight to plead with his nine rebels? He called one of them "barmy" in November 1993. Not long after that, in early 1995, he said that they were very "conservative", and I quite agree. Then one of those barmy rebels said:
  "I would be extremely surprised about the manhood of any of them who didn't refuse to retake the Whip. I think most of my male colleagues are men who can be trusted and we are staunch patriotic Conservatives. We are one group of people that have been foolishly treated by the very immature people who are running the country."
  The rebels were talking about their own Government. They have put in place this Government and the Cabinet to run the country and they are calling them an immature Government. I fully agree with the statement by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)—this is an immature Government.
  We have seen a divided nation—the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer—a divided Government and one unbelievably divided party. The Government cannot see any direction in which to go. They have no hope for Britain and are trying to make some arrangements, but we must remember that we joined the market. In those days, I was an anti-marketeer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Hon. Members may say, "Ah!" but when I was a young kid and used to be wild and run across the road, my mother told me, "Listen son, if you keep doing that you'll get knocked down." I have changed my mind and I do not run across the road now. So, some of us do make decisions and I am telling the Government that it is time for them to change their minds. There is nothing wrong with changing your mind. Many of us do in immaturity things that we do not do with experience.
  The Conservative Government have had 15 years, but they are so inexperienced and immature that they are running Britain down in the eyes of Europe and our competitors because they are no longer making Britain great. They are making us fools in the eyes of the world.
  I believe that we should go for a single currency and I believe in monetary union. That is the way forward for the people whom I represent and look after. I am sure that if we went among the business folk in my constituency and asked the ordinary men and women, they would agree. We are in Europe. We have paid for membership of the club. Let us get the best deal possible. Let us sit at the management table and not go with the cop-out and the opt-out that the Government back.
  Today, the Prime Minister faced in every direction and he sat on the fence. You know what happens if you sit on a fence too long—you get the sorest backside ever. The way that they are carrying on, this Government are going to get one big kick up the backside at the next general election.
  We have also heard about the fast track, the slow track and every track. I will tell the Minister this—if you walk in the middle of the road, you end up getting knocked down. The Government have to make decisions for our
  1132
  people. One decision that they could have reached, which would have got the backing of the nation, was to support the social chapter. I see Conservative Members smiling, but in my constituency the unemployed people are not smiling.
  I remember when the referendum took place and the Tories were marching up and down the country telling the workers to vote to join the Common Market. I remember the promises that they made—everything was going to be rosy, there would he new jobs, pensions and holidays and our health scene would improve because we would have a big market. I remember the days when the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and the others were travelling the world and telling us how good it would be. When they got an opportunity to sign the social chapter, however, they knocked it back and let working-class men and women in this country down because they were not prepared to put their money where their mouth is and back the ordinary men and women who make this country and who produce. Those men and women want to he in the market, and they want to get a benefit from it.
  Clearly, the Government's role is to iron out the difficulties and to manage the country's affairs with those other countries. Let them come to good sense and arrange them. When we join a club we all participate and take part in its functions, but if the club has something the matter with it, yes, we argue and debate and try to get a consensus arrangement. This Government have abandoned that. They do not want to sit at the table, they want to sh—I was going to use another phrase—[Laughter.] Let me put it this way, they want to spill a drink on the table. They do not want to contribute in the way that we expect a Government to do.
  I am delighted that the Prime Minister has considered a referendum. I have always supported referendums and have never seen them to be a weakening of anyone's position. Occasionally, we have to go to the country and give the people the right to vote and to make decisions. It is appalling that in this House we think that ordinary men and women cannot make up their minds, that they are all thick and dummies. We are the biggest dummies and this Government is one of the worst in the past 15 years. Why do they not listen to the wishes of the people, have a general election now and let in a Labour Government, who will meaningfully discuss and debate and take Britain on to better things with our European partners?
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: At the start of the debate, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) lamented the fact that the Government never said anything positive about membership of the European Union. Had he stayed to hear the rest of the debate, he would have heard excellent speeches explaining positive reasons why Britain must remain in the European Union from my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). I confess that none of those speeches quite managed the vigour and clarity of language of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham). The whole House is grateful that he accepted his mother's advice and stopped running across the road.

  1133
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) made a telling point about the nature of the open debate that we have heard in the House this evening when he pointed out that it had shown up Conservative Members' shift in favour of Euro-scepticism. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), whose position on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee makes his view especially significant, made it plain that he was against a single currency in principle. The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton), whose constituency I know quite well, came out clearly and said that he was in favour of wholesale repatriation of policies generally; then, with a flying change of leg in his logic, he appealed to all Euro-sceptics to vote in support of the Government's European policies.
  The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) also made it plain where he stood in relation to Europe and why he believed that the rest of the party should join him rather than him rejoining the rest of the party. He referred to letters that he received signed by disillusioned Conservatives. Labour Members also receive that kind of letter and the hon. Gentleman deludes himself if he thinks that, by playing a nationalist card at the next election, all those disillusioned Conservatives will forgive the Government for having wrecked their families' domestic budgets over the past three years.
  However, the debate has revealed a delusion that appears to be more widely held on the Conservative Benches, which is that the Labour party supports a political super-state in Europe and a federal Europe—an argument sometimes put forward by the same people who say that we have no policies on Europe. That version of Labour's policies bears as much relation to reality as their giant, inflatable versions of our spending plans. Let me remove that apparent confusion so that Conservative Members do not, through genuine misunderstanding, mislead their constituents again.
  Labour does not support a federal Europe. On the contrary, we recognise that the nations of Britain have a powerful and healthy sense of their identity. Indeed, that sense of a shared identity is one of the important sources of social cohesion and commitment to social justice within the nation. That is why we shall take no lectures on the importance of national identity from a Conservative party that has taken every possible step over the past 15 years to undermine the social cohesion of our nations and has left a Britain more divided by inequality than at any time this century. Nor will we take lectures from the Government on the importance of subsidiarity in Brussels when they refuse to practise subsidiarity in Britain.
  In the past six months, I have frequently travelled on the continent and I have met a number of politicians there who are perplexed at finding that they are lectured on the dangers of a centralised Europe by a Government who have built the most centralised state in Europe, abolished whole local authorities and packed quangos from Land's End to John O'Groats with appointments from Whitehall.
  Only last Friday, the Prime Minister came to Scotland—indeed, he came to my constituency—to tell us that subsidiarity was not for the Scots. The Prime Minister cannot preach the importance of national identity in Leiden and deny it in Livingston.
  1134
  I assure Conservative Members that we do not intend to support a Europe that is as centralised as the Britain that they have created. Our vision is of a Community of free member states, associating on the basis not of surrendering national identity but of sharing national interests. Having listened to Conservative Members, it is not clear that they all recognise that we have a common interest to share with the rest of Europe. Over the past months, news bulletins have been studded with gems from Conservative Members suggesting that they are not prepared to share a taxi ride with our partners in Europe, never mind our economic future.
  The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), who graced us with his presence earlier this evening, called on Britain to get off the escalator and, if the rest of Europe insists on continuing to go up on it, to wave it good luck and goodbye. I am bound to say that it provides an insight into why the economic management of the past 15 years has been marked by such extraordinary incompetence that the last Chancellor thinks that Britain has an economic future by going it alone outside Europe.
  That brings me to the other context for this debate. Alongside the strong sense of national identity in Britain, we must also recognise the powerful move to a global economy in which industrial production is now not the property of any one nation state but is internationalised, in which world-wide sourcing by companies has meant that trade has expanded twice as fast as output. Throughout the world—in Latin America, in the Asian Pacific area and in north America—the fastest-growing industrialised countries are coming together to form immense trading blocs.
  Against the background of that dramatic growth in the global economy, I marvel that Conservative Members appear to think that the best way to prepare Britain for the challenge of that world is by being as difficult as possible to our nearest neighbours. Britain needs Europe because it provides our largest market, because it provides the largest reason for inward investment to this country and because it gives us the clout of a large trading bloc in negotiating with the rest of the world. The reason why we support Britain's membership of the European Union is that it is vital to exports from the country, to investment in the country and to the jobs of the working people of the country.
  That is why we believe that Britain's role is that of an independent member nation state of Europe, co-operating to make a success of Europe. It is what Lord Howe described last month as "Labour's balanced approach" on Europe—I assume that he meant that as a compliment. Lord Howe has been much less complimentary about the European policy of the Conservative party to which he belongs, which he described as
  "dragged into a ghetto of sentimentality and self-delusion".
  When the Prime Minister came to office, he made a very different speech from the one that he made today. In that speech in 1991. he said that he wanted to put Britain at the heart of Europe. Today, he told us that he was prepared to be isolated in Europe. It is just as well that he is prepared to be isolated in Europe, because he heads a Government stuffed with Ministers who delight in being isolated in Europe.
  When the Employment Secretary was asked at Davos about the Government's agenda for the intergovernmental conference, he replied that their agenda was to veto everyone else's agenda—no to any change in the

  1135
  European constitution, no to any change in the European Parliament, no to ending Britain's right to say no. That was not only a negative approach but a triple negative approach.
  I have to suggest to the Foreign Secretary—as a negotiator, he probably understands—that the problem with always saying no is that one ends up being left out of the game. There can be no more dramatic illustration of the price that one pays for a strategy of isolation than the fact that, in the recent argument about the access of Spain to our fishing waters, Britain could not persuade a single ally to vote with us to block such a damaging change to our national interest. Isolation could not prevent Spain gaining access to our fishing waters. Isolation ensured that Britain could not prevent Spain doing so.
  Being isolated will not secure the fundamental changes that are needed in the common agricultural policy, the costs of which have doubled under the present Government, and which is the source of most of the fraud in Europe. Every year, that fraud costs European taxpayers losses of the same amount that led to the collapse of Barings bank.
  We shall obtain those fundamental reforms only if we build alliances, if we form partnerships. We cannot do it from a position of isolation. To be sure, when the Prime Minister vetoed the appointment of Mr. Dehaene, he reduced Britain to a position of splendid isolation.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: The hon. Gentleman speaks about isolation, yet in his earlier remarks he spoke about the importance of inward investment to the European Union and the fact that there was a great deal coming to this country. Does he believe that we are isolated from Europe in terms of the social chapter? Surely it is for the reason that we have not signed up to the social chapter that so much investment comes to this country, rather than going to the continent of Europe.
  Mr. Cook: I can absolutely confirm to the hon. Gentleman that we are isolated over the social chapter. Indeed, the only party in Europe that agrees with the Conservative party's opposition to the social chapter is the National Front of France. That is the degree to which the Conservative Government have formed alliances over the social chapter. I shall discuss later what we believe should be done in relation to the social chapter.
  I was about to ask the Foreign Secretary what possible national interest was served by isolating us over the appointment of Mr. Dehaene. He merely swapped Mr. Dehaene for Mr. Santer, who immediately said that he came from the same party and shared the same idea of Europe. The truth is that the veto was used on that occasion not to promote any national interest but solely so that the Prime Minister could prove that he was tough on Europe—because the only way he can unite the Conservative party is by being divisive inside Europe.
  Mr. James Clappison: In the interests of the clarity about which the hon. Gentleman's party leader spoke earlier, will the hon. Gentleman now come clean and admit what the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) would not admit—that the European socialists' manifesto commitment to make qualified majority voting the rule means weakening our national veto?
  Mr. Cook: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not stay through the debate. Had he done so, he would have
  1136
  heard my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) quoting our manifesto on the veto; but, for the avoidance of doubt, I am happy to correct the hon. Gentleman again so that he does not again mislead his constituents. We said:
  "we have always insisted … on maintaining the principle of unanimity for decision-making in areas such as fiscal and budgetary policy, foreign and security issues, changes to the Treaty of Rome and other areas of key national interest."
  I hope that we can bury once and for all the canard that Labour is in favour of dropping the veto.
  I am happy to say that the whole Labour party is united on that. The Prime Minister's problem is that he cannot put Britain at the heart of Europe because he heads a party that is split from top to bottom about whether it wants to be at any part of the anatomy of Europe.
  Of all the quotations from Cabinet Ministers in the trenches of the dispute over Europe in the past three months, the one that I most relish came from the Chancellor, who said:
  "We've run out of ways of making it clear there aren't any divisions."
  Cabinet Ministers have had plenty of opportunities to make it clear. Never have so many studios been open to so many Cabinet Ministers on the same topic. Tory Ministers used to air their differences in code—after they appeared, television commentators had to be wheeled in to interpret what they had been saying. Now, the divisions come neatly packaged as soundbites and headlines. Whole photocopiers have expired in the basement of Labour party headquarters trying to keep up with the recycling of conflicting quotations from the Cabinet.
  The Prime Minister addressed the House for a whole hour, half of it on the single currency. At the end of it all, we still do not know whether he agrees with the Chancellor that those who reject monetary union because it leads to political union are being too simplistic or whether he agrees with the Chancellor's No. 2, the Chief Secretary, who is apparently one of those simplistic people. As I understood the Prime Minister's speech, we are meant to conclude that he agrees with both of them—or, at any rate, he wants to keep his options open to agree with both of them, depending on the nature and style of their speeches.
  The Prime Minister made a passionate speech for the don't knows. When my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) intervened to ask whether, if the economic conditions were right, the constitutional arguments would keep the Prime Minister out of the single currency, the Prime Minister replied that he did not know where my hon. Friend had been for the previous 10 minutes. The truth is that he had been listening to the Prime Minister.
  The really interesting feature of the Prime Minister's speech was that three or four times he was given the opportunity to back the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a single currency would not be a threat to the nation state. Not once did he take that opportunity. It seems a simple enough question: does the right hon. Gentleman agree with his Chancellor, given that he has assured us that the Cabinet is united? If it is so united, why cannot the Prime Minister, in the spirit of unity, say that he agrees with his Chancellor? I understand why not: he cannot say that he backs the Chancellor, because to do so would be to offend his own Euro-rebels. After expelling all nine of them only four months ago because

  1137
  they did not agree with his policy, he is now reduced to avoid announcing a policy in order to reduce the area that they have for disagreement with him.
  I am bound to say that, compared with the Prime Minister's speech, the Euro-rebels' manifesto is a model of decisiveness, conviction and clarity. At least we know where they stand. They stand for a substantial repatriation of decision making. They stand for abolishing the elected European Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is not just policy of the Euro-rebels. Apparently, a large chunk of the Conservative party agrees with this. Those people stand for reducing the powers of the European Court. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, there we are. They want to see the foreign and security policy removed from the competence of the Union. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have to tell the Foreign Secretary that at Labour party conferences this is the moment when we call for a card vote.
  If all those hon Members who are agreeing with the Euro-rebel manifesto intend tonight to vote with the Government, would they help us by pointing out which of the commitments are now shared by the Government with which they are voting tonight? If the Foreign Secretary wants them to vote tonight, perhaps he could tell the House which of those commitments will be in his negotiating brief for next year's intergovernmental conference. The rest of us are entitled to know. When he goes to the IGC, he goes to act for Britain, not just for the Tory party. That is why the agenda should be determined in the interests of the 60 million people of Britain, not the prejudices of a handful of Tory Members of Parliament.
  I move to one clear example where the people of Britain are at present discriminated against because of those prejudices. We are, as has been helpfully pointed out, the only country in Europe where working people are denied the advantage of the social chapter—another area where the Prime Minister is prepared to be isolated in Europe, isolated by offering worse working conditions to the people whom he represents than can be obtained on the continent.
  I heard the Prime Minister say in his speech that Europe was increasingly accepting our agenda of deregulation. That is a curious delusion since we are the only country that has opted out of the social regulations. It appears to be based on a view that he is in step and everyone else in the European continent is out of step. I should warn the Prime Minister and his Cabinet that not only are they out of step in Europe; increasingly they are out of step with their own backers in big business.
  In the Queen's Speech debate, I pointed out to the House that United Biscuits, one of the all-time great donors to the Tory party, thought so little of the opt-out on the social chapter that it had been the first to form a works council in Britain. On cue for today's debate, yesterday Coats Viyella announced that it had also achieved an agreement to set up a works council—a company which has given £27,000 over four years to the Tory party, a company which was apparently prepared to be a donor to the Tory party but is not prepared at any price to buy its policy on the social chapter. Its chief executive said that that was a
  "sensible agreement which will he of competitive advantage to Coats Viyella."
  1138
  The truth is that business knows that it will never compete on the basis of lower wages and worse working conditions. It will compete only on the basis of higher skills and higher technology. The bosses at the top of the industries that the Government have privatised have no intention of seeking competitiveness through lowering their wages, and they will not raise the commitment, the motivation, the skills of their work forces by telling them that they must achieve competitiveness through lower wages.
  Labour will sign up for the social chapter. We will sign up for the social chapter because we believe that it is offensive that people employed by British companies in Britain should settle for fewer rights at work than people employed by those same British companies on the continent.
  Mr. Hartley Booth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: I shall give way on this occasion, but it must be the last.
  Mr. Booth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. [Interruption.] Regardless of the friend bit, which comes from being a barrister—we call everyone friend as a member of the Bar—why did the hon. Gentleman decide that he wishes to create large-scale unemployment through our accession to the social chapter in Europe?
  Mr. Cook: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman explained why I was thought to be his hon. Friend. I was aware that the arguments that we are deploying here are compelling, but I had not anticipated that I had had quite that degree of success.
  As to the increase in employment, the hon. Gentleman had better go back and discuss it with the chief executive of Coats Viyella, who pays the Conservative party and has come to the conclusion—he is right, of course—that if we want to be competitive, we achieve that competitiveness not by lowering wages, not by lowering working conditions, not by producing a casualised, demotivated work force, which would be a low-skill work force, but by building a work force who are committed, who are involved in their company and who have high skills.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: No. Not even the promise that the hon. Gentleman might make to call me an hon. Friend will persuade me to give way on this occasion. I anticipate that his right hon. Friend will wish to make a speech.
  The Labour party will sign up for the social chapter. We will sign up because it is in the interests of working people in Britain. We will sign up also because it will provide a clear demonstration that we will break with the opt-out mentality of the Government. It will show that we are prepared to play a full part as a full member of the European Union. It will establish that Britain once again can be taken seriously in Europe, because we will take Europe seriously. It will provide a flat contrast with the Government, who are incapable of covering up their divisions over Europe, of agreeing a strategy for Europe, and who are therefore incapable of negotiating for Britain in Europe.

  1139
  Today's debate provided the Prime Minister with an opportunity to tell the country where the Government stood on the central question facing Europe. His speech proved that he did not even dare tell his own party where it stood. Such a Government do not deserve to remain in office. Such leadership does not deserve the support of the House.
  9.32 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): What the House has taken part in today is a new production of a fairly well-worn classic play. There have been some familiar figures in the cast, and some new ones too. There has been a remarkable dominance of Scottish voices during the debate. Perhaps that is because the producer is the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who, whatever his failings as an actor-manager, gave an entertaining, though insubstantial, contribution as an actor.
  As often happens when people plan what they think is a clever debate long in advance, it does not usually work out quite that way. Of course there is a discussion about Europe, which runs through all political parties in this House and in this country—and not only this country—but the Labour party is singularly ill-equipped to mount this debate and this dramatic production today.
  As has been pointed out—though I think rather too gently—by my right hon. and hon. Friends, over the past 35 years the Labour party has changed its policy on Europe six times. I am not talking about the elegant nuances of difference, with which Conservative Members are familiar; I am talking about six changes, each of 180 degrees. It happens that during that time there have been six Labour leaders, but I must tell those who like a simple plot to their play that, disappointingly, there is no parallel between the two facts. There have been six leaders and six turns of 180 degrees, but some leaders have had more than one policy.
  Lord Wilson set the pace. He had three policies during his time as leader of the Labour party: out, in, out. That is clearly the model that the current Leader of the Opposition is emulating. I am not sure of the number of months for which he has led the party, but he has already moved from his original view that we must come out to the view that we must do whatever is proposed in Brussels. We listened to his speech carefully; but if he listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston, or studied what the hon. Gentleman has been saying on television and radio, he would find that the hon. Gentleman is now looking desperately for another fence on which to sit.
  Anyone who studies the six fundamental changes to which I have referred will find that only one thread runs through them: the thread of inconsistency. Why? Because the only consistent thought is of scurrying around for the sake of tactical advantage. Having lived through a good many years of this, I am driven to the conclusion that the Labour party—with one or two notable exceptions—does not actually know or care about Europe or European policy. Labour Members see Europe simply as a board on which they can play little parliamentary games.
  As I have said, I have lived through this for some years. Over and over again, I have seen the overriding Labour party desire for some form of words on the Order Paper
  1140
  enabling Labour to gather into the Division Lobby people of all shades of opinion. All that they need share is some criticism of the Government's policy. Labour is at it again tonight: it wants to lure the leader of the Liberal party—enthusiastic for a single currency—into the same Lobby as some of my hon. Friends, and Opposition Members. It does not matter what people believe in; they are all welcome in the Labour Lobby, provided that somewhere among their views is a criticism of the Government.
  We lived through all this during the debates on Maastricht. I became familiar with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) when he was the actor-manager, and I must say that I developed a certain admiration for his skill and subtlety, damnable and opportunistic though it was on all occasions. Now the hon. Gentleman has been packed off to shadow the Secretary of State for Scotland and to answer the West Lothian question, and we have a different actor-manager. This, I must say, is much less subtle. Here we have a trap with "TRAP" marked clearly on it, plonked in the middle of the motorway; and we are invited to walk into it.
  I do not know whether the hon. Member for Livingston obtained part of his education in the kirk. Had he done so, he would be familiar with the book of Proverbs, which states:
  "Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird."
  That is what the hon. Gentleman has tried to do, but he has done it in the presence of a good many fairly wise and wily birds on both sides of the House.
  Speaking of wise and crafty birds brings me naturally to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). He intervened in the Prime Minister's speech, and I feel that the question that he put—now that we have reflected on it—requires a fuller answer. I believe he referred to horizontal transfer of sovereignty between member states. He knows, or I hope that he knows, that there is no proposal for joint authority—for horizontal transfer of sovereignty—in the framework document. He also knows, and I am happy to confirm, our view—which has long been clear—that there can be no change in the sovereignty of Northern Ireland except at the wish of the greater number of the people who live there. If that is the assurance that he wanted—and I think that it is—I gladly give it.
  There have been some notable contributions to the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) chided Ministers for not setting out the advantages of membership. I thought that that was a little hard because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did exactly that in his speech. When I come to enlargement, I shall deal with what my right hon. Friend said on that subject.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) urged us—we need no urging—to put forward positive ideas at the intergovernmental conference next year on how the structures and procedures of the Union's institutions can work better. He listed the Council, the Commission, the courts and the Parliament. All those existing institutions are clearly necessary, but we believe that they could work better. We certainly think that the Commission should do less, and do it better.
  My right hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) and for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) made thoughtful speeches which need to be taken into account in any analysis from

  1141
  upstairs on where the Conservative parliamentary party now stands. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) made a rumbustious and welcome speech in which he made the case for a referendum on a single currency. He was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin). I think that everybody understands the force of those arguments, which are deeply constitutional. Both my hon. Friends will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about keeping that choice before us.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) spoke along lines that we could have anticipated, but which were nevertheless clear. He acknowledged what is certainly true: that there is no difference in objectives or policy between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the rest of us and himself. The question is one of timing and tactics. My hon. Friend quoted article 7a and agreed that it was accompanied by a general declaration which made it clear that nothing in the Single European Act would prevent member states from taking necessary action against illegal immigration.
  The legal position is not quite as straightforward as my hon. Friend suggested. I refer him to the opinion of, say, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, a Law Lord, in a Select Committee of the House of Lords. In any case there is a clear commitment by the Heads of Government of the time—1985—which included the present Federal Chancellor and the current President of the European Commission on the point.
  We have sustained for 10 years without challenge or difficulty immigration controls at our ports and airports. The Prime Minister said today, as he has said before and as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said, that we shall take whatever steps are necessary to protect our frontier controls. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle suggested a specific tactic: that 10 months before the opening of the intergovernmental conference, we should put that on the agenda. There are disadvantages and risks in that tactic, and we do not need to decide on it now. However, the undertaking given again today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stands.
  Several hon. Members referred to two themes that have run through the debate. The first of them is flexibility. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) spoke of that as if my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had invented the idea in a fit of pique or of determination to be isolated. That is absolute nonsense. We have flexibility; there is flexibility in defence. I have just visited Austria, Sweden and Denmark, which are not full members of the Western European Union, whereas we are. In the debate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made specific proposals about defence and stated and showed that Britain was in the lead in that subject. Others are not, and others may not wish to be included. It is a perfect example of the flexibility about which the Prime Minister spoke, and so it is with frontiers. Britain and Ireland are island countries and we naturally have different ideas about frontier controls from those in countries with land frontiers. Why is that wrong? Why is that an aberration? It is part of the essential flexibility of Europe. Those who deny that flexibility are denying something that is not passing, not an aberration, but is an essential part of Europe. It is a
  1142
  natural feature of what we are trying to do. The United States of America is not the good model for the future of Europe.
  The Leader of the Opposition seems quite astray on qualified majority voting. He seemed to suppose that there was not any and that we were blocking its introduction. Of course there is. Those who say that the common agricultural policy could not be reformed without QMV seem to ignore that QMV applies to the common agricultural policy. What the Prime Minister talked about is further extension of QMV, which we oppose.
  The hon. Member for Livingston, with a jutting beard gesture of which we are getting rather fond, became extremely indignant because the Prime Minister suggested, modestly and quietly, that when the European socialist manifesto, co-authored by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), said that QMV should be the rule, that must mean an undermining of the veto. The hon. Member for Livingston became very indignant and said,"No, no." He read again the domestic Labour party manifesto on the subject. All he proved by that indignation is that the Labour party speaks with two voices, both official. Labour is bound, as I understand it, by the European socialist manifesto, which is the nature of European socialism. The right hon. Member for Copeland was shadow Foreign Secretary when he put his signature on it. Those two completely contradictory voices entirely justify the criticism that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made.
  The main point that I should like to dwell on is what I believe to be the heart of the matter.
  Mr. Lamont: Will my right hon. Friend address the question that I put to the Prime Minister earlier, to which I do not believe he gave a clear answer? I asked whether the Government believe that monetary union will lead to political union or whether they believe, as Lord Lawson said the other day, that one cannot have one without the other? I believe that this is the issue of principle. It is two years since we began negotiations on the Maastricht treaty and that is an issue of principle, not of timing.
  Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend is one of the greatest experts on the subject because, with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, he negotiated the opt-out. I have always admired the skill with which they both did that. I was sitting in admiration in another room at the time.
  I think my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered clearly the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) has just made. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he was absolutely clear that it was right to preserve for this country the freedom, that he and my right hon. Friend had together obtained for us, with some difficulty, at Maastricht. He went on to answer the specific question put by my right hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I simply repeat what the Prime Minister said. He answered the question clearly in his speech.
  Mr. Robin Cook: If the Foreign Secretary will not answer that question, will he, in the remaining 10 minutes of the debate, answer the question that has now been asked five times in the past five hours? Does he agree

  1143
  with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a single currency would not threaten the nation state and, if so, can he explain why his Prime Minister cannot say so?
  Mr. Hurd: The Prime Minister answered that question and I agreed with the answer given. The Prime Minister went on to make a point, which I think is overwhelming common sense: this choice of a single currency or not is not before the House. It will not be before the House for four or five years at least. Other countries are committed to accept, regardless of the circumstances at the time, but we are not because we have the freedom of the opt-out negotiated at Maastricht. If and when that choice comes to us, the Government will take that choice and recommend it to Parliament in the light of not just one set of facts but of all the facts which are valid at that time—the facts at the time, not the hunch at present.
  Of course, there is a constitutional question; of course, there are economic questions, and the Prime Minister went into these in some detail. The only sensible course is not to pontificate about this now but to weigh up the choice when and if we need to take it as a nation.
  Mr. Cook rose—
  Mr. Hurd: No, I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
  It seems to me an entirely sensible course to which the great majority of people in this country would adhere.
  I now come to what I believe is the basic flaw in the critique of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal party. The Leader of the Opposition spoke as if there was only one model for Europe and the question was whether we moved forward in some direction which he regarded as inexorable or whether we retreated and turned our back on Europe. I entirely reject that choice; that is not what it is about. There is not just one model. There is a choice of directions, and we are among the people who make the choice. It is the essence of our policy that we should work with others to make the choice which has not already been engineered but which is a choice with which we can feel at ease.
  This is a debate that we have had, with variations, several times before. I think that there is an opportunity now—the Labour party has given us that opportunity—to draw a line under divisions and discontents, which have been very real. There are rancours belonging to the past and they are certainly very real. They belong to the debate on Maastricht, but there is a danger in constantly fighting and refighting old battles. Obviously, there is a political danger here—there is no doubt about that—but there is another point which is perhaps not so familiar.
  As I said, I have just returned from visiting Denmark, Sweden, Austria and Germany. I agree with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton). In all the countries that I visited—and this was not true before Maastricht—there is debate on the issues that have come forward in this country. Before Maastricht, we had the sensation—it was well founded—that ours was the only country in which there was a debate. Now there is a debate in all the countries that I visit and, in some, of them, there is a lively interest in the ideas that we propose.
  However, I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends and the House that interest in these ideas is weakened and is not going to be effective if it appears that they come out of domestic division here at home. This I find infinitely
  1144
  frustrating because I am quite sure that the ideas that we are working out and putting forward are the right ideas for Europe and I do not want to see that frustrated because they appear to arise from domestic controversy at home. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us one."] That is precisely what I am about to do, and I have seven minutes in which to do so.
  What will be happening next year? Three things will be happening more or less at the same time. No doubt there will be a continuing discussion about a single currency. There will be preparations for the enlargement of the European Union. I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup on this point. I do not think that we should be grudging about enlargement. The countries of central and eastern Europe have to be able to comply with the treaty and meet the conditions about competition, about the single market. They will not, of course, find that easy and they will not be able to do it at once, but they are political democracies—they have free elections. Their problems arise from the free market. We should give them time, but we should encourage them and we should not say to them that they are not really European countries, that they are not really entitled to join the European Union because we are too busy sorting our own ideas. We should encourage them to join. That process will go ahead next year and the year after.
  Alongside that process, as the Prime Minister said and as we said at Question Time today, must go changes—drastic changes—in the common agricultural policy and in the structural funds. One cannot possibly imagine extending, enlarging the European Union and maintaining in its present form a common agricultural policy covering the farmers of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. That will be the second thing going on next year.
  Thirdly, there will be the intergovernmental conference which will consider the structures that were established at Maastricht. As the Prime Minister said, I am absolutely clear that there will be no attempt from anybody to overturn, to destroy those three pillars and say that we must start again. That is not the mood of the Union at all.
  We have the Community itself—the first pillar—the single market, from which this country benefits, the single commercial policy and the gradual dying away of state aids and protectionist devices. Of course there are fierce rearguard actions from the protectionists, and we read of the battles. We do not read, so much, when the battles end in success. We read of the efforts by the French to keep out our lamb, of the Germans to keep out our beef, of the French to keep our aircraft out of Orly airport. We do not always read that, actually, we won all those arguments because there was a single market, because there were rules and because in the end, however grudgingly, those rules had to be obeyed. That is one pillar.
  Alongside that pillar is the co-operation in foreign and security policy and in home and justice matters. I shall send my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup the speech that I made in Berlin yesterday, which he had some difficulty in getting. I am in favour of co-operation in foreign policy, but I am not in favour of seeking to make that effective by majority vote. I contested that fiercely in the Maastricht negotiations—successfully—and would do so again. I do not believe

  1145
  that we would achieve a more effective European foreign policy if we introduced majority voting and started trying to vote people down.
  We have two highly successful institutions in Europe—NATO and the European Union. We have a queue of countries wanting to join both. It is in the fundamental interests of this country that the success of those institutions should not unravel. There are two ways, it seems to me, in which the European Union could unravel. One is that we could go back into a dangerous muddle of old rivalries, rumours of war, commerce and investment constantly interrupted by rows over tariffs and conflicting trade arrangements. If we went back downhill in that direction, just when the North American Free Trade Agreement is forming, just when Asia and the Pacific are coming together as an entity, just when Latin America is coming together, we would be moving right against the grain of the world. One way in which Europe could unravel is through cynicism and neglect. It could unravel if we were tolerant of fraud. It could unravel if we were unable to practise subsidiarity successfully.
  Another way in which Europe could unravel is that it could try to go forward in a purely theoretical and philosophical way. There could be some great centralising movement, some talk of a great leap forward, but, in fact, it could be a leap forward into a bog. That is why I believe that Prime Minister Balladur is right to say that there is no point in reviving the anachronistic debate on federalism. A Europe of nations is working together as never before, working with the grain of history, with popular feeling. It is not a question of advancing or retreating on a road which is already engineered by others. It is a question of choosing the right road, forgetting our defeatism on that road, and putting our energy and commitment into the matter that way. After a year or two at this task, I am quite sure that that can be done and that our ideas of a Europe of nations can succeed. It is possible, it is right, and I ask the House, by rejecting the motion, to help us to succeed.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 319.

  Division No. 92]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Ainger, Nick

  Benton, Joe

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Allen, Graham

  Berry, Roger

  Alton, David

  Betts, Clive

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Blunkett, David

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Boateng, Paul

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Boyes, Roland

  Ashton, Joe

  Bradley, Keith

  Austin-Walker, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Barnes, Harry

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

  Barron, Kevin

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Battle, John

  Burden, Richard

  Bayley, Hugh

  Byers, Stephen

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Caborn, Richard

  Beggs, Roy

  Callaghan, Jim

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bell, Stuart

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  1146

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Gunnell, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hain, Peter

  Cann, Jamie

  Hall, Mike

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hanson, David

  Chidgey, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Church, Judith

  Harvey, Nick

  Clapham, Michael

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Henderson, Doug

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Clarke, Torn (Monklands W)

  Heppell, John

  Clelland, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coffey, Ann

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoey, Kate

  Connarty, Michael

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Home Robertson, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Corston, Jean

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Hutton, John

  Dafis, Cynog

  Illsley, Eric

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ingram, Adam

  Darling, Alistair

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanetlli)

  Janner, Greville

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

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

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Dewar, Donald

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dixon, Don

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Dobson, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jowell, Tessa

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Keen, Alan

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

  Eastham, Ken

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Enright, Derek

  Khabra, Piara S

  Etherington, Bill

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fatchett, Derek

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lewis, Terry

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Fisher, Mark

  Litherland, Robert

  Flynn, Paul

  Livingstone, Ken

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Foulkes, George

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Fraser, John

  McAllion, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Galbraith, Sam

  McCartney, Ian

  Galloway, George

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Gapes, Mike

  Macdonald, Calum

  Garrett, John

  McFall, John

  George, Bruce

  McGrady, Eddie

  Gerrard, Neil

  McKelvey, William

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McLeish, Henry

  Godsiff, Roger

  Maclennan, Robert

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Gordon, Mildred

  MacShane, Denis

  Graham, Thomas

  McWilliam, John

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Madden, Max

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Maddock, Diana

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Maginnis, Ken

  1147

  Mahon, Alice

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mallon, Seamus

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Rowlands, Ted

  Marek, Dr John

  Ruddock, Joan

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Salmond, Alex

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Martlew, Eric

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Maxton, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Meacher, Michael

  Short, Clare

  Meale, Alan

  Simpson, Alan

  Michael, Alun

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

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

  Milburn, Alan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Snape, Peter

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Soley, Clive

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Spellar, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe,

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Stevenson, George

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Stott, Roger

  Mudie, George

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Mullin, Chris

  Straw, Jack

  Murphy, Paul

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Olner, Bill

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tipping, Paddy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Touhig, Don

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Trimble, David

  Parry, Robert

  Turner, Dennis

  Patchett, Terry

  Tyler, Paul

  Pearson, Ian

  Vaz, Keith

  Pendry, Tom

  Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Pike, Peter L

  Wallace, James

  Pope, Greg

  Walley, Joan

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Watson, Mike

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Welsh, Andrew

  Purchase, Ken

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Radice, Giles

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Randall, Stuart

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wilson, Brian

  Redmond, Martin

  Winnick, David

  Reid, Dr John

  Wise, Audrey

  Rendel, David

  Worthington, Tony

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Rogers, Allan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rooker, Jeff

  Mr. Ray Powell and

  Rooney, Terry

  Mr. Gordon McMaster.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Alexander, Richard

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Baldry, Tony

  Amess, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Ancram, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bates, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Ashby, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Atkins, Robert

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  1148

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Booth, Hartley

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Boswell, Tim

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  French, Douglas

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Bowis, John

  Gallie, Phil

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Brazier, Julian

  Garnier, Edward

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gorst, Sir John

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Burns, Simon

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Burt, Alistair

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Butcher, John

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Butler, Peter

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Butterfill, John

  Hague, William

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hannam, Sir John

  Churchill, Mr

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Harris, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hawksley, Warren

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hayes, Jerry

  Colvin, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Congdon, David

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Conway, Derek

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hendry, Charles

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hicks, Robert

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Couchman, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Cran, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Critchley, Julian

  Horam, John

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

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

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

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Day, Stephen

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Dicks, Terry

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jack, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Duncan, Alan

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Jessel, Toby

  Dunn, Bob

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Elletson, Harold

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Key, Robert

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Knapman, Roger

  Evennett, David

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Faber, David

  Knight Greg (Derby N)

  Fabricant, Michael

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

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Knox, Sir David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Forman, Nigel

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Forth, Eric

  Legg, Barry

  1149

  Leigh, Edward

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lidington, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lord, Michael

  Shersby, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Sims, Roger

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maclean, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Speed, Sir Keith

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Madel, Sir David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Malone, Gerald

  Spring, Richard

  Mans, Keith

  Sproat, Iain

  Marland, Paul

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Steen, Anthony

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stephen, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Stewart, Allan

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Sumberg, David

  Merchant, Piers

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mills, Iain

  Sykes, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thomason, Roy

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Tracey, Richard

  Norris, Steve

  Tredinnick, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Trend, Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Trotter, Neville

  Ottaway, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Page, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Paice, James

  Viggers, Peter

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Walden, George

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Pawsey, James

  Waller, Gary

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Ward, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Watts, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Whittingdale, John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Richards, Rod

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Riddick, Graham

  Willetts, David

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Wilshire, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wood, Timothy

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Yeo, Tim

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sackville, Tom

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 313.

  Division No. 93]

  [10.18 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Alexander, Richard

  Couchman, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Cran, James

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Critchley, Julian

  Amess, David

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

  Ancram, Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Day, Stephen

  Ashby, David

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Atkins, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dicks, Terry

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Baldry, Tony

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Dover, Den

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Duncan, Alan

  Bates, Michael

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dunn, Bob

  Bellingham, Henry

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dykes, Hugh

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Body, Sir Richard

  Elletson, Harold

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Booth, Hartley

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Boswell, Tim

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Evennett, David

  Bowis, John

  Faber, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Brazier, Julian

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Forth, Eric

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Burns, Simon

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Burt, Alistair

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Butcher, John

  French, Douglas

  Butler, Peter

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Butterfill, John

  Gale, Roger

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gallie, Phil

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Carrington, Matthew

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Carttiss, Michael

  Cash, William

  Garnier, Edward

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gill, Christopher

  Churchill, Mr

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Clappison, James

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Gorst, Sir John

  Coe, Sebastian

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Colvin, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Congdon, David

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Conway, Derek

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth North)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  1151

  Hague, William

  Marlow, Tony

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Mates, Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Harris, David

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Merchant, Piers

  Hawkins, Nick

  Mills, Iain

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Heald, Oliver

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hendry, Charles

  Moss, Malcolm

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hicks, Robert

  Nelson, Anthony

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Horam, John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Norris, Steve

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

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Page, Richard

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Paice, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Patrick, Sir Irvine

  Hunter, Andrew

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Jack, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Pickles, Eric

  Jessel, Toby

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Key, Robert

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Richards, Rod

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Riddick, Graham

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Knapman, Roger

  Robathan, Andrew

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

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

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Knox, Sir David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sackville, Tom

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Legg, Barry

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lidington, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Luff, Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  Maclean, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Madel, Sir David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spink Dr Robert

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  Malone, Gerald

  Sproat, Iain

  Mans, Keith

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Marland, Paul

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  1152

  Steen, Anthony

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Stephen, Michael

  Walden, George

  Stern, Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Stewart, Allan

  Waller, Gary

  Streeter, Gary

  Ward, John

  Sumberg, David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sykes, John

  Watts, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Whittingdale, John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thomason, Roy

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Wilkinson, John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Willetts, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wilshire, David

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Wood, Timothy

  Tracey, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Trend, Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Viggers, Peter

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Chidgey, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Church, Judith

  Allen, Graham

  Clapham, Michael

  Alton, David

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clelland, David

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ashton, Joe

  Coffey, Ann

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Connarty, Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Battle, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Corston, Jean

  Beggs, Roy

  Cousins, Jim

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cox, Tom

  Bell, Stuart

  Cummings, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Benton, Joe

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dafis, Cynog

  Berry, Roger

  Dalyell, Tam

  Betts, Clive

  Darling, Alistair

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Davidson, Ian

  Blunkett, David

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Boateng, Paul

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Boyes, Roland

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bradley, Keith

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

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Denham.John

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dewar, Donald

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

  Dixon, Don

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dobson, Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Byers, Stephen

  Dowd, Jim

  Caborn, Richard

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Callaghan, Jim

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Eastham, Ken

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Enright, Derek

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Etherington, Bill

  Canavan, Dennis

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Cann, Jamie

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  1153

  Fatchett, Derek

  Lewis, Terry

  Faulds, Andrew

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Litherland, Robert

  Fisher, Mark

  Livingstone, Ken

  Flynn, Paul

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Loyden, Eddie

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Foulkes, George

  McAllion, John

  Fraser, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fyfe, Maria

  McCartney, Ian

  Galbraith, Sam

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Galloway, George

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gapes, Mike

  McFall, John

  Garrett, John

  McGrady, Eddie

  George, Bruce

  McKelvey, William

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  McLeish, Henry

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Maclennan, Robert

  Godsiff, Roger

  McNamara, Kevin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  MacShane, Denis

  Gordon, Mildred

  McWilliam, John

  Graham, Thomas

  Madden, Max

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Maddock, Diana

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mahon, Alice

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mallon, Seamus

  Gunnell, John

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hain, Peter

  Marek, Dr John

  Hall, Mike

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hanson, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Hardy, Peter

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Martlew, Eric

  Harvey, Nick

  Maxton, John

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Meacher, Michael

  Henderson, Doug

  Meale, Alan

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Michael, Alun

  Heppell, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Milburn, Alan

  Hodge, Margaret

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoey, Kate

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Home Robertson, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hood, Jimmy

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Morley, Elliot

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Mudie, George

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Murphy, Paul

  Hutton, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Ingram, Adam

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Olner, Bill

  Jamieson, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Janner, Greville

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Parry, Robert

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Patchett, Terry

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jowell, Tessa

  Pope, Greg

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Keen, Alan

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Purchase, Ken

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Radice, Giles

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Randall, Stuart

  1154

  Raynsford, Nick

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Redmond, Martin

  Straw, Jack

  Reid, Dr John

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Rendel, David

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Timms, Stephen

  Rogers, Allan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rooker, Jeff

  Touhig, Don

  Rooney, Terry

  Trimble, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Turner, Dennis

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Tyler, Paul

  Rowlands, Ted

  Vaz, Keith

  Ruddock, Joan

  Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

  Salmond.Alex

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wallace, James

  Sheerman, Barry

  Walley, Joan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wareing, Robert N

  Short, Clare

  Watson, Mike

  Welsh, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

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

  Wiliams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wilson, Brian

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Winnick, David

  Snape, Peter

  Wise, Audrey

  Soley, Clive

  Worthington, Tony

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wray, Jimmy

  Spellar, John

  Wright Dr Tony

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stevenson, George

  Mr. Ray Powell and

  Stott, Roger

  Mr. Gordon McMaster.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House rejects the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition towards Europe, which would destroy United Kingdom jobs, erode the United Kingdom's competitiveness in world markets, place new bureaucratic burdens on business and industry, destroy the veto and diminish the role of Europe's nation states and their national parliaments.

PETITIONS

  Cot Deaths
  10.31 pm
  Mr. David Jamieson: I wish to present a petition, the prime signatories to which are Julie Oakley, of my constituency, Karen James, of the Plymouth, Sutton constituency, and many people from your constituency of Plymouth, Drake, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The petition comes from a total of 17 parents who have lost their children in sudden infant cot deaths. They believe that their children died due to fire retardants in the cot mattresses and they call on the Government to undertake further research and to demand a further recall of mattresses containing antimony, phosphorus and arsenic.
  The petition reads:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble petition of Members of the Plymouth Cot Death Action Group,

  1155
  sheweth, That evidence has shown that cot mattresses containing fire retardants have caused antimony poisoning in some babies which may have been a factor in their sudden deaths.
  Wherefore your Humble Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will commission further research into sudden infant death syndrome, and will ban the use of fire retardants in cot mattresses, and recall all cot mattresses containing fire retardant chemicals, such as antimony, phosphorus and arsenic.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Disabled People (Civil Rights)
  10.33 pm
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: I rise to present a petition signed by 1,015 of my constituents, who were deeply angered last year when the Disabled Persons (Civil Rights) Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) was talked out in the House. They are concerned this year to find that the Government may not make time available for the same Bill, this time introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).
  The petition reads as follows:
  To the House of Commons. The petition of the constituents of York declares that disabled people are unfairly deprived of their basic civil rights in the United Kingdom. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons pass legislation to ensure civil rights for disabled people. And the petitioners remain, etc.
  The petition is signed by John Keeper, the secretary of the National League of the Blind and Disabled in York and, as I say, by 1,014 other of my constituents.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Children's Homes
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
  10.34 pm
  Ms Ann Coffey: In this debate I could probably say anything I liked about the physical standards, the care and staffing in unregistrable children's homes, the number of them in the country and the number of placements of children hundreds of miles away from home. I could say that the children being placed are the most disturbed and the most difficult. The Minister could not contradict me because the collation of data is extremely inadequate in every respect.
  As the Minister is aware, I have pursued the subject of the debate through numerous parliamentary questions. Recently I have been trying to establish when the social services inspectorate study will be completed. The answer that I received was, "In due course." I hope that when it is completed, it will be published, if for no other reason than to prove me wrong in my belief that it will be as scathing about some of the standards of care as the one in the north-west was.
  Following the report by the SSI in the north-west, the Department of Health issued a circular, LAC(93)(16), in August 1993, entitled "Practice guidance on the application of the Arrangements for the Placement of Children (General) Regulations 1991 in relation to small unregistrable children's homes". That guidance shows up the illogicality of the current situation in which children's homes of fewer than four children are not required to register, something to which I shall return in a moment.
  What has come to be of great interest to me is the difference between an unregistrable children's home and care provided in a family setting as offered in some of the brochures of private agencies. The water in that area is becoming muddied.
  On that point, the guidance says that where investigations reveal that the home offers care equivalent to close parental care provided on a 24-hour basis by one or two adults, consideration should be given to making the placement in accordance with Foster Placement (Children) Regulations 1991. Note the word "should". But why on earth should anyone bother? It is much easier to treat it as an unregistrable children's home rather than the expensive, protracted approval process for fostering.
  If such homes with fewer than four children had to be registered, they would have to be treated either as children's homes or foster homes, and certainly could not be foster homes posing as children's homes, which is certainly happening at the moment.
  On foster homes, let me quickly raise an issue with the Minister, which I think is related to unregistrable children's homes. Clearly, some voluntary agencies—I include independent fostering agencies that register as voluntary agencies—are interpreting the current regulations as allowing them to approve a pool of foster carers, whereas the regulations clearly state that that can be delegated only in relation to a particular child. Even that is not a function that can be delegated to a profit-making organisation, which they are as the profit is essentially the fee paid to families. The Minister might like to consider some of those issues and whether the way forward is for voluntary agencies to be registered as

  1157
  suitable to approve their own foster parents. They could be registered either by the local authority or by the Department of Health.
  The guidance circular states that premises should be inspected before placement to satisfy the authority that they are suitable in relation to the standards set out and then once a year thereafter by an officer from the placing authority. The standards referred to in the guidance are physical standards, and they are important. But my eye was struck by the fact that one of the things that the social worker has to inspect is whether there are any obvious fire risks. I can assure the Minister that when I was a social worker, I doubt whether I would have seen a fire risk if I had fallen over one. The investigation of fire risks should be left to the proper fire authority.
  The guidance instructs that police checks should be carried out, but not that a personal reference should be taken up, when looking at the staff who will be caring for the children. Those staff should be interviewed to see that they understand the care that is necessary for the children. The guidance does not specifically say that that should include the proprietor of the home, who may not have the day-to-day care of the children. But the standards that he sets are important for the staff. Nor does it indicate whether a social worker interviewing the staff is entitled to have access to the application form to the agency that employs the carer. Proprietors are to be advised that matters of control and discipline should conform to those that relate to registered children's homes. There is no requirement, however, to keep a record of that.
  As for the inspection that must take place before each placement, the guidance does not say by whom it should be done. I presume that it could be done by the placing social worker. If I was placing a child, I could go to the home in the morning, interview some of the staff—the police checks having been carried out—come back in the afternoon and place the child. Also, of course, the local authority that carries out the inspection does not receive one penny. If the homes were required to register, the local authority in the area in which the homes were resident would receive an income. Apart from anything else, requiring inspection before each placement of a child is not a cost-effective way of using resources.
  As to the duties of the local authority in which the home resides, authorities placing children in homes in a different area must inform the geographical authority about the placement. The guidance says that the authority should inform itself about the welfare of those children. Does that mean that it has to visit? What responsibilities does it have? Who pays for the time that is required when visiting? Can it charge a fee? In the event of a tragedy, who bears the responsibilities? For example, for a fire, would it be the local authority officer who inspects, the placing social worker who visits or the geographical authority, which, apparently, should inform itself about the welfare of the children?
  That will not do. The whole situation is ridiculous, full of anomalies and quite unjustifiable. We are talking about the most difficult children, who are often a danger to themselves and to others. In one children's home in Manchester, a mentally handicapped boy was tortured over time by two younger boys. I am saying that to illustrate some of the difficulties of behaviour that those children present. How can placing authorities fulfil their
  1158
  responsibility 100 miles away from home? Let the Minister be in no doubt that children are being placed a considerable distance away.
  Private agencies might indeed have found a market niche in offering placements for children who are difficult to place, but surely we should ensure that the care that they provide is of the same standard as that found in registrable children's homes.
  Why are homes asked to register anyway? Presumably, it is to set out and maintain minimum standards for the physical environment in which the child is cared for, to ensure that the proprietor is a responsible person and to ensure that the people who inspect have an expertise in that and are not just the placing social worker.
  I totally agree with standards being set, but why is it not good enough for small children's homes? There is no logic in it. In terms of the overriding principle of the welfare of the child, which underwrites the Children Act 1989, it is unjustifiable to have two-tier standards in private children's homes. Why should anyone go to the trouble of managing a registered children's home when the system allows an easy way out? I think that the Minister—I do not want him to take this personally—is being obstinate, because in the atmosphere of deregulation, he does not want to be seen to regulate. That is the only explanation that I can come up with for his refusal to make small homes register. That is not good enough for the welfare of children.
  10.43 pm
  Mr. Keith Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) for her kind invitation to take part in the debate. She and I fought shoulder to shoulder in the long campaign for the registration of small private children's homes, and I wish to endorse the powerful argument that she made, but especially the new case that she made on the threat to conventional fostering arrangements.
  It is now just over 12 months since my own Adjournment debate on the subject of children's homes in Streatham. In that debate, I highlighted the difficulties faced by the local community, and expressed concerns about the quality of care experienced by the young residents of those homes. I also sought to highlight the anxieties of the local community about the proliferation of small private children's homes in the area. Unfortunately, I have to tell the Minister that the problem has not gone away.
  Let me cite a case that arrived on my desk within the past few days. Although I am entirely confident about the facts, I do not propose to name names—partly because the case is so recent and some of the relevant organisations have not had time to furnish me with their account, and partly because I understand that criminal charges are pending. Suffice it to say that the private home concerned is a small unit in the vicinity of Streatham common, and that life for local residents has been a great deal harsher since its establishment in the past 12 months.
  This local example raises yet again all the question marks about the arrangements for small private children's homes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport and I have referred so frequently on the Floor of the House, and which—as we now know—have been exposed in two reports from the social services inspectorate. In this

  1159
  case, the placing authorities were not local; that is fairly common, too. I am pleased to say that the London borough of Lambeth has adopted a policy of making no new placements in such homes.
  There is a question mark, in this case, over the mechanism by which placing authorities are supposed to notify the geographical authority when young people are placed in such homes. The requirement is not obligatory, and the social services inspectorate has drawn attention to the inefficiency of the system and the frequent inaccuracy of registers in such homes.
  There is also a question mark over the suitability for semi-independent living of very young people who may have criminal records, and the reliability with which the register of attendance of young people in such homes is maintained. That in itself reflects major questions about the quality of supervision—questions that my hon. Friend has raised—and the extent to which supervisors are continuously present on the premises, as they certainly ought to be.
  It is totally unsatisfactory that youthful residents can be away from the premises at all hours of the day—and, in particular, the night—without the application of any disciplinary measures. It is even more unsatisfactory that grossly anti-social incidents may occur on the premises when supervisors are notionally present.
  All that is known to the Government. All the problems were set out in the social services inspectorate's report of its study of small unregistered children's homes in the north-west, published in January last year. If recent press accounts are anything to go by, the current report following nationwide study by the inspectorate is even more damning. It reveals that the number of such homes is mushrooming; it also identifies new examples of sharp practice—claims for therapeutic services that are not provided on the premises, and the charging of enormous fees for special treatments that are also not provided. It raises big question marks about the background of those who run small private children's homes. It makes an overwhelming case for change, and for the proper registration and inspection of such homes.
  We know that the report is in the Minister's hands, hut it must be said that the last social services inspectorate report languished in the Department of Health for two years. I hope that this evening the Minister will be able to assure us of the report's rapid publication, and of equally rapid Government action, which is now long overdue.
  10.48 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I am delighted to have the opportunity to do another pas de deux with the hon. Members for Stockport (Ms Coffey) and for Streatham (Mr. Hill)—or, rather, a pas de trois. We have had the pleasure of discussing this important topic before, and I have no doubt that we will again.
  Let me begin with the hon. Member for Stockport, who had the good fortune to be successful in the ballot.
  As the hon. Lady knows, we met to discuss this issue on various occasions and following one of those meetings in September 1993, when I met her and Mr. Bob Lewis, the director of social services for Stockport, I confirmed in a letter dated 30 September that Mr. Lewis had agreed to try to establish through his contacts in the Association
  1160
  of Directors of Social Services whether the problems that the hon. Lady had described were more widespread. I have to date not received any response from him on that point. The hon. Lady may like to raise that with him.
  I also met the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Streatham in February last year. The hon. Member for Streatham also raised in an Adjournment debate in January last year, the topic of homes which are not subject to registration under the Children Act 1989.
  The provisions of the Children Act and the regulations linked to them demonstrate our commitment to the protection of vulnerable children, and that does and must mean their protection in a disciplined and safe environment. We are aware of the difficulties faced by local authorities in caring for, and controlling, some of the young people whom it is their responsibility to look after, including children accommodated in small children's homes. I use the word "controlling". This is an important element in caring. My Department has issued guidance to local authorities on permissible forms of control in children's homes, including small homes. I know that problems of control have been perceived in the homes referred to by the hon. Member for Streatham.
  All too often we hear of people responsible for homes who misunderstand their responsibilities and powers in this regard. For example, we hear of the reluctance in some cases to lock the doors at night, which to most of us seems a commonsense measure to ensure that children do not go out to places where they would be at risk and to ensure that intruders do not get in to harm the children.
  As hon. Members know, following its study of children's homes in north-west England last year, I asked the social services inspectorate to look further at the provision of small unregistered homes. I do not have a report in my hands nor am I sitting on one. The hon. Member for Streatham has obviously seen a document that has not yet been submitted to me. I expect the inspectorate to report to me in the spring. I cannot comment on speculation about the inspectorate's findings in what was probably a recent issue of Community Care magazine, since they have not yet been reported to me.
  Let me put all this in context by setting out the current requirements of the legislation relating to the arrangements for the care of children accommodated in small homes. Monitoring the standards of care in unregistered, small, private children's homes is the responsibility of the local authorities that place children in these establishments.
  Local authorities have a duty under the Children Act to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children for whom they provide accommodation and maintenance. Local authorities must, as far as is reasonably practicable, ascertain the wishes and feelings of the child and his or her parents, and must give due consideration to those wishes. The local authority is required to ensure, as far as possible, that the accommodation provided is near the child's home, to endeavour to promote contact between the child and his or her parents, and to keep the parents informed. When communication between a child and his or her parent is infrequent or non-existent, the local authority is required to appoint an independent visitor for the child.
  Under the Arrangements for the Placement of Children (General) Regulations 1991, the local authority responsible for looking after any child is required to record in writing the arrangements made for the

  1161
  placement and for promoting the welfare of the child. The care plan and the plan for the placement of the child must cover the arrangements for contact with the family, the arrangements to be made for the time when the child is no longer accommodated by the local authority and whether plans need to be made to find a permanent substitute family for the child.
  The local authority must arrange a medical examination and assessment for each child. The care plan must record the child's health history and the arrangements for medical and dental care and surveillance and any possible need for vaccination, immunisation and vision and hearing tests. The child's educational history must be recorded, as must any educational need and the action required to meet that need.
  The record of all those arrangements must then be sent to the district health authority, the local education authority, the general practitioner, the local authority social services department, if a placement is not in the placing authority's area, and the parents. Records must be kept by the local authority for each child until he or she is 75.
  The "local" local authority social services department must keep a register of every child in the establishment, with particulars as recorded in the care plan.
  Under the Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991 the "placing" authority is required to review the case of each child within four weeks of when the child begins to be accommodated by the local authority; then after another three months and then at least every six months after this date.
  Each review must examine the care plan already described, and include meetings with the local authority, the child, and others, including, of course, the parents. The child must be told, at each review, of the local authority's complaints procedure.
  In addition to that considerable body of legislation, which came into force in 1991 and the accompanying volumes of guidance issued to local authorities at that time, in 1993, my Department issued an important circular, to which the hon. Lady referred, reminding authorities of the requirements of the regulations in relation to the placement of children in small homes and providing practice guidance.
  The level of regulation of the care of the children accommodated in small unregistered private children's homes is already very rigorous, but I should like to refer to the actions taken by my Department to monitor the local authorities' care monitoring of the children looked after by them and accommodated in homes not subject to registration procedures.
  The performance of local authorities in the exercise of their responsibilities under the Children Act 1989 is monitored primarily through the on-going inspection of social services by the social services inspectorate.
  In addition, as I said earlier, in 1993, the inspectorate undertook a study, to which hon. Members referred, of small unregistered children's homes in the north-west of England. That report was published in February 1994. It highlighted many of the positive aspects of those small homes, particularly the opportunities they can provide for care to be tailored specifically to meet the needs of young people in more innovative and flexible ways than is often possible in larger units. It also emphasised, however, the
  1162
  need for authorities to apply the Arrangements for the Placement of Children (General) Regulations 1991 and the Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991 in a robust and rigorous manner. The report pointed out that where the home offers care which is equivalent to close parental care provided by one or two adults on a 24-hour basis, the Foster Placement (Children) Regulations 1991 might be more appropriately applied. I shall certainly consider carefully the hon. Lady's points about group fostering. She might like to write to me and provide fuller details about that.
  The inspectorate has widened its study to cover all local authorities in England and, as I have already said, I await its report.
  We have emphasised the need for authorities to apply the arrangements and regulations as robustly as possible. The hon. Lady may recall that a new requirement on small homes for adults to register with local authorities was introduced in 1993. On the face of it, one might wonder why the Government have seen fit to introduce such a measure in respect of adults but not children. The answer is, of course, that the very rigorous arrangements for placement and review regulations which I have described have no parallel in the legislation governing homes for adults, governed by the Registered Homes Act 1984. The regulation of the small homes for adults is a "lighter-touch" form of regulation, including annual returns of particulars to local authorities. There is no requirement on the local authority to inspect.
  As I previously announced, my Department is collecting particulars to enable a gazetteer of children's homes, including small unregistered homes, to be produced. The information collection is nearly complete and returns have been provided by more than three quarters of local authorities. Perhaps I might mention in passing that that three quarters does not include Stockport. The hon. Lady might care to raise that issue with her director of social services. However, statistics will be available in the next few months.
  I hope that the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman will agree that, while they are absolutely right to raise this issue and while it is vital that we keep the welfare of children in care under constant review wherever they are housed, the legislative arrangements already in place governing the care of children in small homes are, if used properly and in full, adequate to protect the welfare of the children, in so far as legislation can achieve this. I shall, of course, keep the matter under review and have said as much in the past. I shall keep an open mind about any further need to act and shall consider carefully any new evidence presented to me.
  Ms Coffey: Will the Minister publish the report that is being completed, just as he allowed the social services study of homes in the north-west to be published and made publicly available?
  Mr. Bowis: That is something that we always consider when we receive advice and guidance from our relevant experts. As of now, I do not know what form the reporting will take but we shall certainly consider the matter carefully and seek to ascertain, among other things, whether it is suitable for publication. The statistics from the gazetteer will, of course, be made known.
  Ms Coffey: The Minister will understand that, if the report is not published, the view might be taken that the reason is that the information contained in it is highly embarrassing to the Government. There is such public interest in small children's homes, and surely the Minister can think of no reason that such a report should not be published.
  Mr. Bowis: At this time of night, one should not encourage the hon. Lady to speculate about anything, and I shall certainly not speculate on a report that I have not yet seen or on what we shall do to bring the information to a wider audience.
  1164
  I undertake to consider any new evidence presented to me, including any evidence from the social services inspectorate and any that my colleagues in this pas de trois care to bring to me now or in the future. I urge the hon. Member for Streatham to present me with chapter and verse in respect of the examples that he cited as it is much easier to proceed on that basis than on the basis of anecdotes. I am sure that we all understand that we have to base our policy on facts.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Eleven o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Gas Safety
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Health and Safety Commission's report on gas safety will be published.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have today published, jointly with the Health and Safety Commission, its report on safety in the new gas market.

  I welcome the report's recommendations for a comprehensive gas safety management regime. The proposals provide a firm framework which will allow the proposed safety regime to respond proportionately and flexibly to the unfolding impact of liberalisation.

  The report examines the safety implications of liberalising the domestic gas supply market, and of a more open framework for gas pipeline systems. It describes the means which will be required to maintain, and if possible improve upon, the safety record of British Gas as the extent of unitary control of the pipeline system reduces over time.

  Each system transporting gas to the public will be required to appoint a system manager, who will set out in a written safety case how management of the system will be achieved. Some of these safety cases are likely to be quite simple and straightforward. They will all, however, have to address key safety criteria approved by the Health and Safety Executive. The HSE will need to accept the safety case before operations can begin, although transitional arrangements will be put in place to avoid disruption as these new arrangements are introduced.

  When a number of public gas transporter systems come together, a network manager will he appointed to be responsible for producing an over-arching safety case for the network as a whole, which will also have to be accepted by the HSE. It will set down the specified emergency conditions in which the network manager will have statutory powers to override the operation of the whole network, and how this should be done. These powers will be backed up by licence obligations on shippers and suppliers to co-operate in an emergency.

  The report also covers other important issues, such as emergency response and safety downstream of the meter. Although adequate interim provision for safety is made in the Gas Bill, the HSC has set 1 April 1996 as a target date for agreeing new regulations and the associated documentation, to coincide with the opening up to competition of an initial area covering some 500,000 consumers.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Gas and Electricity Industries
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to introduce legislation which would place a duty on the regulators of(a) the gas industry and (b) the electricity industry to have regard to the environmental impacts of the companies they regulate.

  Mr. Eggar
  Section 3 of the Electricity Act 1989 places on the Director General of Electricity Supply a duty to take into account, in exercising his functions assigned or transferred to him under the Act, the effect on the physical environment of activities connected with the generation, transmission or supply of electricity. It is proposed to include a broadly equivalent provision in the forthcoming Gas Bill.

  Inward Investment, Cumbria
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to promote west Cumbria as a destination for inward investment.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Invest in Britain Bureau is responsible for promoting the UK as a destination for foreign investment. It has achieved some notable successes over recent years. At regional level the Invest in Britain Bureau part-funds a network of regional development organisations to promote overseas investment. Cumbria is served by INWARD, which received a grant of £1.29 million for 1994–95 to promote inward investment into the whole of the north-west region. The county also benefits from the activities of the Northern Development Company in this respect. At a more local level, my Department has contributed to the Cumbria marketing initiative and has worked closely with west Cumbria agencies to improve the attractiveness of the area for inward investment. West Cumbria benefits from the availability of regional selective assistance and a major investment programme by English Partnerships.

  Domestic Gas Supplies
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many households in the United Kingdom use gas from cylinders for(a) cooking and (b) heating; and if he will make a statement on the scale and impact of recent increases in the price of such gas supply.

  Mr. Page
  It is estimated that about 300,000 households use gas from cylinders for cooking and/or heating in Great Britain and 150,000 households in Northern Ireland. There are no statistics available breaking down the use of cylinder gas between cooking and heating.

  I understand a temporary gas price surcharge was introduced around the beginning of February, reflecting an exceptional supply/demand imbalance in the international market for propane. The surcharge appears to be around 10 to 20 per cent. The suppliers have indicated that they expect to remove the surcharge in March.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what items of correspondence were received by Ministers in his Department from Messrs Ian Greer Associates in the last month.
  569
  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 28 February 1995]: As far as I am aware Ministers in my Department have received a total of six items of correspondence. They include one invitation for a reception and one invitation for drinks—both refused—one letter of congratulations to my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Industry and Energy for winding up the debate on regional electricity companies in the House of Commons on 20 February, and three letters of congratulations to my hon. Friend the new parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy.

PRIME MINISTER

  St. David's Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister, what proposals he has to make St. David's day a bank holiday in Wales.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Tourism
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the need for a tourist accommodation grading system in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have today published an agenda for action in the tourist sector which sets out the Government's assessment of the need for improved market signals in the accommodation sector.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to promote jobs in the tourism industry.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have over the past few months been conducting a review of the performance of the tourism industry and of our policies towards it. The analysis is complete and I have today published my agenda for Government action to help the industry improve its competitive performance. Details of my proposals are contained in a document entitle "Tourism: Competing with the Best", which I placed in the House of Commons Library earlier today, together with the analysis by McKinsey which underlies the agenda.

  Fast-Stream Entry
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proportion of those accepted for fast-stream entry for which his Department is responsible(a) in 1991, (b) 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994 were women.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The figures for the proportion of women accepted for fast-stream entry by my Department are as follows:

  Year

  Total number of faststreamers

  Proportion that were women (per cent.)

  1992

  0

  0

  1993

  1

  100

  1994

  2

  50

  570
  The Department was formed in April 1992 and therefore there are no figures for 1991.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will ensure the enforcement provisions contained in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 apply to all regulations for which his Department is responsible, past, present and future, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: I refer to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 27 February 1995, Official Report, columns 431–32.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Court of Appeal
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list(a) the percentage of civil cases considered by the Court of Appeal that were successful and (b) the percentage of civil cases in which (i) the successful party was British and (ii) the unsuccessful party was foreign for each of the last five years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The percentage of civil appeal cases disposed of by the Court of Appeal that were successful in each legal year from 1989–90 to 1993–94 inclusive was 25.5, 26.1, 27.9, 27.8 and 28.7 respectively.

  Information relating to the nationality of parties is not recorded.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will give the arithmetic mean of the ages of the current judges that hear civil appeal cases in the Court of Appeal.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The arithmetic mean of the ages of the Master of the Rolls, the president of the family division, the vice-chancellor and the lords justices of appeal is 63. This figure is based on the judges in post on 27 February 1995, and their ages on that date. Lords justices are, of course, available to sit in both the civil and criminal divisions of the Court of Appeal. They are occasionally assisted by serving High Court judges and retired lords justices of appeal.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to collate information on the number of civil appeals unsuccessful in the Court of Appeal for which applications for leave of appeal to the House of Lords were refused.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have no plans to do so. As the hon. Member will know, information on the outcome of petitions to the House of Lords for leave to appeal to that House is available.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what system he employs to check on the performance of judges who hear cases in the Court of Appeal.
  571
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor attaches the highest importance to the constitutional principle of judicial independence. He has established no procedures for monitoring the performance of the full-time judiciary. Recourse from a judicial decision in the Court of Appeal properly lies through the normal appeal process to the House of Lords.

  Mr. Bryce Taylor
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department pursuant to his answer of 17 February,Official Report, column 845, if the legal aid fund expects to pay the costs of Mr. Bryce Taylor.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I understand that the parties in this case have settled out of court and that the terms of the settlement are such that there will be no call on the legal aid fund.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Palestine
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to(a) the United Nations and (b) the World bank for funds to assist construction projects with the Palestine National Authority.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are in close touch with both the United Nations and the World bank and discuss their programmes and priorities in detail with them. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency has planned a number of labour intensive projects and the World bank is funding an emergency rehabilitation programme with the Palestinian authority: both programmes include construction projects.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total amount of United Kingdom funds so far(a) pledged and (b) remitted for the purpose of assisting the Palestine National Authority; and to what purpose the funds are directed.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced last year our intention to provide £75 million during 1994–95 to 1996–97 to the Palestinians and in support of the peace process. This includes direct bilateral assistance and aid channelled through multilateral institutions, particularly the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and the European Community.

  In 1993–94 we spent £3.3 million from our bilateral country programme, and we expect to spend around £6.4 million in 1994–95. This includes a £3 million contribution for police salaries. Most of the remainder will support a range of projects, in partnership with the Palestinian authority and non-government organisations, in public administration, finance and private enterprise, water and health.

  Since the signature of the Israeli-Palestinian declaration of principles in September 1993, the European Commission estimates that it has spent 73 million ecu. Over the same period we have provided £9 million direct to UNRWA.
  572
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which specific projects the Overseas Development Administration is involved, or planning to become involved, in the Palestine National Authority.

  Mr. Baldry
  A wide range of projects is being implemented or planned in the priority sectors agreed with the Palestinian authority. Information about a number of projects is given in an information folder called "British Aid to the Palestinians", copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Announcements will he made about other significant projects as these are finalised with the Palestinian authority.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 1994,Official Report, columns 118–20, if he will give the exact date of formal appraisal documents submitted by the Overseas Development Administration and the Department of Trade and Industry in respect of the aid and trade provision support for shortwave radio transmitters to Indonesia; and if he will place in the Library the relevant evaluation documents.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Overseas Development Administration engaged the transmitter projects group of the British Broadcasting Corporation to appraise the shortwave radio transmitters project, Indonesia. The appraisal report is dated 25 October 1990.

  In line with established policy, the ODA does not publish its project appraisals.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of the aid given to Bangladesh in(a) 1993 and (b) 1994 has been spent on assisting the training of Bangladeshi troops.

  Mr. Baldry
  No development funds have been used for the purpose of training Bangladeshi military officers. We do however provide assistance under the FCO-administered United Kingdom military training assistance scheme and the police and other training scheme—POLOT.

  World Bank
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to make the World bank more accountable to its funders.

  Mr. Baldry
  We consider the arrangements which the bank has for accountability to the member Governments to be broadly satisfactory but, along with other shareholders, we continue to keep this matter under review.

  Rwanda
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contributions(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EC countries are making to the recovery of the humanitarian measures in Rwanda.
  573
  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: The EU and its member states have responded generously to humanitarian needs in Rwanda. The table, which is supplied by UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs, gives the breakdown of contributions up to 31 December 1994:

  Donor

  Value US$

  Austria

  427,097

  Belgium

  9,569,819

  Denmark

  12,022,532

  Finland

  3,147,876

  France

  4,969,849

  Germany

  54,032,033

  Greece

  169,193

  Italy

  13,698,477

  Luxembourg

  1,621.114

  Netherlands

  30,642,032

  Spain

  4,162,772

  Sweden

  36,340,848

  United Kingdom

  52,998,195

  EC

  1223,875,090

  Total

  447,676,927

  1 Of which about 13 per cent, is provided by the UK.

  The UK has already responded quickly to the 1995 UN consolidated inter-agency appeal for Rwanda with a pledge of £4 million.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member of Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 6 February, column 24–26, in respect of contributions to Rwanda's rehabilitation needs.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Constabularies
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) civilians are currently serving in constabularies in (i) England and Wales and (ii) the west midlands; and how many were serving in 1979.

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

  Police officers

  Civilian staff

  As at 31 December

  England and Wales

  West Midlands police

  England and Wales

  West Midlands police

  1979

  113,580

  6,160

  35,382

  1,413

  1994

  127,358

  6,996

  50,978

  2,611

  Police Support Services
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his proposals for bringing competition to bear on police white collar support services.

  Mr. Howard
  It is the Government's intention that compulsory competitive tendering should be introduced to police white collar support services as part of a rolling programme. Detailed consultation proposals for police legal services were issued on 3 May 1994, and for police 574
  construction-related and property services, and the proposed statutory accounting framework on 6 June 1994. The Government have now considered the responses received from the police service, local authority associations and other interested bodies.

  With police legal services, the Government have decided that police authorities will be subject to the same CCT regime as other authorities defined under the Local Government Act 1988, except for a number of specific exemptions. The exemptions centre on the legal work associated with the criminal justice process, police complaints and discipline, unsatisfactory performance proceedings against police officers and licensing functions undertaken by police forces. The exemptions will protect operational policing and management functions special to the police service.

  Similarly, with the police construction-related and property services, the Government have decided that the same CCT regime will apply to both police and other defined authorities except for one specific exemption. The work of police architectural liaison officers will not be included within this defined activity, but will be specifically excluded because such a specialist crime prevention role should properly remain within the police service.

  The Government have also decided that police authorities will be subject to the same statutory accounting framework as other similar defined authorities, which will involve the annual publication of a statement of support service costs. The publication of SSSC's will enable informed discussion of support service costs, and promote efficiency and value for money.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future arrangements for the placement of young offenders, sentenced under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, in local authority accommodation and youth treatment centres.

  Mr. Howard
  From 1 April 1995 the responsibility for seeking and financing placements for young offenders, sentenced under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, in local authority accommodation and youth treatment centres will transfer from the Department of Health to the Home Office.

  Research (Non-Human Primates)
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ban the use of wild-caught non-human primates in scientific procedures and introduce further administrative controls on the use of non-human primates in such procedures.

  Mr. Howard
  I have considered recommendations from the Animal Procedures Committee on the use of non-human primates in scientific procedures and have accepted its view that I should ban the use of wild-caught non-human primates except where a project licence applicant can establish exceptional and specific justification.
  575
  In the light of the committee's advice, I have taken a number of administrative steps to ensure the effectiveness of such a ban, I have decided that:

  (i) a condition will be placed on a project licence authorising the use of non-human primates, requiring records relating to the breeding and conditions of housing and husbandry at the breeding centre(s) from which animals are obtained—and in the case of wild-caught animals the conditions in any holding centre—to be available for inspection by the Home Office;

  (ii) waivers under section 10(3) of the 1986 Act to allow the use of purpose-bred primates from non-designated sources will be conditional upon lifetime records being supplied;

  (iii) if the source of the animals is not know when the project licence application is prepared, or if the proposed source is likely to change, a condition will be placed on the licence that the source must be agreed by the Home Office before the animals are obtained and any procedure commences;

  (iv) the inspectorate will take into account the potential adverse effects, for example during transport, which may occur to the animals concerned before arrival in the United Kingdom; and

  (v) the Home Office will keep under review the availability of information about primate use, and will ensure that as much is published as is permissible within the restraints of the legislation and the need for commercial confidentiality.

  I have agreed also a number of other changes to the condition upon which non-human primates may be used:

  (i) applicants for project licences will be required to explain clearly why only non-human primates as opposed to any other species, including man where appropriate, are considered essential for the programme of research:

  (ii) where applicable, the applicant will be required to provide a clear explanation in the project licence application of why the use of old world, rather than new world, primates is proposed;

  (iii) procedures to be carried out using primates will be required to be described in separate protocol sheets on the project licence application, and primates must not be grouped with other species in such descriptions;

  (iv) when old work non-human primates have been used under a toxicology project licence in procedures of more than mild severity, the licence holder will be required to provide a justification to the Home Office. The Department will keep such use under review and report to the Animal Procedures Committee;

  (v) more detailed, collated data on primate use will be published either in the annual statistics of scientific procedures on living animals or in the annual report of the APC.

  In the case of the requirement on the use of old work non-human primates under toxicology project licences, I have accepted the objective of a recommendation from the Animal Procedures Committee but have taken the view that this can be achieved by alternative means. The approach to be adopted will impose less burden on the companies involved in regulatory toxicity testing, and will ensure that the animals—scientific procedures—inspectorate is not diverted from its primary tasks of advising on applications for personal and project licence and visiting scientific establishments.

  I have placed in the Library a copy of the committee's recommendations, and of the Home Office ministerial reply.

  North East London Probation Service
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what will be the effect of the November 1994 budget statement on the North East London probation service;
  576
  (2) what was the effect of the November 1993 statement on the budget of North East London probation service.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The 1993 Budget statement resulted in a specific grant cash limit for 1994–95 for the North East London probation service of £7.2 million, 6.8 per cent. higher than for 1993–94. The 1994 Budget statement resulted in a specific grant cash limit for 1995–96 of £7.1 million, plus a further £200,000 to support probation service partnerships with the independent sector previously funded separately by the Home Office.

  It is for the North East London probation service to decide how these resources are best used and to determine what specific changes within the service should be undertaken on the basis of the total expenditure limit implied by this level of grant support.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed, and what grade, by the North East London probation service on 30 June 1992, 30 June 1993 and 30 June 1994.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information is given in the table.

  Staff employed by the North East London probation service, in post at 30 June, whole-time equivalent1 by grade and type

  Number of staff, whole time equivalent

  30 June 1992

  30 June 1993

  30 June 1994

  Probation Officers

  Chief

  1

  1

  1

  Deputy Chief

  —

  —

  —

  Assistant Chief

  3

  4

  4

  Senior

  21

  21

  22

  Main grade

  102

  114

  109

  Total probation officers

  127

  140

  137

  Non-probation grade staff

  Probation Services' Officers2

  36

  40

  36

  Clerical/secretarial

  92

  99

  101

  Administrative

  11

  13

  12

  Other non-probation grade staff, excluding hostel staff3

  10

  17

  17

  Hostel staff

  12

  17

  13

  Total non-probation grade staff

  161

  186

  179

  Total probation staff

  287

  326

  316

  1 Whole-time staff plus whole-time equivalent of part-time staff. Figures rounded to the nearest whole number. Components and totals are rounded independently and so components may not add precisely to totals.

  2 Formerly ancillaries

  3 Figures include sessional supervisors on community service schemes, staff employed in student training units and on miscellaneous functions.

  Employment of Children (Offences)
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is(a) the maximum and (b) the average penalty imposed on any person convicted for offences relating to the employment of children, and (c) how many served a term of imprisonment in the last year that figures were available.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1993—the latest available—is given in the table. 1994 data will not be available until autumn 1995.
  577

  Sentencing data for offences against the employment of children England and Wales

  1993 data

  Fine

  Legislation

  Offence description

  Maximum sentence

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Conditional discharge

  Total fined

  Average fine given

  Maximum fine given

  Probation order

  Immediate custody

  Children and Young Persons Act 1933 Sec 4

  Causing a child or young person to be in any street, &c, for the purpose of begging

  £500 or 3 months or both

  29

  25

  16

  8

  £31

  £50

  1

  —

  Education Act 1944 Sees 58–60

  Employment of children or young persons

  £200 or 1 month or both

  2

  1

  —

  1

  £50

  £50

  —

  —

  Children and Young Persons Act 1933 Sees 18 to 21 (Sec 18 as amended by the Children Act 1972)

  Restrictions on the employment of children (including street trading)

  £1,000

  5

  4

  —

  4

  £159

  £300

  —

  —

  Asylum Seekers, Haslar Prison
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for how long the person who has been detained for the longest period of time, while seeking asylum in the United Kingdom, has been in Haslar prison;

  (2) if he will list (a) nationalities, (b) gender and age, (c) number of each nationality, (d) annual cost to Her Majesty's Government and (e) the total number of all those seeking asylum in the United Kingdom who are detained at Haslar prison.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  At 23 February 1995, a total of 83 people who had sought asylum were detained at the all-male Haslar holding centre. This figure includes people awaiting the setting of directions for removal following the refusal of their applications, as well as those whose applications were under consideration or subject to appeal. Information on the nationality and age of these detainees is given in the tables. The longest currently detained person at Haslar who had sought asylum has been detained since 23 March 1994.

  Haslar is a Prison Service establishment run almost exclusively to house people detained under immigration powers. The Prison Service does not separate out costs according to the category of inmate but, in 1993–94, the net operating cost per prisoner place in local prisons and remand centres was £21,400.

  Numbers of persons detained at Her Majesty's Holding Centre, Haslar' who have sought asylum, by nationality, as at 23 February 1995

  Nationality

  Number detained

  Europe and Americas

  Bulgaria

  1

  Columbia

  1

  Poland

  1

  Russia

  1

  Turkey

  3

  Turkish Cyprus

  1

  Yugoslavia

  1

  Middle and Far East

  Bangladesh

  2

  China

  6

  India

  3

  578

  Numbers of persons detained at Her Majesty's Holding Centre, Haslar1 who have sought asylum, by nationality, as at 23 February 1995

  Nationality

  Number detained

  Iran

  1

  Pakistan

  1

  Africa

  Algeria

  11

  Benin

  1

  Eritrea

  1

  Ghana

  18

  Kenya

  2

  Liberia

  2

  Nigeria

  21

  Sierra Leone

  2

  Sudan

  3

  Zaire

  1

  Total

  184

  1 One Haslar detainee is currently in hospital.

  Numbers of persons detained at HM Holding Centre, Haslar1 who have sought asylum, by age, as at 23 February 1995

  Age

  Number detained

  19 or under

  2

  20–24

  18

  25–29

  30

  30–34

  17

  35–39

  12

  40–44

  4

  45 or over

  1

  Total

  184

  1 One Haslar detainee is currently in hospital.

  Carriers' Liability
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask Secretary of state for the Home Department if he will publish a list of airlines which have been charged under the provisions of the Immigration (Carrier's Liability) Act 1987, stating the number of passengers involved, the amount of charges paid and the amount of charges unpaid for each of the past five years.
  579
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I am unable, for reasons of commercial confidentiality, to provide details of the charges incurred by individual carriers, and the numbers of passengers involved. The total value of charges paid and outstanding for each of the last five years were as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Total charges paid in each year

  Total charges outstanding at the end of each year

  1990

  3.433

  115.653

  19912

  7.581

  19.440

  1992

  4.789

  25.775

  1993

  11.500

  22.003

  1994

  8.652

  324.527

  Notes:

  1 Includes charges outstanding from previous years. Figures for 1990 and subsequent years are therefore cumulative.

  2 Charge increased from £1,000 to £2,000 per improperly documented passenger on 1 August 1991.

  3 Of this sum, £13.514 million is currently the subject of settlement discussions.

  Football Violence
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Home Department (1) what evidence he has of the involvement of people associated with Combat 18 in the recent football riot in Dublin;

  (2) what investigation he has called for into the organised involvement of political extremists in the recent football violence in Dublin.

  Mr. Howard
  I understand from the police that they have no evidence that this violence was organised by Combat 18 or any other group of political extremists, although some of the individuals involved may have sympathies with such groups. Any further investigation is a matter for the police.

TREASURY

  VAT
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the return to the Treasury of value added tax on works, maintenance and repair of buildings for which listed building consent is required, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Information on expenditure on repairs and maintenance of listed buildings is not readily available.

  Sports Clubs
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will encourage clubs which supply sporting services, with particular reference to golf clubs, to take carefully into account the representations and interests of its past and present members when considering the application or distribution of any refunded VAT resulting from the VAT exemptions for supplies of certain sporting services for the period following 1 January 1990.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East 580
  (Mr. Butcher) on 27 February 1995, Official Report, column 409.

  National Lottery
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his current forecast of the revenue the Exchequer will receive from national lottery tax in the financial years(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In the financial year 1994–95, it is estimated that the Exchequer will receive £104 million from lottery duty. Receipts for 1995–96 are difficult to forecast because the national lottery instant game is due to start shortly. However, lottery duty receipts are included in a forecast yield of £1.2 billion for 1995–96 from all betting, gaming and lottery duties.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue has so far been received in lottery tax from the operators of the national lottery; and on what dates these payments were made.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The operator of the national lottery has made three payments of lottery duty. On 15 December 1995, the operator paid £11,629,122.72; on 16 January, £32,755,258.32; and on 15 February, £29,978,975.04. The total revenue so far received is £74,363,356.08.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what forecast he made of national lottery turnover in the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96 when he set the rate of lottery tax at 12 per cent.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  At the time the lottery duty rate was set at 12 per cent., the forecast for national lottery turnover was £1.5 billion for a full financial year. At that time it was not known when the national lottery would start to operate and no separate forecast was made for 1994–95.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what frequency operators of the national lottery are required to pay lottery tax.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The operator of the national lottery is required to pay lottery duty on the 15th of the month following the month in which the liability arises.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what benefit accrues to the Exchequer from the interest earned on sums due from the promoters of the national lottery in lottery tax but not paid until the due date.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There are no arrangements for the payment of interest to the Exchequer in relation to lottery duty.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what dates during the financial year 1994–95 the operators of the national lottery are required to pay lottery tax.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In the financial year 1994–95, the operator of the national lottery is required to make payments of lottery duty on 15 December, 13 January—15 January is a Sunday and payment should be made on the last working day before—15 February and 15 March.

  Pool Betting Duty
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what frequency football promoters are required to pay pool betting duty.
  581
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Pool betting duty is payable weekly on Thursday following the week, which ends on a Saturday, in which the liability for the duty arose. However, certain pools promoters have been granted an extension which allows them a further week before they are required to submit returns and payment.

  Monetary Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account the Government's monetary and exchange rate policies take of the role of the exchange rate as a market-clearing mechanism; and what assessment he has made of how the equilibrium rate is related to the current account of the balance of payments.

  Mr. Nelson
  Movements in the exchange rate are considered as part of the general assessment of monetary conditions in setting monetary policy. The current account of the balance of payments is affected by a large number of factors, including world trade, growth in United Kingdom export markets, export profit margins, domestic demand and competitiveness. The current account is only one of many factors which can affect the exchange rate.

  Consultants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1987, in 1994 prices, for his Department and its agencies; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 9 February 1995]: The cost of employing consultants in the years since 1991–92 at 1994 prices is shown in the table. Expenditure in earlier years and details of the level of savings, which are not held centrally, could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Value of Consultancy work (in 1994 prices) (in £million—excluding VAT)

  Year

  £ million

  1991–92

  10.70

  1992–93

  2.27

  1993–94

  5.90

  1994–95

  1.00

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the statutory instruments which his Department has sponsored in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: The information relating to the Treasury, for the 12-month period February 1994 to January 1995, is as follows:

  S.I. Number

  Title

  1994/188

  The Traded Securities (Disclosure) Regulations 1994

  1994/236

  The Distraint by Collectors (Fees. Costs and Charges) Regulations 1994

  1994/265

  The Trustee Investments (Additional Powers) Order 1994

  1994/343

  The Savings Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 1994

  582

  S.I. Number

  Title

  1994/350

  The Superannuation (Children's Pensions) (Earnings Limit) Order 1994

  1994/468

  The Acquisition of Land (Rate of Interest after Entry) Regulations 1994

  1994/469

  The Acquisition of Land (Rate of Interest after Entry) (Scotland) Regulations 1994

  1994/656

  The Building Societies (General Charge and Fees) Regulations 1994

  1994/657

  The Friendly Societies (General Charge and Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1994

  1994/658

  The Industrial and Provident Societies (Credit Unions) (Amendment of Fees) Regulations 1994

  1994/660

  The Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment of Fees) Regulations 1994

  1994/687

  The Value added Tax (Sport, Physical Education and Fund-raising Events) Order 1994

  1994/744

  The Telecommunications Act 1984 (Government Shareholding) Order 1994

  1994/776

  The Pensions Increase (Review) Order 1994

  1994/777

  The Income Tax (Replacement Cars) Regulation 1994

  1994/778

  The Income Tax (Car Benefits) (Replacement Accessories) Regulations 1994

  1994/955

  The Travellers' Allowances Order 1994

  1994/1188

  The Value Added Tax (Education) Order 1994

  1994/1257(c.22)

  The Finance Act 1994, Section 45, (Appointed Day) Order 1994

  1994/1307

  The Taxes (Interest Rate) (Amendment) Regulations 1994

  1994/1410

  The Free Zone (Southampton) Designation (Variation) Order 1994

  1994/1479

  The Income Tax (Definition of Unit Trust Scheme) (Amendment) Regulations 1994

  1994/1517

  The Financial Services Act 1986 (Miscellaneous Exemptions) Order 1994

  1994/1518

  The Private Medical Insurance (Disentitlement to Tax Relief and Approved Benefits) Regulations 1994

  1994/1567

  The Taxes (Interest Rate) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1994

  1994/1698

  The Insurance Premium Tax (Taxable Insurance Contracts) Order 1994

  1994/1819

  The Insurance Premium Tax (Prescribed Rates of Interest) Order 1994

  1994/1820

  The Air Passenger Duty (Prescribed Rates of Interest) Order 1994

  1994/1821

  The Air Passenger Duty (Connected Flights) Order 1994

  1994/1908

  The Trustee Investments (Additional Powers (No. 2) Order 1994

  1994/2216

  The Free Zone (Port of Tilbury) Designation (Variation) Order 1994

  1994/2508(c.50)

  The Finance Act 1989, Section 165(2), (Appointed Day) Order 1994

  1994/2509

  The Free Zone (Birmingham Airport) (Substitution of Responsible Authority) Order 1994

  1994/2542

  The Value Added Tax Act 1994 (Interest on Tax) (Prescribed Rate) Order 1994

  1994/2543(c.51)

  The Friendly Societies Act 1982 (Commencement No. 8) Order 1994

  1994/2656

  The Capital Gains Tax (Gilt-edged Securities) Order 1994

  1994/2657

  The Taxes (Interest Rate) (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 1994

  1994/2898

  The Free Zone (Port of Sheerness) Designation Order 1994

  1994/2904

  The Alcoholic Liquor Duties (Beer-Based Beverages) Order 1994

  1994/2905

  The Value Added Tax (Increase of Registration Limits) Order 1994

  583

  S I. Number

  Title

  1994/2969

  The Value Added Tax (Education) (No. 2) Order 1994

  1994/3009

  The Retirement Benefits Schemes (Indexation of Earnings Cap) Order 1994

  1994/3008

  The Capital Gains Tax (Annual Exempt Amount) Order 1994

  1994–3010

  The Income Tax (Cash Equivalents of Car Fuel Benefits) 1994

  1994/3011

  The Inheritance Tax (Indexation) Order 1994

  1994/3012

  The Income Tax (Indexation) Order 1994

  1994/3013

  The Value Added Tax (Buildings and Land) Order 1994

  1994/3014

  The Value Added Tax (Transport) Order 1994

  1994/3041

  The Excise Duty (Amendment of the Isle of Man Act 1979) Order 1994

  1994/3206

  The Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1994

  1994/3207

  The Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Estonia) Order 1994

  1994/3208

  The Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Isle of Man) Order 1994

  1994/3209

  The Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Guernsey) Order 1994

  1994/3210

  The Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Jersey) Order 1994

  1994/3211

  The Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Kazakhstan) Order 1994

  1994/3212

  The Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Mexico) Order 1994

  1994/3213

  The Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Russian Federation) Order 1994

  1994/3214

  The Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Estates of Deceased Persons and Inheritances) (Switzerland) Order 1994

  1994/3215

  The Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Switzerland) Order 1994

  1994/3216

  The Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Vietnam) Order 1994

  1994/3218

  The Value Added Tax (Means of Transport) Order 1994

  1994/3224(c.79)

  The Finance Act 1993, Section 165, (Appointed Day) Order 1994

  1994/3225(c.80)

  The Finance Act 1994, Chapter II of Part IV, (Appointed Day) Order 1994

  1994/3226

  The Exchange Gains and Losses (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 1994

  1994/3227

  The Exchange Gains and Losses (Alternative Method of Calculation of Gain and Loss) Regulations 1994

  1994/3228

  The Exchange Gains and Losses (Deferral of Gains and Losses) Regulations 1994

  1994/3229

  The Exchange Gains and Losses (Excess Gains and Losses) Regulation 1994

  1994/3230

  The Local Currency Elections Regulations 1994

  1994/3231

  The Exchange Gains and Losses (Insurance Companies) Regulations 1994

  1994/3232

  The Exchange Gains and Losses (Debts of Varying Amounts) Regulations 1994

  1994/3233

  The Currency Contracts and Options (Amendment of Enactments) Order 1994

  1994/3277

  The National Savings Stock Register (Amendment) Regulation 1994

  1994/3278

  The Overseas Life Assurance Fund (Amendment) Order

  1995/201

  The Public Supply Contracts Regulations 1995

  1995/171

  The Friendly Societies (Taxation of Transfers of Business) Regulations 1995

  Child Pornography
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has concerning the 584
  number of occasions in each of the last five years upon which Her Majesty's Customs and Excise officers investigated individuals returning from overseas in connection with the possible import of child pornography; and in how many of these cases prosecutions resulted.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 28 February 1995]: The information requested is not available in that form. Centrally collated statistics for the period prior to 1993–94 do not disaggregate Customs investigations into offences concerning indecent or obscene paedophile material from those concerning illicit importations of other obscene material. Furthermore, the statistics for 1993–94 onwards refer to all investigations of importations of paedophile material, including postal importations.

  Between 1 April 1993 and the current date the following numbers of individuals have been investigated by officers of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in connection with suspected importation of indecent or obsence paedophile material, child pornography.

  April 1993—March 1994: 70

  April 1994—current date: 79

  Of these, the following numbers have had proceedings instituted against them.

  April 1993—March 1994: 34

  April 1994—current date: 14

HEALTH

  Health Authority Funding
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the funding available for(a) Barking and Havering health authority, (b) Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority, (c) City and East London health authority and (d) Newham under the new capitation based funding formula and the previous funding formula.

  Mr. Sackville
  Weighted capitation formulae are used to set capitation targets and so inform, but not determine, the amount of funding made available to health authorities.

  For 1995–96 the modified national weighted capitation formula has been used to set targets for regional health authorities. However it is for North Thames RHA to determine both its own sub-regional formula and how much funding is to be made available to its district health authorities. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir William Staveley, the chairman of North Thames regional health authority, for details.

  Sir Duncan Nicol
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the pensions and severance payments made to Sir Duncan Nichol when he left the NHS executive.

  Mr. Sackville
  Sir Duncan Nichol has been seconded to the national health service executive by Mersey regional health authority and on expiry of the secondment he was made redundant by the RHA. He received the benefits due to him under the NHS pension scheme after more than 30 years' service to the NHS—a superannuation lump sum and an annual pension—and statutory redundancy compensation. No other payments were made.

  GP's Pay
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the average tabular index of deprivation since used in the payment of general practitioners for each family health services authority in order of deprivation, and the average figure for all of them.

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply Under-Secretary of State my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), gave to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) on 20 July 1994, columns 355–57.

  NHS Overseas Enterprises
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the gross administrative costs of NHS overseas enterprises in each year since 1990, together with any offsetting income.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is shown in the table:

  £000

  Year

  National health services overseas enterprises Administrative costs

  National health services overseas enterprises Total sales

  1990–91

  529

  1,000

  1991–92

  367

  1,176

  1992–93

  377

  1,127

  1993–94

  371

  1,600

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a list of the projects and their value together with the sponsoring NHS provider of projects(a) committed and (b) commenced under the auspices or as a result of the intervention of NHS overseas enterprises since 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  National health service overseas enterprises uses a database of some 800 professional staff from NHS trusts and health authorities to provide under contract both student training for overseas health care organisations and consultancy support for overseas health care projects.

  Since 1990, with help from 32 NHS hospitals and health authorities, it has trained some 240 students from five countries, predominantly in the technician grades, at a total contract value of about £1.7 million. In addition, it has completed or is involved in 41 other projects in 17 countries with a contract value of around £2.5 million, and involving some 40 NHS hospitals and health authorities.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether NHS overseas enterprises insures, or indemnifies, losses from cost overruns, defaults, or payments not received for projects under the auspices of NHS overseas enterprises; and how often such overruns or defaults have occurred since 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  National health service overseas enterprises does not insure or indemnify against losses or bad debts. In the period form 1990–91 to 1993–94, its provision for bad debt, and the extent of write off, were as follows:586

  year

  Bad debt provision £

  Bad debts written off £

  1990–91

  Nil

  Nil

  1991–92

  Nil

  1,151

  1992–93

  Nil

  Nil

  1993–94

  10,000

  Nil

  Family Policies
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how often since 8 December 1994 Ministers have met to examine the impact of Government policies as a whole on the family; how often Ministers will be meeting for this purpose; and what assessment she has made of the outcomes to date.

  Mr. Bowis
  Frequently. Such meetings contribute to overall policy making. they are not assessed in the way described.

  NHS Computer Costs
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS total computer costs are spent on(a) clinical information and (b) financial information required for the internal market.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  GPs' Hours
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent consultation she has had with colleagues regarding the effects of stress on general practitioners with particular reference to working long hours.

  Mr. Malone
  I meet frequently with colleagues to discuss the terms and conditions of service of general medical practitioners.

  HIV Education
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has for further HIV education development within the community.

  Mr. Sackville
  Fundamental to the United Kingdom's success in limiting the spread of HIV infection is community based education projects. The Government will continue to support a great range of initiatives, developed by health and local authorities to meet the needs of their resident populations in places of education, work and recreation. Such projects are also supported by the community-based sexual health programme at the Health Education Authority. Some £49.6 million will be available next year through the national health service for HIV prevention of which about half will be used purely on public education.

  Training for Life Initiative
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding is available for the ACET—AIDS, care, education and training—training for life initiative.
  587
  Mr. Sackville
  A grant of £20,000 was awarded in 1994 to ACET as a contribution to the development and distribution of its training for life initiative which provides sex education training for schools. This was in addition to the Department of Health's direct funding of £150,000 towards the administrative costs of providing home care services.

  Illegal Employment of Children
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were(a) prosecuted and (b) convicted for offences relating to the employment of children for the last year that figures are available.

  Mr. Bowis
  I understand that the number of people prosecuted and convicted under the relevant statutory provisions were as shown in the table.

  England and Wales: 1993

  Offence description/legislation

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Offences against the Education Act 1944 Secs 58 to 60 including offences against byelaws as to the employment of children (except offences relating to Mines, Factories or Workshops)1

  2

  1

  Offences in connection with employment of children and young persons. Children and Young Persons Act 1933 Sees 18 to 21 (Section 18 as amended by the Children Act 1972)

  5

  4

  Offences in connection with the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 19202

  1

  1

  Source:

  1 Home Office, year beginning January 1993.

  2 Health and Safety Executive, year beginning April 1993.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) inspections and (b) investigations were made into alleged offences relating to the employment of children in the last year that figures are available.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dental practices per region took NHS patients in 1992: what was the number in the last year for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is shown in the table:

  General Dental Services: number of dentists who had additions to their register for 31 December 1992 and 1994: England

  Number of dentists who had additions to their register by year

  Regions

  1992

  1994

  England

  15,295

  15,217

  Northern

  883

  889

  Yorkshire

  1,158

  1,142

  Trent

  1,283

  1,308

  East Anglia

  619

  622

  North West Thames

  1,511

  1,508

  588

  General Dental Services: number of dentists who had additions to their register for 31 December 1992 and 1994: England

  Number of dentists who had additions to their register by year

  Regions

  1992

  1994

  North East Thames

  1,314

  1,315

  South East Thames

  1,392

  1,374

  South West Thames

  1,298

  1,300

  Wessex

  1,005

  990

  Oxford

  861

  842

  South Western

  1,248

  1,237

  West Midlands

  1,427

  1,443

  Mersey

  773

  773

  North Western

  1,289

  1,278

  Source:

  Dental Practice Board.

  Notes:

  1. Additions to the register include instances of patients reregistering with a dentist after a break in attendance and instances of reinstatement of registrations that have been cancelled in error.

  2. Some dentists have contracts with more than one family health services authority. Dentists have been counted only once in the region which contains the family health services authority where the dentist does the majority of his/her work.

  3. Regions were redefined from 1 April 1994; the previous regions have been used for both 1992 and 1994 to enable comparability.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been deregistered from their dentist since 1992 in each family health services authority area.

  Mr. Malone
  This information will be placed in the Library.

  Welfare of Partners
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what financial and general welfare protection is ensured by the Government for the partners of seriously ill people; and if she will make a statement.

  (2) what assessment Her Majesty's Government have made of the effects to the financial status, health, employment and general welfare of partners of the long-term seriously ill; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  This would depend on their circumstances. A wide range of support is available for those in need, ranging from the benefits system to community care and health respite support.

ENVIRONMENT

  Energy Efficiency Campaigns
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library the work presented to his Department by BRMB International on the changes in public knowledge, attitudes and intended energy saving behaviour brought about by the Helping the Earth Begins at Home advertising campaign.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Yes. A copy of BRMB's report on the completed campaign will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State if he will place in the Library the findings presented to his Department by NOP on the Wasting Energy Costs the Earth advertising campaign.
  589
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Wasting Energy Costs the Earth campaign, launched in October last year, is due to run until March 1996 and NOP will report on its completion.

  Pop Festivals
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment under what legislation councillers on the Isle of Wight are liable for surcharging for refusing to license pop festivals.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Local authorities have discretionary powers to licence pop festivals under the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. Councillors who exercise their discretion by refusing to licence pop festivals would be liable to surcharge only if the authority's appointed auditor decided to take action under section 19 or section 20 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. Under these provisions, the auditor may seek to recover, by surcharge of those responsible, any financial loss sustained by the authority as a result of illegal action or wilful misconduct by officers or members of the authority.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he expects that the United Kingdom will meet its commitment under the current convention on climate change to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2000 on current policies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  We remain fully committed to meeting the requirements of the climate change convention. We are reviewing progress under our current climate change programme and will make an announcement shortly.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to issue a public consultation document on detailed proposals for legislation to implement the Latham report.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Shortly.

  Home Ownership
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet the Council of Mortgage Lenders to discuss(a) prospects for home ownership and (b) the impact of current Government policies.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Ministers in this Department have regular meetings and contacts with the Council of Mortgage Lenders. No dates have yet been set for any future meetings.

  Westminster City Council
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Audit Commission concerning the resources available to the district auditor of Westminster city council, with particular reference to the possible need for additional resources.
  590
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  None. This is not a matter for the Government. It is for the appointed auditor to determine what resources he needs.

  Planning Application Appeals
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about appeals T/APP/C1435/A/90/161862/P3 and 161951/P3 against refusal of planning applications Nos. WD/87/3410/P and WD/89/1441/P made by Mr. F. M. Wood; if Mr. Wood had complied with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, with special reference to sections 27 and 36; if these appeals were valid; and if the use of the words "perspective purchaser" on form PA1 invalidated or prejudiced the planning applications or subsequent appeals in any way.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Responsibility for these appeals has been delegated to the Planning Inspectorate executive agency under its chief executive, Mr. C. J. Shepley. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. Greenfield to Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, dated 28 February 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked the Chief Executive, Mr. Shepley, to reply to your question about the validity of the appeals made by Mr. F. M. Wood in respect of applications WD/87/3410/P and WD/89/1441/P. As Mr. Shepley is currently away from the office, I am replying.As you know, the relevant appeals were dismissed by the Inspector on 10 May 1991. Before responding to the substance of your question, we need to recover the appeal files from our archives.I will see that a considered reply is sent as soon as possible.

  Environment Agency
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to which sectors of industry would incur financial costs if the duty to further nature conservation were extended to the pollution control functions of the Environment Agency; what is his estimate of those costs; and what costs are currently imposed by the duty to have regard to nature conservation.

  Mr. Atkins
  The costs to regulated organisations of either a qualified duty on the Environment Agency to further conservation or an unqualified duty on it to have regard to conservation will depend upon the way in which the duty is discharged in practice. In either case they will depend upon judgments to be made by the agency as to what is reasonable in the particular circumstances. However whereas a duty to have regard to the desirability of conservation applies to all cases, a qualified furtherance duty would not apply to those cases falling within the terms of the qualifications. This may be uncertain and difficult to establish in relation to pollution control functions.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the purpose of the Environment Agency.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government issued on 17 January a draft outline showing the scope of the statutory guidance Ministers propose to issue on the agency's aims and objectives, including a proposed principal aim for the agency to help to promote sustainable development through high quality, integrated environmental protection, management and enhancement.

  Sustainable Development
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the key principles of sustainable development.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to "The UK's Strategy for Sustainable Development", Cm 2426, chapter 3.

  Local Authorities (Companies)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on his proposals for local authority participation in companies and for amending the capital finance regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales have received some 180 representations on our proposed order under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, including requests to exercise our powers under that Act to exempt specific local authority companies from our proposals and about 40 representations on our proposed amendments to the capital finance regulations. Having regard to these representations, we have concluded that it would be right to allow certain exemptions and to make certain technical modifications, including making special transitional provisions, to our originally proposed order, and to make some amendments to the regulations.

  I have arranged for copies of a revised draft order and regulations, including those modifications, together with explanatory guides and a statement of our current intentions on exemptions, to be placed in the Library of the House. Department of the Environment and Welsh Office officials are continuing to discuss the detail of the draft order and regulations with the local authority associations, and we shall be considering further the applications received from individual authorities for exemptions. It is our intention to make the order and regulations by 1 April 1995.

TRANSPORT

  QE2 (Safety)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 20 February,Official Report, column 3, which agency was responsible for refusing the Queen Elizabeth 2 permission to sail from New York in December 1994 until further works had been undertaken on the vessel.

  Mr. Norris
  The requirements of both the Marine Safety Agency and the United States coast guard resulted in a delay to the departure of the Queen Elizabeth 2 from New York.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 20 February,Official Report, column 3, what discussions were held between the Marine Safety Agency and US authorities regarding the fitness of the Queen Elizabeth 2 to sail from New York in December 1994; what advice was received from the US authorities; and what action was taken as a result.

  Mr. Norris
  The Marine Safety Agency maintained a professional dialogue with the United States coast guard when they boarded the ship in New York. Both agencies 592
  advised the owners that further work was necessary before departure and action was taken to comply with these requirements.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 20 February,Official Report, column 3, what was the precise nature of the work which the Marine Safety Agency required to be undertaken to the Queen Elizabeth 2 before the vessel was allowed to leave New York in December 1994.

  Mr. Norris
  As I explained in my previous answer on 20 February 1994,Official Report, column 3, the work which had been delayed due to heavy weather during the crossing had to be completed. This included materials being removed from the restricted access areas of the ship.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 20 February,Official Report, column 3, what breaches of the safety of life at sea convention were identified on the QE2 (a) during the vessel's voyage to New York in December 1994 and (b) whilst in New York in December 1994.

  Mr. Norris
  The ship had work outstanding on sailing from Southampton, some of which was SOLAS related. For this reason, a certificate was issued for a reduced number of passengers, subject to special provisions and procedures being in place during the voyage.

  Humber Bridge
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement regarding the outstanding debt on the Humber bridge; and what proposals he envisages to repay the debt.

  Mr. Watts
  The debt currently stands at £435 million. Primary legislation will be needed to write off or suspend debt which cannot be serviced from toll revenue.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for privatising the Humber bridge.

  Mr. Watts
  There are no present proposals to privatise the Humber bridge.

  Leicester Western Bypass
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what estimate he has made of the daily number of vehicles which will use the Leicester western bypass when it is opened; what are the expected flow rates in each direction; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter form Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated I March 1995:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about forecast daily traffic flows on the A46 Leicester Western Bypass, which is currently under construction.
  In line with current practice, we have calculated traffic flows based on high and low economic growth and other factors. For each

  593
  section of the bypass the forecast annual average daily traffic flow in each direction, at opening, ranges between:

  17,500–19,000 vehicles: M1 Junction 21A to A50

  19,000–20,500 vehicles: A50 to B5327

  13,000–14,000 vehicles: B5327 to A6

  11,000–12,000 vehicles: A6 to A46

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the level of investment by British Rail in each year since 1979 on(a) the rail network excluding the channel tunnel and (b) the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Watts
  British Rail has not invested in the channel tunnel. Investment in infrastructure and rolling stock to run international services through the tunnel is shown in the table, together with investment on the existing railway.

  Existing railway £ million cash

  EPS and channel tunnel freight £ million cash

  Total £ million cash

  1979

  367

  —

  367

  1980

  431

  —

  431

  1981

  409

  —

  409

  1982

  378

  —

  378

  1983

  439

  —

  439

  1984–851

  596

  —

  596

  1985–86

  550

  —

  550

  1986–87

  543

  —

  543

  1987–88

  693

  —

  693

  1988–89

  723

  5

  728

  1989–90

  865

  27

  892

  1990–91

  869

  178

  1,047

  1991–92

  969

  350

  1,319

  1992–93

  955

  521

  1,476

  1993–94

  650

  515

  1,165

  1 Fifteen month year due to change from calendar year accounting to financial year accounting.

  Road Maintenance (Delays)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessments he has made of the delays to motorists arising from(a) structural maintenance of roads and (b) bridge strengthening and replacement.

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Joan Walley, dated 1 March 1995:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Transport what assessments he has made of the delays to motorists arising from structural maintenance of roads and bridge strengthening and replacement.As this is an operational matter for the Highways Agency, I have been asked to reply.The Highways Agency is committed to keeping the duration of schemes and the amount of delay they cause to a minimum, and is developing arrangements for monitoring performance.Our most recent assessment is that the cost of these delays to road users on motorways is in the order of £600m per year. We do not have equivalent figures for other types of road.

  Roadside Wages (Wildlife)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to encourage wildlife habitats on roadside verges.

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Elliot Morley, dated 1 March 1995:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the measures taken to encourage wildlife habitats on roadside verges.Since 1962 a substantial estate has been established alongside the trunk road network a large part of which is woodland or scrub. This significant area of woodland is now proving valuable for nature conservation. It links existing patterns of vegetation and often complements severed woodlands and forests adjoining the road. The species used are predominantly native and the land suffers little human disturbance. This has allowed natural colonisation by some of our rarest wildflowers which is now complemented by the selective sowing and planting of areas with wildflowers.The practice of planting roadside verges with wildflowers has formed part of the landscape treatment of roads since the mid-1980s and our motorways are increasingly becoming nature reserves in their own right. For example, 384 species of wild flora have been identified along the M1 between London and Leeds. They include rare species as well as 54 species of grass.Effective maintenance will ensure that the landscape and other environmental mitigation objectives are achieved and maintained throughout the life of the scheme. Maintenance is timed to avoid nesting and breeding seasons and glades and rides are created in solid woodland blocks. Where opportunities permit, balancing ponds and watercourses can be managed to create a mosaic of wildlife habitat. Trees, shrubs and wildflowers which fail to establish are removed and replaced and dominant species such as gorse which can stifle the growth of other species is controlled by cutting. The spread of weeds such as docks and ragwort (which is poisonous to livestock) is prevented by cutting or in some circumstances through the selective use of herbicides. To bring trees to maturity in a well-formed, stable and healthy manner periodic thinning will take place, removing those trees which were either planted as nurse crops or are preventing the natural growth of other trees within a planted area. In many cases the wood derived from this process is recycled to provide mulch for new planting.Specific measures taken to encourage wildlife onto roadside verges include work on the A27 Brighton Bypass. On this scheme the use of plant species which attract the Chalkhill Blue is helping to preserve this rare species of butterfly. This work has won an award from Butterfly Conservation, and other measures to preserve butterflies are being planned throughout the country.These examples of work are aimed at the protection of individual species, but much of the work that is implemented is directed at preserving areas of habitat which support a wide range of species. Examples include M1-A1 link road relocation of a wetland site; A31 Ferndown Bypass restoration of heathland SSS1; A361 North Devon Link Road restoration of moorland and re-creation of ponds; and M3 Winchester restoration of chalk Downland. Innovative techniques have been used in all these cases and long term monitoring is underway to help inform future work of a similar nature.We also take measures to deter wildlife from straying onto roads. These include protective measures such as bird and bat boxes, toad and frog tunnels, special fencing for badgers and deer and the construction of otter holts. We also divert and maintain watercourses during construction to prevent stagnation. Rescue plans for dormice have also been implemented, new ponds created for great crested newts and butterfly habitats have been recreated.Advice on the best measures to be taken to encourage wildlife habitats on roadside verges is obtained from English Nature and other conservation bodies and has been incorporated in Volume 10 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges which is available from the House of Commons Library.

  Radioactive Materials
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now intends to introduce regulations arising from the radioactive materials (Road Transport) Act 1991.

  Mr. Norris
  Regulations should be laid before the House in May.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what efficiency savings he has made in respect of the radioactive material transportation division.

  Mr. Norris
  A higher executive officer post has been given up, with estimated savings of £4,500 in the current financial year and £26,000 in 1995–96.

  Joint Aviation Requirements
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions during the last four years the joint aviation requirements—JAR-OPS 1—now being promulgated by the CAA as alternatives to or as an elaboration for, an air navigation order have been subject to the normal parliamentary process in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Redundancies
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff have left British Rail since January 1993 under redundancy or early retirement arrangements; and what has been the total cost of payments made to staff leaving the industry.

  Mr. Watts
  For the period from 1 January 1993 to 31 January 1995, 19,183 employees left British Rail under voluntary redundancy or special severance terms, at a cost of some £377 million.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the departmental preparation and supervision costs in trunk roads in England 1994 review, in respect of the proposed Birmingham northern relief road;

  (2) how much his Department has spent to date on the administration of the public inquiry into the proposed Birmingham northern relief road; and how much he expects to spend by the time the inquiry is completed;

  (3) how much his Department expects to spend on the compulsory purchase of land and property to make way for the proposed Birmingham northern relief road.

  Mr. Watts
  These are operational matters for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Joan Walley, dated I March 1995:
  You asked the Secretary of State for information on the Department's costs in respect of the Birmingham Northern Relief Road (BNRR).The Highways Agency expects to spend in the order of £25 million acquiring land compulsorily for the construction of BNRR. This land would remain in the ownership of the Department, who would lease it to Midland Expressway Ltd for the duration of their Concession. The road itself will revert to the Department when the concession expires.The preparation and supervision costs for this scheme referred to in the Trunk Roads in England 1994 Review relate to costs incurred
  596
  by the Department in selecting the private sector promoter and negotiating the Concession Agreement. In addition, there are costs associated with carrying out certain statutory functions during the planning stage and the fees of consultants engaged to assist with the Department's supervision of the project. To date these costs amount to about £5.0 million.You also asked how much the Department had spent to date on the administration of the public inquiry and the likely outturn costs. To date we have spent around £700,000 which includes fees, venue costs, the cost of servicing the inquiry and staff costs. We expect spend to continue at about £20,000 per week until the inquiry ends some time in the summer.

  WALES

    Non-departmental Public Bodies (Delegated Pay)
    Mr. McAllion
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which will(a) follow the pay arrangements of the sponsoring Department and (b) pursue an independent and separate route under the delegated pay option (i) from April 1995 and (ii) from April 1996.

    Mr. Redwood
    NDPBs in Wales operate a variety of pay systems. Where these are currently linked to national civil service pay settlements, it will be for the management in each NDPB concerned to develop and bring forward proposals for new pay arrangements to operate following the delegation of civil service pay to departments and agencies and in the absence of national pay settlements from April 1996.

    Civil Servants (Fast Stream)
    Mrs. Maddock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of those accepted for fast-stream entry for which his Department is responsible(a) in 1991, (b) 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994 were women.

    Mr. Redwood
    The information for 1991 and 1992 is published in the Civil Service Commissioners' reports, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

    For 1993 and 1994 the information is as follows:

    Total number of fast-stream entrants

    Number who were women

    1993

    2

    1

    1994

    6

    1

    Modern Apprenticeship Scheme
    Mr. Ron Davies
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which sectors the modern apprenticeship scheme will cover in 1995–96; and what funding he will make available for the scheme.

    Mr. Redwood
    I intend making over £6 million available to fund modern apprenticeships in 1995–96. My Department is currently in discussions with the training and enterprise councils to determine those sectors to which modern apprenticeships will be extended to meet the needs of the local economy, though a strong emphasis on manufacturing engineering will continue.

    Compulsory Competitive Tendering
    Mr. Ron Davies
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the value in today's prices of work contracted out by compulsory competitive tendering from local authorities; and how much has been won in value and in percentage terms by(a) the private sector and (b) in-house bids indicating when they were permitted to bid and giving the number of bids involved.

    Mr. Redwood
    This information is not held centrally.

    NCM
    Mr. Michael
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he intends to take to facilitate the smooth transition of NCM from Crown offices in Cathays park, Cardiff, to new offices in Cardiff bay.

    Mr. Redwood
    My Department is not directly responsible for the arrangements to move NCM out of Cathays park. However, my officials are in contact with the company and we will do anything we reasonably can to assist them within the constraints imposed by our own operational and budgetary requirements.

    Market Testing
    Mr. Ron Davies
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the value in today's prices of work contracted out from his Department through market testing; how much has been won by the private sector and how much has been won by the public sector if permitted to bid; and what is the total number of contracts in each category.

    Mr. Redwood
    Details of the value of the three contracts awarded as a result of market testing during 1992–93 and 1993–94 are as follows:

    Service

    Public/Private sector

    Total contract value

    Building maintenance management

    Private sector

    Fee based call-off contract. Actual cost for first year, 1993–94, was £24,191, excluding VAT

    Staff training

    Private sector

    Total not available. Part call-off contract. Fee for 3 year non-call of element £286,750, excluding VAT.

    Catering services

    Public sector when contract let

    Costs dependent on turnover. Actual cost for first year, 1992–93, was £76,000, excluding VAT.

    Mr. Ron Davies
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the cost of today's prices of the compulsory competitive tendering and market-testing programme.

    Mr. Redwood
    The costs for each of the years 1992–93 and 1993–94 for market testing is £360,000 if costs are annualised over the accepted investment appraisal period for central Government of 10 years, compared with the expected annual savings of £1.65 million.

    Motorways
    Mr. Murphy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many miles of motorway are currently(a) open in Wales, (b) under construction in Wales and (c) planned in Wales, either (i) as new motorway or (ii) as existing motorway being widened.

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    Seventy-eight miles of motorway are open. A further 4.4 miles and 14 miles of new motorway are under construction and planned respectively. Twelve miles of existing motorway are to be widened.

    Gas Works Sites
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what information he has on remedial decontamination work undertaken at former gas works sites in Wales;

    (2) how many abandoned former gas works sites there are in Wales.

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    The survey of contaminated land sites in Wales published by the Welsh Office in 1988 identified 76 former or existing gas works sites in Wales. A number of these have been or are being decontaminated under the Welsh Development Agency's land reclamation programme. British Gas also has its own programme of works to survey and treat gasworks sites in its ownership which might give rise to off-site contamination.

    Dioxins Report
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to(a) publicise the existence and (b) make available to those organisations and communities in Wales known to be concerned with dioxin pollution, copies of the Government report on the United Kingdoms—comments on the United States Environmental Protection Agency's external review draft reassessment of dioxins, issued in January.

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    On 25 January my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment announced the publication of the United Kingdom's response to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's draft report on dioxins. Since publication the Department of the Environment have distributed copies to a wide range of interests. Other interested organisations in Wales can obtain copies on request either from the Welsh Office or from the Department of the Environment.

    Bowel Cancer
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what plans he has to introduce a screening system to identify bowel cancer before it spreads beyond the bowel wall.

    Mr. Richards
    None. The Government's screening policy seeks to ensure that a national screening programme is introduced only if research has shown it to be effective and affordable. The benefits provided by screening must also outweigh any disadvantages. These criteria are not met in respect of screening the whole population for bowel cancer.

    Prostate Cancer
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to introduce an early diagnosis service for prostate cancer assessment following the trial evaluation programme of a selective screening system recently conducted in Gwent.

    Mr. Richards
    Although the trial evaluation in Gwent has now ended, I understand that publication of the findings is not expected until the end of the year. The Welsh Office has not been informed of the results, but will consider them when they are made available.

    Public Appointments
    Mr. Ron Davies
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the appointments he has made to non-departmental public bodies and NHS trusts since 1 March 1994.

    Mr. Redwood
    All current appointments made by me, including those made since 1 March 1994, are listed in "Appointments made by the Secretary of State for Wales". This document is updated quarterly and is available in the Library of the House.

  SCOTLAND

    Road Accidents
    Mr. Foulkes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the accident and fatal accident figures for each year since 1990, and any months of 1995 currently available for each stretch of A77, A74 and A96 and for the whole of each road, on a directly comparable basis.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    The information requested is given in the tables:

    Route: A77

    Section: Stranraer to Ayr

    Length km.: 83.18

    Personal injury accidents

    Year

    Fatal

    Serious

    Slight

    Total

    Section accident rate

    1990

    0

    20

    45

    65

    0.43

    1991

    3

    19

    33

    55

    0.37

    1992

    6

    24

    47

    77

    0.51

    1993

    3

    18

    39

    60

    0.40

    1994

    0

    26

    48

    74

    0.49

    Route: A77

    Section: Ayr to Glasgow City Boundary

    Length km.: 46.70

    Personal injury accidents

    Year

    Fatal

    Serious

    Slight 75

    Total

    Section accident rate

    1990

    8

    27

    75

    110

    0.29

    1991

    8

    29

    75

    112

    0.29

    1992

    5

    31

    72

    108

    0.28

    1993

    3

    18

    64

    85

    0.22

    1994

    3

    22

    57

    82

    0.21

    600

    Route: A77

    Section: Stranraer to Glasgow City Boundary (Whole Trunk Road)

    Length km.: 129.88

    Personal injury accidents

    Year

    Fatal

    Serious

    Slight

    Total

    Section accident rate

    1990

    8

    47

    120

    175

    0.46

    1991

    11

    48

    108

    167

    0.43

    1992

    11

    55

    119

    185

    0.48

    1993

    6

    36

    103

    145

    0.38

    1994

    3

    48

    105

    156

    0.41

    Route: A77

    Section: Within Glasgow City Boundary

    Length kms.: 6.00

    Personal injury accidents

    Year

    Fatal

    Serious

    Slight

    Total

    Section accident rate

    1990

    0

    16

    83

    99

    1.76

    1991

    1

    28

    65

    94

    1.67

    1992

    0

    21

    57

    78

    1.38

    1993

    0

    14

    50

    64

    1.13

    1994

    0

    20

    42

    62

    1.10

    Route: A74/A74(M)

    Section: National Boundary to Millbank1

    Length km.: 92.16

    Personal injury accidents

    Year

    Fatal

    Serious

    Slight

    Total

    Section accident rate

    1990

    8

    31

    67

    106

    0.14

    1991

    4

    31

    76

    111

    0.15

    1992

    8

    26

    55

    89

    0.12

    1993

    7

    24

    50

    81

    0.11

    1994

    1

    21

    37

    59

    0.08

    1 The construction work related to the upgrading of the A74 to motorway has been under way during the period covered making separation of individual dual and motorway sections impractical.

    Route: M74

    Section: Millbank to Maryville

    Length km.: 35.83

    Personal injury accidents

    Year

    Fatal

    Serious

    Slight

    Total

    Section accident rate

    1990

    1

    10

    22

    33

    0.08

    1991

    4

    9

    23

    36

    0.09

    1992

    0

    11

    26

    37

    0.09

    1993

    1

    8

    20

    29

    0.07

    1994

    1

    9

    43

    53

    0.13

    Route: A74/M74

    Section: National Boundary to Maryville (Whole Trunk Road)

    Length km.: 127.99

    Personal injury accidents

    Year

    Fatal

    Serious

    Slight

    Total

    Section accident rate

    1990

    9

    41

    89

    139

    0.12

    1991

    8

    40

    99

    147

    0.13

    1992

    8

    37

    81

    126

    0.11

    1993

    8

    32

    70

    110

    0.09

    1994

    2

    30

    80

    112

    0.10

    601

    Route: A96

    Section: Aberdeen to Fochabers

    Length km.: 85.63

    Personal injury accidents

    Year

    Fatal

    Serious

    Slight

    Total

    Section accident rate

    1990

    7

    20

    80

    107

    0.40

    1991

    3

    26

    58

    87

    0.33

    1992

    3

    28

    71

    102

    0.39

    1993

    2

    19

    65

    86

    0.33

    1994

    5

    16

    52

    73

    0.28

    Route: A96

    Section: Aberdeen to Fochabers

    Length km.: 85.63

    Personal injury accidents

    Year

    Fatal

    Serious

    Slight

    Total

    Section accident rate

    1990

    7

    20

    80

    107

    0.40

    1991

    3

    26

    58

    87

    0.33

    1992

    3

    28

    71

    102

    0.39

    1993

    2

    19

    65

    86

    0.33

    1994

    5

    16

    52

    73

    0.28

    Route: A96

    Section: Fochabers to Inverness

    Length km.: 73.01

    Personal injury accidents

    Year

    Fatal

    Serious

    Slight

    Total

    Section accident rate

    1990

    3

    15

    54

    72

    0.24

    1991

    3

    22

    52

    77

    0.26

    1992

    6

    13

    56

    75

    0.25

    1993

    4

    13

    47

    64

    0.21

    1994

    2

    12

    42

    56

    0.19

    Route: A96

    Section: Aberdeen to Inverness (Whole Trunk Road)

    Length km: 158.63

    Personal injury accidents

    Year

    Fatal

    Serious

    Slight

    Total

    Section accident rate

    1990

    10

    35

    134

    179

    0.32

    1991

    6

    48

    110

    164

    0.29

    1992

    9

    41

    127

    177

    0.31

    1993

    6

    32

    112

    150

    0.27

    1994

    7

    28

    94

    129

    0.23

    Note:

    1 The accident rates shown in all the tables are expressed in numbers of personal injury accidents per million vehicle kilometres travelled. The traffic flows are estimated from sample counts taken at specific sites and updated annually using national growth factors.

    Vocational Qualifications
    Mrs. Golding
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to(a) promote and (b) fund the Scottish vocational qualification in child care and education.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    A national television and press advertising campaign to promote SVQs and other vocational qualifications will be conducted in Scotland during March and April this year. A second phase of the campaign is planned for later in the year.

    Some £1.2 million has been given to the Scottish Vocational Education Council by the Scottish Office in
    602
    the current financial year for the Scottish vocational qualification development programme, which includes the child care and education sector.

    Paisley Gilmour Street Railway Station
    Mr. McMaster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the appropriate officials of the relevant authorities to discuss making Paisley Gilmour Street railway station accessible to disabled people, including wheelchair users; and if he will make a statement.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    Paisley Gilmour Street railway station is owned by Railtrack and operated by the Strathclyde passenger transport executive. I have no plans, at present, to meet officials of either body. However, I understand that Railtrack has a scheme under consideration to refurbish the station, which will include the provision of lifts to the platforms and for the building of a subway to Sneddon street.

    Gemini Housing Association
    Mr. Michael J. Martin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if Gemini is registered with Scottish Homes as a bona fide housing association;

    (2) what assessment he has made of the consistency with the code of conduct of Gemini distributing a newsletter to current Scottish Homes' tenants prior to formal registration of interest;

    (3) if Gemini's financial packages for each ballot area will be appraised on a mutually exclusive basis, in direct competition with each of the alternative landlords;

    (4) what is the full postal address of the Scottish Homes' office in the east end of Glasgow;

    (5) how much and in what manner Scottish Homes is resourcing the Gemini hid;

    (6) if Gemini is submitting stand-alone viable financial packages for each ballot area.

    (7) what assessment he has made of the viability of Gemini as an organisation capable of attracting private funding if it is unsuccessful in a substantial proportion of its bids for balloted housing stock from Scottish Homes;

    (8) what is the full postal address of Gemini housing Association.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    The information requested is a matter for Scottish Homes. I have asked its chairman, Sir James Mellon, to write to the hon. Member.

    Community Education Service
    Mr. McMaster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will make a statement on the value of the community education service in Strathclyde region.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    I attach considerable importance to the work of the community education service throughout Scotland, as an integral part of the statutory provision for education made by local authorities. Total expenditure on community education by local authorities in Scotland in 1992–93 was almost £79 million, including over £37 million by Strathclyde region.

    Royal Scottish National Hospital and Community NHS Trust
    Mr. Gallie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial arrangements are being made for the Royal
    603
    Scottish national hospital and community NHS trust which was dissolved on 30 September 1994.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    Pursuant to the dissolution of the Royal Scottish national hospital and community NHS trust, on 30 September 1994, and its reconfiguration with Forth Valley Healthcare a directly managed unit, as Central Scotland Healthcare NHS trust on 1 October 1994, my right hon. Friend proposes to create new originating capital debt for the new trust equal to the net assets transferred to it and therefore to remit the outstanding debt of the dissolved trust.

    The operations consequent on the reconfiguration involve no loss to the Exchequer. Her Majesty's Treasury has today presented a minute to the House giving the particulars and circumstances of the proposed remission which it has approved in principle.

    Fatal Accident Inquiries
    Dr. Godman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, column 18, in how many of the fatal accident inquiries were the managers or the owners, judged by the sheriff to have been negligent of the interests and well-being of the resident who died; and if he will make a statement.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    [holding answer 27 February 1995]: It could be misleading to summarise the determinations of sheriffs on complex cases. I will therefore write to the hon. Member, enclosing copies of the relevant determinations.

    Although the Government deplore the circumstances surrounding the "Glenglova" case, I would emphasise that an inquiry following the death of a resident in residential or nursing home care is not necessarily indicative of poor standards of care in such establishments.

    Dr. Godman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, column 18, what proposals he intends to introduce in response to the recommendations of the sheriffs who conducted fatal accident inquiries into the deaths of several elderly residents of privately owned residential homes; and if he will make a statement.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    [holding answer 27 February 1995]: I shall write to the hon. Member to clarify my earlier answer. This will indicate that there has in fact been only one fatal accident inquiry related to a private residential care home. The remaining six inquiries concerned private nursing home residents.

    A working group is being set up to consider the registration and inspection issues concerning private and voluntary residential care establishments following the recent "Glenglova" FAI. The group will consist of Scottish Office officials and representatives from local authorities, independent providers and user groups. It is anticipated that recommendations will be put to Ministers this autumn.

    Following discussion with the Department's health policy and public health directorate about the effectiveness of the Nursing Homes (Registration) (Scotland) Act 1938, health board general managers have funded a project to establish a nationally agreed and implemented set of core standards for the registration and inspection of nursing homes. The project steering group, which is chaired by the Scottish Office and includes
    604
    representatives of health boards, local authorities, residents and nursing home owners, will ensure that all relevant information, including the determination of FAIs following deaths in nursing homes, are considered by the project team.

    These developments demonstrate the Government's commitment to protecting the more vulnerable groups in society who require either residential or nursing home care.

  DEFENCE

    Defence Export Services Organisation
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff of the Defence Export Services Organisation were on short-term secondments from defence contractors in each year from 1988; and what proportion of the total staff they represented in that time.

    Mr. Freeman
    The information requested is set out in the table.

    Contractor

    Period

    1988

    Sir Colin Chandler

    British Aerospace

    1985 to September 1989

    H. L. Myers

    Rolls Royce

    November 1986 to July 1989

    D. J. Hastie

    British Aerospace

    April 1988 to October 1989

    S. Brett

    British Aerospace

    August 1988 to August 1989

    1989

    Sir Colin Chandler

    British Aerospace

    1985 to September 1989

    H. L. Myers

    Rolls Royce

    November 1986 to July 1989

    D. J. Hastie

    British Aerospace

    April 1988 to October 1989

    S. Brett

    British Aerospace

    August 1988 to August 1989

    S. Barker

    Westland Helicopters

    July 1989 to July 1991

    A. Thomas

    Raytheon

    July 1989 to September 1994

    1990

    S. Barker

    Westland Helicopters

    July 1989 to July 1991

    A. Thomas

    Raytheon

    July 1989 to September 1994

    1991

    S. Barker

    Westland Helicopters

    July 1989 to July 1991

    A. Thomas

    Raytheon

    July 1989 to September 1994

    1991

    S. Barker

    Westland Helicopters

    July 1989 to July 1991

    A. Thomas

    Raytheon

    July 1989 to September 1994

    1992

    A. Thomas

    Raytheon

    July 1989 to September 1994

    605

    Contractor

    Period

    1993

    Sir Alan Thomas

    Raytheon

    July 1989 to September 1994

    D. Mitchell

    British Aerospace

    October 1993 to date

    1994

    Sir Alan Thomas

    Raytheon

    July 1989 to September 1994

    D. Mitchell

    British Aerospace

    October 1993 to date

    C. Masefield

    British Aerospace

    September 1994 to date

    1995

    D. Mitchell

    British Aerospace

    October 1993 to date

    C. Masefield

    British Aerospace

    September 1994 to date

    Note:

    1. In all years, the number of secondees represented less than 1 per cent. of the total DESO staff numbers.

    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many former members of staff of the three Defence Export Services Organisation project offices have advised of business or employment interests relevant to the work of Defence Export Services Organisation; and in how many cases clearance was refused.

    Mr. Freeman
    Since January 1990, members of the Defence Export Services Organisation have made 33 applications to accept employment with defence-related companies. All were approved; 31 unconditionally; one subject to a waiting period; and one subject to a ban on the applicant's involvement in a specific area of work of the prospective employer.

    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff of the Defence Export Sales Organisation are covered by performance bonuses; and what aspects of performance are so rewarded.

    Mr. Freeman
    In line with arrangements applying across the civil service, the majority of civilian staff within the Defence Export Service Organisation are subject to performance-related pay arrangements, which can include bonuses. Performance criteria are intended to reflect the individual's contribution to the overall performance of the organisation.

    The pay of service personnel within the organisation is not performance related.

    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of staff of the Defence Export Services Organisation since 1979 have left the service and subsequently taken up duties for, or on behalf of, a defence-related contractor; and whether the staff of the Defence Export Services Organisation are required to notify him of such duties.

    Mr. Freeman
    The information is not available for the period before January 1990. Since then, 13 members of the Defence Export Services Organisation have made 33 applications to accept employment with, or on behalf of, a defence-related contractor. The rules do not require staff to notify my Department of whether appointments are taken up.

    Jordan
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions prior written agreement was sought by the kingdom of Jordan to dispose of items exported to 606
    it under the Government-to-Government Jordan defence packages; and whether the United Kingdom Government acceded to such requests.

    Mr. Freeman
    This is a confidential matter between Governments.

    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is(a) the purpose of and (b) the statutory authority for payments under the subhead vote 2 H7 for the years 1988–89 to 1992–93; and in respect of which countries these payments were made.

    Mr. Freeman
    [holding answer 17 February 1995]: The main purpose of these payments has been to provide interest rate support for Jordan. Additionally, in the years 1986–87 to 1988–89, payments were made to the Export Credits Guarantee Department from within the figures given to the House on 13 February 1995, Official Report, column 544, to provide interest rate support for Oman. Contributions were made by the Ministry of Defence under the class I Supply estimates and confirming Appropriation Act.

    Global Positioning System
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what payments, either in cash or by the provision of facilities of services, are made by the United Kingdom under any of the successive moves between the United Kingdom and the US for access to the global positioning system.

    Mr. Soames
    The United Kingdom Ministry of Defence makes no payments either in cash or in kind for access to the United States global positioning system.

    International Military Services Ltd.
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1994,Official Report, column 1189, on which occasions IMS Ltd. (a) applied for approval to seek business in new markets, (b) made applications which involved novel features and (c) made applications which were significantly different from previous business; if these guidelines were in written form; and on what date these guidelines were first issued to the management of IMS.

    Mr. Freeman
    The policy guidelines for International Military Services Ltd. were set out in writing by the Ministry of Defence in March 1979 and made available to the Public Accounts Committee. Consultations under the guidelines remain confidential between the Ministry and the company.

    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff of International Military Services have been transferred to other companies during the winding down of the company; and whether the normal Government rules of conflict of interest and business advantage have applied to the staff of International Military Services.

    Mr. Freeman
    The staff of International Military Services Ltd. were not public servants and consequently were not covered by Government regulations on future employment. When the company ceased trading in 1991, most staff were made redundant and made their own arrangements for future employment where appropriate.

    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when IMS discontinued its practice of reporting quarterly
    607
    to its board of its use of, and remuneration to, agents and consultants in furtherance of defence-related export sales.

    Mr. Freeman
    The internal reporting arrangements to the board are a matter for the company.

    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the legal or international arbitration action between the government of Iran and IMS Ltd. has now been resolved; and if he will make a statement on the settlement reached.

    Mr. Freeman
    Any discussions or proceedings between International Military Services Ltd. and its former customers remain commercially confidential.

    Royal Marines School of Music
    Mr. David Martin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will be announcing his decision on the future of the Royal Marines school of music at Deal and the proposal to relocate it at Portsmouth.

    Mr. Soames
    A consultation document on our proposal for the future relocation of the Royal Marines school of music was issued on 17 October 1994 and the consultation period ended on 16 December 1994. We are currently considering very carefully all the many representations made during this period before deciding on the way forward.

    Overseas Contracts
    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if all commitments made in memoranda of understanding signed with Nigeria prior to June 1993 have subsequently been honoured;

    (2) on what dates in the last 10 years memoranda of understanding relating to defence have been signed with Nigeria.

    Mr. Freeman
    A detailed search of records has revealed that the MOU referred to in previous answers—24 February 1994,Official Report, column 383, and 9 March 1994, Official Report, column 254—between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Nigeria was never signed, although negotiations were conducted over a number of months in 1981. No defence MOU has since been signed with Nigeria.

    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 February 1985,Official Report, column 323, what were the exact dates of the memoranda of understanding concerning defence contracts with the Government of Indonesia on September 1983, March 1984, April 1986 and November 1991.

    Mr. Freeman
    The exact dates are as follows: 21 September 1983, 30 March 1984, 12 April 1986 and 18 November 1991.

    Aircraft Controllers
    Mr. Fatchett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft controllers have left to join civilian airports in the last two years; and what were the companies involved and the numbers joining each company.

    Mr. Soames
    Departmental records of those air traffic controllers who leave Crown service do not include their eventual employment in civil life.

    Navy Personnel (Private Companies)
    Mr. Fatchett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Royal Navy(a) nursing officers, (b) surgeons, (c) medical consultants, (d) occupational therapists, (e) pharmacists, (f) physiotherapists and (g) dentists, have left to join private health care companies in the last two years; and what were the companies involved and the numbers joining each company.

    (2) how many Royal Navy (a) engineers and (b) metallurgists have left to join defence or defence-related companies in the last two years; and what were the companies involved and the numbers joining each company.

    Mr. Soames
    This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Nuclear Weapons Convoys
    Mrs. Golding
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the emergency services which are informed when nuclear warheads are transported by road.

    Mr. Soames
    Civil police forces are always notified at least 24 hours in advance of nuclear weapon convoy movements through their area of jurisdiction.

    Subcontractors
    Mr. Nicholls
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what requirements are placed upon main contractors to the Ministry of Defence to make timely payments to subcontractors.

    Mr. Freeman
    The following term has been included in MOD contracts on main contractors since March 1992.Where the contractor enters a subcontract with a supplier or contractor for the purpose of performing the contract, he shall cause a term to be included in such subcontract which requires payment to be made to the supplier of contractor within a specified period not exceeding 30 days from receipt of valid invoice as defined by the subcontract requirements.

    Russian Armed Forces
    Mr. Elletson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all planned military co-operation programmes, conferences and exchanges with the Russian armed forces.

    Mr. Soames
    The United Kingdom's military co-operation with Russia is at present confined to three main areas.

    a. To assist in the removal of nuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles from places of deployment to destruction sites, we are providing 20 armoured transport vehicles and 250 armoured containers. A meeting of the Anglo-Russian steering group, which oversees this project is scheduled to take place at the end of 1995.

    b. To UK has also offered modest assistance with the resettlement in civilian life of Russians leaving the armed forces. This would include training resettlement instructors, and equipping and maintaining a resettlement centre in Moscow for three years. Discussions on this proposal are continuing.

    c. To meet the obligations of arms control treaties and agreements, there is an ongoing programme of military contacts and inspections in which the UK participates.

    609
    Routine defence staff talks are planned to take place in London towards the end of 1995. A Russian hydrography ship will visit the UK in March. A Royal Navy ship will visit St. Petersburg in May, to help commemorate victory in Europe. Agreement has also been reached in principle to hold a joint UK-Russian exercise, but no firm plans have been made, and no dates set for this.

    Fertiliser
    Mr. Byers
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions since 1 January HMS Brazen transported fertiliser from the United Kingdom to Gibraltar for use in the gardens at the official service residence; what was the quantity of fertiliser carried; and what was the cost involved.

    Mr. Soames
    None.

    Porton Down
    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the ethics committee overseeing the service volunteers programme at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down was set up; for what reasons it was established; what is the purpose and nature of the committee's work; how often it meets; how many members sit on the committee; how many of these members are drawn from outside Porton Down; and who is the current chairman.

    Mr. Soames
    This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework-document. I have asked the chief executive, CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

    Letter from Graham Pearson to Dr. David Clark, dated 1 March 1995:
    1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking when the Ethics Committee overseeing the Service volunteers programme at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down was set up; for what reasons it was established; what is the purpose and nature of the committee's work; how often it meets; how many members sit on the committee; how many of these members are drawn from outside Porton Down; and who is the current chairman has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
    2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use Service volunteers to:

    a. Assess the ability of Service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures.

    b. Develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel and,

    c. Evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.

    No studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is a clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians.
    3. The creation of an independent Ethics Committee at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment followed the publication of guidelines from the Royal College of Physicians. The CBDE Ethics Committee was established in July 1991. The Ethics Committee has subsumed previous arrangements for the ethical review of proposed volunteer studies. For some 30 years, a committee on the safety of human experiments had been set up at this Establishment involving all the medical officers on the staff of the Establishment whose task was to review all the protocols for
    610
    proposed volunteer studies to ensure that they were as safe as possible; this committee had the right of veto. Following such reviews, protocols were then considered by an ethical sub group of the Medical Committee of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council which involved independent experts.
    4. The purpose of the CBDE Ethics Committee is to consider the medical-ethical aspects of all proposed studies involving human volunteers. Its role is to review and approve detailed protocols for any studies carried out involving the use of volunteers. Such studies are only carried out if there is a clear military need and the protocol has been designed to ensure that any possible risks, however slight, are minimised. The protocol also includes a full explanation in lay terms of the study which will be read to the volunteer by a military officer unconnected with the study so that informed consent based on the volunteer's complete understanding of the nature of the study and any perceived hazards can be sought.
    5. The CBDE Ethics Committee consists of 11 members of whom 9 are drawn from outside of the Ministry of Defence. It meets four times a year although there is provision to meet on a more frequent basis if required. The Committee is chaired by Professor Hugh Dudley, CBE, ChM, FRCSE, Professor Emeritus of Surgery, University of London.

    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the nature of the guidelines and rules provided by the Royal College of Physicians, London and the British Psychological Society with regard to the service volunteers programmes at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down; and when these guidelines were adopted by the establishment.

    Mr. Soames
    This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

    Letter from Graham Pearson to Dr. David Clark, dated I March 1995:
    1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking if he will make a statement on the nature of the guidelines and rules provided by the Royal College of Physicians (London) and the British Psychological Society with regard to the Service volunteers programmes at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down; and when these guidelines were adopted by the Establishment has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
    2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use Service volunteers to:

    a. Assess the ability of Service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures.

    b Develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel and,

    c. Evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.

    3. Studies and tests at CBDE which involve Service volunteers are only carried out where there is a clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians and British Psychological Society.
    4. In 1984 the Royal College of Physicians published Guidelines on the practice of Ethics Committees in medical research which were subsequently updated in 1990 and taken into account when the CBDE Ethics Committee was established in July 1991. These guidelines provide advice inter alia on terms of reference, membership, methods of working, application, responsibilities. consent, definition and classes of research and payments. The British Psychological Society guidelines were taken into account shortly after their publication in 1993. These provide inter alia advice on

    611
    the code of conduct for psychologists and the ethical principles for work with human participants.
    5. Although these guidelines have only recently been published, there has been an ethical review of proposed volunteer studies at CBDE for over 30 years. Prior to the establishment of the CBDE Ethics Committee there was a committee on the safety of human experiments which had been set up at this Establishment involving all the medical officers on the staff of the Establishment whose tasks was to review all the proposals for proposed volunteer studies to ensure that they were as safe as possible; this committee had the right of veto. Following such reviews, protocols were then considered by an ethical sub group of the Medical Committee of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council which involved independent experts.

    RAF Bentwaters
    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the RAF Bentwaters site was sold to the highest bidder; what consideration he gave to environmental factors in reaching a decision over the sale of the RAF Bentwaters site; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Soames
    I can confirm that the RAF Bentwaters site has been sold to the highest bidder; the proposal from the Maharishi Foundation complies fully with the agreed planning brief.

    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Maharishee Foundation provided a detailed business plan as part of its purchase bid for the RAF Bentwaters site.

    Mr. Soames
    It is not my Department's policy to divulge details or information provided by prospective purchasers of redundant military sites. However, it can be confirmed that the Maharishi Foundation provided full and sufficient information on which to assess the bid.

    Attack Helicopters
    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated in-service date for the Army's attack helicopter.

    Mr. Freeman
    The attack helicopter is expected to enter service with the Army at the end of the decade. It is not at present possible to be precise; the in-service date will depend on which of the contenders we choose to meet the Army's requirement.

    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts concerning the procurement of attack helicopters.

    Mr. Freeman
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has not held any formal discussions with his foreign counterparts concerning the procurement of attack helicopters. Discussions continue with officials of the contender nationals and other Governments with requirements similar to our own.

  EDUCATION

    College Fees
    Mr. Merchant
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has for the future settlement of college fees.
    612
    Mr. Boswell
    My officials have written today to the Higher Education Funding Council for England asking it to advise my right hon. Friend on the annual adjustment of the average college fee at the Oxford and Cambridge colleges from 1995 onwards. The council has been asked to base its advice on the annual movement in public funding at universities with a similar mission. In this way, the annual adjustment of college fees with reflect trends in public funding per student elsewhere in higher education. The Department will no longer engage in negotiations with the Oxford and Cambridge colleges. The funding council has also been asked to advise on future arrangements for the setting of college fees at the universities of Durham, Kent, Lancaster and York.

    Higher Education Funding Council
    Mr. Fisher
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the level of underspend in the 1994–95 budget of the Higher Education Funding Council.

    Mr. Boswell
    No underspend is anticipated in the 1994–95 budget of the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

    Teachers
    Ms Hodge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are her Department's estimates of the total number of qualified teachers in England and Wales in 1994–95 and the forecasts for each subsequent year up to and including 2000–2001.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    Returns from the Department's 1994–95 census of teachers are incomplete: the results will be published later this year. Projections of teaching numbers are not available.

    Pupil-teacher Ratios
    Ms Hodge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the Department's estimates of the average pupil-teacher ratios in (i) primary schools and (ii) secondary schools in 1994–95 and the forecasts for each subsequent year up to and including 2000–2001.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    Returns form the Department's 1994–95 censuses of pupils and teachers are incomplete: the results will be published later this year. Figures for future years will reflect the decisions of employers.

    Local Education Authority Budgets
    Mrs. Currie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if she will list in rank order the shire county local education authorities showing the reserves held in their education budgets at the most recent date available;

    (2) if she will list in rank order (a) the metropolitan district education authorities outside London and (b) the London boroughs to show the reserves held in their education budgets at the most recent date available.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    Reserves held by local authorities are not apportioned between education and other services.

    For the financial year ending on 31 March 1994, the table shows the total amount of balances held by schools for each LEA for which the information is available to the Department. The figures are shown in rank order for (a) metropolitan districts outside London; (b) inner and outer-London boroughs; and (c) shire counties.
    613

    Total balances in schools—year ending 31 March 1994

    LEA

    Balance (£000)

    a) Metropolitan districts outside London

    Birmingham

    16,696

    Sandwell

    5,742

    Bradford

    5,632

    Sefton

    5,684

    Sheffield

    5,616

    Coventry

    4,802

    Doncaster

    4,735

    Leeds

    4,587

    Solihull

    4,504

    Newcastle upon Tyne

    4,271

    Wolverhampton

    4,155

    Wigan

    4,144

    St. Helens

    3,941

    Kirklees

    3,868

    Wakefield

    3,643

    Walsall

    3,594

    Wirrall

    3,249

    Manchester

    3,146

    Barnsley

    3,046

    Stockport

    2,741

    Salford

    2,456

    Calderdale

    2,330

    Bolton

    2,291

    Bury

    2,225

    Knowsley

    2,078

    Sunderland

    1,897

    South Tyneside

    1,861

    Gateshead

    1,577

    Dudley

    1,317

    Tameside

    1,303

    Trafford

    1,055

    Rotherham

    930

    North Tyneside

    372

    Oldham

    322

    Rochdale

    211

    Liverpool

    n/a

    b) London boroughs

    Tower Hamlets

    8,189

    Croydon

    5,499

    Lambeth

    5,325

    Hounslow

    4,969

    Enfield

    4,778

    Camden

    4,768

    Newham

    4,694

    Brent

    4,545

    Barnet

    4,279

    Lewisham

    4,270

    Havering

    3,544

    Southwark

    3,513

    Haringey

    3,352

    Redbridge

    3,247

    Wandsworth

    3,228

    Westminster

    3,195

    Bromley

    3,134

    Merton

    2,996

    Ealing

    2,971

    Islington

    2,549

    Richmond upon Thames

    2,440

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    2,366

    Hillingdon

    2,231

    Hackney

    2,171

    Bexley

    2,013

    Barking

    1,707

    Harrow

    1,640

    Kensington

    1,386

    Sutton

    1,303

    Kingston upon Thames

    774

    Corporation of London

    38

    Greenwich

    n/a

    Waltham Forest

    n/a

    614

    Total balances in schools—year ending 31 March 1994

    LEA

    Balance (£000)

    c) Shire counties

    Lancashire

    32,976

    Hampshire

    25,542

    Essex

    23,612

    Hertfordshire

    20,397

    Cheshire

    16,196

    Leicestershire

    15,750

    Nottinghamshire

    15,275

    Hereford and Worcester

    13,855

    Suffolk

    13,500

    Derbyshire

    12,475

    Avon

    12,093

    Oxfordshire

    11,951

    Kent

    11,675

    North Yorkshire

    11,470

    Devon

    10,340

    Northamptonshire

    10,067

    Norfolk

    9,199

    Staffordshire

    9,160

    Bedfordshire

    8,297

    Cleveland

    8,169

    Buckinghamshire

    8,316

    Berkshire

    7,985

    Durham

    7,799

    Humberside

    7,764

    Wiltshire

    7,341

    Cornwall

    7,241

    Dorset

    7,200

    Lincolnshire

    6,891

    Warwickshire

    6,576

    Somerset

    6,665

    Cambridgeshire

    6,585

    Gloucestershire

    6,240

    East Sussex

    5,990

    Surrey

    4,986

    Shropshire

    4,574

    West Sussex

    4,499

    Northumberland

    3,667

    Cumbria

    2,844

    Isle of Wight

    1,487

    Isles of Scilly

    n/a

    Note:

    The figures are derived from the LMS outturn statements—1993–94—prepared by LEAs under section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988, with the exception of one figure which has been separately provided by the LEA concerned. "N/A" denotes that the information is not yet available to the Department, either because no statement has been received or—in one case—because the LEA has been asked to clarify the treatment of balances in its statement. All figures represent surpluses net of deficits and cover all county and voluntary schools, and special schools in the case of the eight LEAs whose LMS schemes covered them in 1993–94. They also include the final balances shown in respect of schools which became grant-maintained during the course of the financial year.

    Deficit Budgets
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what powers she has to intervene where school governors set deficit budgets.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    A local education authority school governing body which sets a deficit budget will normally be in breach of its duties under its LEA's scheme for the local management of schools. It is for the LEA to decide how to proceed if the situation arises. If the governors of a school have been guilty of a serious breach of the scheme requirements, or of financial mismanagement more generally, the LEA has power to suspend their right to a
    615
    delegated budget and take over management of the school's finances.

    Governing bodies of GM schools are under an obligation to remain solvent under the terms of their financial memorandum with the Funding Agency for Schools. Should a GM school submit a deficit budget it would be for the Funding Agency for Schools and the school to agree upon the action to restore the school's financial position.

    In the last resort, my right hon. Friend has the power, under sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1994, to direct a LEA or a governing body that she considers to have acted unreasonably or to be in breach of its statutory responsibilities to take corrective action.

    Pupils
    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils are covered by the local education authorities in(a) Suffolk, (b) Cambridgeshire and (c) Norfolk.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    In January 1994, 93, 282 pupils were being taught in schools maintained by Suffolk local education authority, 84, 515 pupils in schools maintained by Cambridgeshire local education authority and 93,702 pupils in schools maintained by Norfolk local education authority. This excludes pupils being educated in grant-maintained schools.

    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what per cent. of pupils stayed on to lake A levels in(a) Suffolk, (b) Cambridgeshire and (c) Norfolk; and what percent in each of these counties obtained grades A to C last year in its A-level examinations in the last year for which figures are available.

    Mr. Boswell
    The exact information is not available in the format requested.

    The estimated percentage of those in their last year of compulsory schooling in 1991–92 who subsequently enrolled in the first year of GCE A-level course in 1992–93 in schools and further education colleges was: 38.2 per cent. in Suffolk; 40.3 per cent. in Cambridgeshire; and 35.9 per cent. in Norfolk.

    The estimated percentage of these students starting on a GCE A-level course in schools and colleges in 1992–93, who achieved at least one GCE A level at grade C or above after the second year of the course in 1994 was: 56.7 per cent. in Suffolk; 62.9 per cent. in Cambridgeshire; and 55.9 per cent. in Norfolk.

    Special Needs
    Mr. Harry Greenway
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the percentage of pupils statemented in each local education authority in England in the last year for which figures are available; and what percentage of the education budget, and what amount of money, was spent on special needs in each local education authority.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    The percentage of pupils in each LEA with a statement of special educational needs in January 1994 is given in the following table.

    It is not possible to provide aggregated expenditure on special educational needs in each local education authority, as the data on such expenditure incurred by individual schools are not collected.
    616

    Percentage of pupils with statements in each local education authority in England (January 1994)

    Local Education Authority

    Total children with statements as a percentage of the school population

    Corporation of London

    0.33

    Camden

    2.30

    Greenwich

    3.07

    Hackney

    3.66

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    2.64

    Islington

    3.27

    Kensington and Chelsea

    1.46

    Lambeth

    1.83

    Lewisham

    3.21

    Southwark

    2.48

    Tower Hamlets

    3.03

    Wandsworth

    2.77

    Westminster

    2.11

    Barking and Dagenham

    1.84

    Barnet

    1.79

    Bexley

    2.61

    Brent

    2.13

    Bromley

    2.34

    Croydon

    1.95

    Ealing

    2.10

    Enfield

    0.94

    Haringey

    1.84

    Harrow

    2.13

    Havering

    1.92

    Hillingdon

    2.18

    Hounslow

    3.02

    Kingston upon Thames

    2.18

    Merton

    2.48

    Newham

    2.35

    Redbridge

    1.94

    Richmond upon Thames

    2.01

    Sutton

    2.61

    Waltham Forest

    1.65

    Birmingham

    2.27

    Coventry

    1.95

    Dudley

    1.88

    Sandwell

    1.28

    Solihull

    2.04

    Walsall

    2.53

    Wolverhampton

    2.33

    Knowsley

    2.88

    Liverpool

    2.67

    St. Helens

    4.33

    Sefton

    2.56

    Wirral

    2.64

    Bolton

    1.92

    Bury

    3.67

    Manchester

    1.65

    Oldham

    1.12

    Rochdale

    2.18

    Salford

    1.67

    Stockport

    2.98

    Tameside

    3.03

    Trafford

    2.21

    Wigan

    3.63

    Barnsley

    2.35

    Doncaster

    2.55

    Rotherham

    2.53

    Sheffield

    2.19

    Bradford

    1.52

    Calderdale

    1.63

    Kirklees

    3.04

    Leeds

    2.82

    Wakefield

    2.35

    Gateshead

    1.94

    Newcastle upon Tyne

    2.36

    North Tyneside

    2.73

    South Tyneside

    2.18

    Sunderland

    2.23

    Isles of Scilly

    0.69

    617

    Percentage of pupils with statements in each local education authority in England (January 1994)

    Local Education Authority

    Total children with statements as a percentage of the school population

    Avon

    2.56

    Bedfordshire

    2.94

    Berkshire

    2.50

    Buckinghamshire

    3.45

    Cambridgeshire

    1.93

    Cheshire

    2.94

    Cleveland

    2.32

    Cornwall

    3.66

    Cumbria

    3.19

    Derbyshire

    2n/a

    Devon

    3.14

    Dorset

    2.61

    Durham

    2.78

    East Sussex

    3.04

    Essex

    2.26

    Gloucestershire

    2.69

    Hampshire

    3.12

    Hereford and Worcester

    1.69

    Hertfordshire

    2.45

    Humberside

    1.86

    Isle of Wight

    2.27

    Kent

    2.49

    Lancashire

    3.24

    Leicestershire

    2.27

    Lincolnshire

    3.36

    Norfolk

    3.21

    North Yorkshire

    2.21

    Northamptonshire

    1.95

    Northumberland

    2.35

    Nottinghamshire

    1.11

    Oxfordshire

    1.80

    Shropshire

    3.24

    Somerset

    1.90

    Staffordshire

    2.39

    Suffolk

    3.02

    Surrey

    2.99

    Warwickshire

    2.26

    West Sussex

    2.09

    Wiltshire

    3.44

    England1

    2.49

    1 England figures exclude Derbyshire.2 not available.

    Further Education
    Mr. James Pawsey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what has been the change in provision of further education following the end of local authority involvement;

    (2) what is the projected change in provision in further education for 1995–96;

    (3) what further education subjects have shown greatest growth in the last three years.

    Mr. Boswell
    Local authority recurrent expenditure on further education in 1992–93, the last financial year before the transfer of FE colleges to the new FE sector,

    Employment Department Funding

    Year/Programme

    1991–92 £ million

    1992–93 £ million

    1993–94 £ million

    1994–95 Budget £ million

    Total£ million

    ITO Support

    3.35

    3.47

    3.21

    3.50

    13.53

    Standards Programme

    12.00

    11.47

    11.62

    11.35

    46.44

    Modern Apprenticeships

    —

    —

    —

    1.62

    1.62

    Total

    15.35

    14.94

    14.83

    16.47

    61.59

    618
    was £2,341 million. Recurrent funding by the FEFC in 1993–94 was £2,549 million, and the estimated outturn for 1994–95 is £2,684 million. The Government plan for expenditure on recurrent funding to increase to £2,863 million in 1995–96.

    Data on the growth in further education subjects in the last three years, on a basis consistent with the structure of the new FE sector, are not yet available.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Business Link Wirral
    Ms Eagle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what financial help his Department or its agencies have given to the Business Link Wirral since its inception.

    Mr. Paice
    Neither the Employment Department nor its agencies have given financial help to Business Link Wirral. However, I understand that CEWTEC contributed £35,000 to the development costs of Business Link Wirral in 1994–95. In addition, a further contract for £42,000 was placed to support training in local companies.

    Training
    Mr. Barron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list the amount and type of funding or other support received from his Department by each occupational standards council in(a) the current year and (b) each of the previous three years;

    (2) if he will list the industry lead bodies, the industry training organisations and the awarding bodies for each industrial sector and the amount and type of funding or other support received from his Department by each in (a) the current year and (b) each of the previous three years.

    Mr. Paice
    The Department has contracted with the National Council of Industry Training Organisations to maintain an up-to-date list of occupational standards councils, lead bodies and industry training organisations. NCITO produces a regular listing of all those organisations. A copy of the latest listing has been placed in the Library. Awarding bodies are independent organisations and the Department does not maintain a list of them. However, details of all awarding bodies currently accredited by the National Council for Vocational Qualifications to award national vocational qualifications are contained in the latest edition of the "NCVQ Monitor", a copy of which is also available in the Library. The Department does not normally fund awarding bodies.

    The Department's funding for OSCs, LBs and ITOs comes principally from three main programmes. The funding for these programmes for the years 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95 is provided in the following table. More detailed information could he provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Earnings
    Mrs. Wise
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the source or basis of the estimates given by him as to the number of employees earning below the national insurance lower earnings limit.

    Mr. Oppenheim
    The estimates were produced by firstly estimating the proportion of the "New Earnings Survey" sample with earnings below the April 1994 lower earnings limit of £57, then applying this proportion to the number of employees in employment, taking due account of the estimated number of employees, mostly part-timers, who were excluded from NES because they were not covered by a PAYE scheme.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Habitual Residence Test
    Mr. Timms
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 30 January 1995,Official Report, column 520, (1) how many of those who have been refused income support owing to the habitual residence test are European Economic Area nationals residing in the United Kingdom under EC rights of residence directives as students, pensioners, or non-economically active persons;

    (2) what proportion of the British nationals who have been refused income support owing to the habitual residence test have one parent who is a British national and one parent who is a national of another country;

    (3) what proportion of the British nationals have been refused income support owing to the habitual residence test had (a) never previously lived in the United Kingdom and (b) never previously been employed in the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Roger Evans
    This information is not recorded centrally and could he obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Mr. Timms
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what account he has taken of the advice given by the Social Security Advisory Committee that is possible to he habitually resident in more than one country or in none; and what responsibility the Government have to British nationals in this country who have been excluded from income-related benefits on the basis of the habitual residence test.

    Mr. Roger Evans
    Decisions about whether an income support claimant is habitually resident are made by the independent adjudication officer in the first instance. The chief adjudication officer has drawn attention to the fact that a person may be habitually resident in more than one country or in none in the guidance that has provided for adjudication officers.

    Mr. Timms
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is taking to monitor the impact of the habitual residence test on(a) unsuccessful claimants, (b) local authorities and (c) benefits agency offices.

    Mr. Roger Evans
    Information about the number of claims to income support where habitual residence is considered is collected monthly. This includes information about the number of unsuccessful claims. The 620
    impact on Benefits Agency offices also continues to he monitored from these monthly statistical returns. The impact on local authorities will be monitored from the normal range of management information statistics which local authorities submit from time to time.

    Mr. Timms
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Corbyn) on 30 January 1995,Official Report, column 520, how many European economic area nationals were estimated to claim income support in a year before implementation of the habitual residence test; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for the numbers of claimants being refused income support under the test.

    Mr. Roger Evans
    Information identifying claims for income support from EEA nationals was not available before the introduction of the test. However, our assessment of the reason why people have been refused income support under the test is that it confirms that until its introduction a number of people received benefit who had no close connection with this country.

    Ms Gordon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated administration cost of the habitual resident test from 1 August 1994 to 1 August 1995; and what is the amount of income support that the Government estimate will be saved by the application of this test.

    Mr. Roger Evans
    [pursuant to his reply 2 November 1994, column 2672]: I regret that the information provided on the estimated annual income support saving contained an error. The correct information is as follows.

    The estimated annual income support saving is about £3 million rather than "in excess of £7 million" as inadvertently stated in the earlier answer, which represented the estimated full saving including housing benefit and council tax benefit.

    Housing Costs
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he now proposes in respect of his acceptance of recommendations relating to an exception to the restriction on income support housing costs for income support recipients other than disabled people and the elderly, for the interest on additional loans for repairs and improvements necessary to maintain the fabric of the dwelling occupied as home; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Roger Evans
    As a result of our acceptance of these recommendations, the regulations originally referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee were amended so that when they took effect on 2 May 1994 income support recipients who took out additional loans for this purpose could continue to have the interest on such loans met.

    Disablement
    Mr. Hanson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps are taken by his Department to ensure that medical assessors are sufficiently trained with regard to medical evidence when interpreting the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) Prescribed Diseases Regulations 1993.

    Mr. Hague
    Assessments in connection with prescribed diseases are made by independent adjudicating
    621
    medical authorities, the members of which are fully registered medical practitioners with extensive knowledge and experience in general medicine. On appointment the medical practitioners are trained in the practical procedures and the medico-legal aspects of the industrial injuries scheme by experienced AMAs. In addition, all AMAs are supplied with the DSS publication, "Notes on the Diagnosis of Prescribed Diseases", and the "Industrial Injuries Handbook for Adjudicating Medical Authorities" which details and explains the legislation relevant to the assessment of disablement in industrial injuries and prescribed diseases. Copies of both publications have been placed in the Library.

    Mr. Hanson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals in each region have claimed industrial disablement benefit for chronic bronchitis or emphysema under the approved scheme to date; and how many have been approved.

    Mr. Hague
    The information is not available by region. Information from Benefits Agency area directorates as at 31 December 1994 is in the table.

    Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema (PD D12) by Area Directorate

    Area

    Claims

    Awards1

    South

    Anglia

    25

    3

    Chilterns

    22

    4

    East London and Essex

    21

    0

    South London and West Sussex

    0

    0

    South East

    479

    33

    Wessex

    0

    0

    West Country

    149

    6

    Wales and Central England East Midlands

    5,813

    646

    1987–88

    1988–89

    1989–90

    1990–91

    1991–92

    1992–93

    £ million total

    1986 Industrial injuries changes

    -7

    -35

    -45

    —

    —

    —

    -113

    Abolition of REA new cases

    —

    —

    —

    -5

    -20

    -42

    -72

    Notes:

    1. All figures shown are in £ million.

    2. Figures shown are in cash terms except for the totals which are expressed in real terms at 1994–95 prices.

    3. Figures should be regarded as estimates only.

    4. The figures shown are for the forecast savings of Industrial Injuries benefits resulting from the changes shown during the relevant Public Expenditure Survey period. They are not necessarily the actual effect on II benefit or total DSS benefit expenditure.

    1 The main change to the Industrial Injuries scheme was the increase of disability threshold from 1 per cent. to 14 per cent.

    Widower's Benefit
    Mr. Hanson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to extend widow's pension provision to widowers with dependent children.

    Mr. Arbuthnot
    None.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. John Marshall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether income support is payable to asylum seekers whose application for asylum has been rejected.

    Mr. Roger Evans
    When an asylum seeker's claim has been either finally refused or abandoned, entitlement to income support ends.
    622

    Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema (PD D12) by Area Directorate

    Area

    Claims

    Awards1

    Greater Manchester

    329

    32

    Lancashire and Cumbria

    2,297

    151

    Merseyside

    509

    49

    Midlands South West

    658

    56

    Wales

    9,625

    1,375

    West Mercia

    3,728

    384

    Scotland and North

    East Scotland

    2,411

    95

    Glasgow

    244

    8

    North and West Yorkshire

    2,730

    425

    North, Central and West Scotland

    1,908

    60

    South Yorkshire and Humberside

    6,627

    790

    Tyne Tees

    7,227

    603

    Totals

    44,802

    4,720

    Notes:

    1. Based on 100 per cent. count and subject to amendment.

    2. Not all claims received by 31 December will have been decided.

    1 Awards are where industrial injuries disablement has been awarded at 14 per cent. or more (does not include aggregate awards).

    Mr. Bradley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the savings to his Department referred to in his answer of 21 July 1994,Official Report, column 621, resulting from each of the changes in the eligibility conditions for benefits under the industrial injuries scheme including (a) the amount of savings for each change by year, (b) the cumulative savings to date and (c) the amount of savings for each year and cumulatively at 1994–95 prices.

    Mr. Hague
    [holding answer 15 February 1995]: Information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

    Mr. John Marshall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the amount of income support paid to(a) those seeking asylum and (b) those granted asylum.

    Mr. Roger Evans
    In February 1994, there were 41,960 asylum seekers in receipt of income support at an estimated annual cost of about £79 million. People who have been granted asylum as refugees are not separately identified within the income support scheme.

    Disabled People (Housing Policy)
    Mr. Alfred Morris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has received,
    623
    including those from Habinteg, about the impact on disabled people of the Government's housing policies; what replies he has sent or will be sending; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Hague
    I have received two letters from Habinteg, one dated 6 December 1994 and another dated 15 February 1995 which was forwarded to me by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 16 February. I responded to the earlier letter on 19 January 1995 and have responded to the right hon. Member today.

    The Department of the Environment has responsibility for the Government's housing policies and I am in regular contact with it in relation to the effect of policies on disabled people.

    Unemployment and Incapacity Benefit
    Mr. Frank Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be(a) the gross cost and (b) the net cost, after income support and housing benefit savings, of making eligibility for short-term national insurance benefit conditional on (i) 25 times that year's lower earnings limit only and (ii) 50 times that years' lower earnings limit only; and if he will estimate the additional number who could become eligible for (1) unemployment and (2) invalidity benefit on the basis of their sickness benefit entitlement.

    Mr. Roger Evans
    [holding answer 23 February 1995]: The estimated cost and difference in numbers of people becoming entitled to unemployment benefit and incapacity benefit as a result of changing the contribution conditions to requiring a claimant to have paid or have been credited with class I national insurance contributions on earnings of at least:

    (i) 25 times the lower earnings limit in the last tax year before the benefit year in which the claim is made;

    or

    (ii) 50 times the lower earnings limit in the last tax year before the benefit year in which the claim is made;

    are set out in the tables. Attention is drawn to table 1 note (v) and table 2 notes (v) and (vii). The estimates make no allowances for the uncertain number of people currently not claiming the benefits who would do so under new contribution conditions. They should therefore be treated with great caution.

    Table 1—Result of changes in national insurance contribution conditions on claims to and cost of unemployment benefit

    Option (i)

    Option (ii)

    Gross cost (£ million)

    230

    115

    Net cost (£ million)

    35

    20

    Increase in number of unemployment benefit recipients

    85,000

    45,000

    Notes:

    The following assumptions have been made:

    1. Costs have been rounded to the nearest £5 million and caseloads to the nearest 5,000.

    2. Calculations are based on an unemployment benefit caseload of 500,000.

    3. Calculations are made using current prices and benefit levels, and data taken from the 1992–93 national insurance recording system database, the 1993 Annual Statistical Enquiry and the 1990–91–92 Family Expenditure Surveys.
    624
    4. Some people who would satisfy revised contribution conditions may be disallowed, or disqualified for, unemployment benefit on other grounds (eg leaving work voluntarily, misconduct, compensation from an employer).

    5. The figures are an under-estimate as no allowance can be made for people who sign as unemployed for the first time as a result of the change in the contribution conditions.

    Table 2—Result of changes in national insurance contribution conditions on claims to and cost of incapacity benefit

    Option (i)

    Option (ii)

    Gross cost (£ million)

    1,400

    550

    Net cost (£ million)

    250

    100

    Long-term increase in number of incapacity benefit recipients

    400,000

    150,000

    Notes:

    The following assumptions have been made:

    1. These are estimated figures of the long term effect. Costs have been rounded to the nearest £50 million and caseloads to the nearest 50,000.

    2. Calculations have been made using current prices and benefit levels, and data taken from the 1992–93 national insurance recording system data-base, and the 1993 Annual Statistical Enquiry.

    3. New entitlements come from either the current severe disability allowance caseload or from those, registering as sick, who are less than 80 per cent. disabled and who currently have insufficient contributions.

    4. Allowance has been made of the effect of the incapacity benefit changes and the expected effect of the new medical test.

    5. The new contribution conditions in the lower rate of short-term incapacity benefit are assumed to apply to long-term incapacity benefit. This means that all those who get lower rate of short-term incapacity benefit will move on to long-term incapacity benefit as long as their incapacity continues.

    6. The figures are an under-estimate as no allowance can be made for people registering as sick for the first time as a result of the change in the contribution conditions.

    7. These estimates are highly uncertain and should be treated with extreme caution.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Integrated Administration and Control System
    Mr. John Greenway
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the requirements for IACS applications in England and Wales in 1995.

    Mr. Jack
    [pursuant to his reply, 24 January 1995, c. 187]: The House will wish to note that the 1995 IACS forms and explanatory booklets are now available and arc being sent out to farmers. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

    Slaughterhouses
    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has made an assessment of the hygiene standards in red meat slaughterhouses in England and Wales.

    Mrs. Browning
    Since early 1994 we have been operating the hygiene assessment system in red meat slaughterhouses. The HAS is the method developed and used by the state veterinary service to assess and monitor hygiene standards in slaughterhouses. HAS looks at specific aspects of performance within five main categories—ante-mortem, slaughter and dressing,
    625
    personnel and practices, maintenance and hygiene of premises and general conditions and management. Each category is scored according to the standards observed on the day, and the scores are weighted to reflect the importance of each category to the overall hygiene of

    Numbers by type of slaughterhouse

    Score bands

    All types

    Fully approved

    Low throughput1

    Temporarily derogated2

    21–30

    3

    0

    0

    3

    31–40

    19

    1

    1

    17

    41–50

    90

    4

    3

    82

    51–60

    103

    15

    11

    77

    61–70

    84

    17

    11

    56

    71–80

    50

    25

    4

    20

    81–90

    23

    15

    3

    5

    91–100

    4

    3

    1

    0

    1 Licensed slaughterhouses with a throughput of no more than 20 livestock units per week.

    2 These plants have until the end of 1995 at the latest to complete their work plans to meet the structural requirements of the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992.

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Sulphur Quotas
    Mr. Spellar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make representations to the Department of the Environment to allocate unused sulphur quotas for England and Wales to Northern Ireland.

    Mr. Moss
    Any increase in the limits set for Northern Ireland would necessitate a revision of the plan by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

    As my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy said in his reply to the question from the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) on 8 February 1995, Official Report Column 315–16, this matter is kept under regular review.

    Accident and Emergency Departments
    Mr. Keen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many accident and emergency departments there are in Northern Ireland; what were the corresponding figures in each year since 1986; and how many accident and emergency departments have been relocated in each year since 1986.

    Mr. Moss
    The number of accident and emergency departments in Northern Ireland in each year since 1986 is shown in the table:

    Year

    Number

    1986

    29

    1987

    28

    1988–89

    27

    1989–90

    26

    1990–91

    26

    1991–92

    25

    1992–93

    23

    1993–94

    22

    1994–95

    21

    Assuming A and E departments are defined as having been "relocated" when a new A and E department takes on their workload, since 1986 two A and E departments have been relocated following the opening of a new acute hospital.
    626
    operations; thus, a high score reflects a high standard of hygiene. As at the end of November 1994, the results of HAS in red meat slaughterhouses by type in England and Wales were as follows:

    Fair Employment Legislation
    Ms Mowlam
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the benefits of employers with fewer than 250 staff being obliged to keep a record of all job applications for monitoring purposes in any revised fair employment legislation.

    Mr. Ancram
    There is provision in the legislation for this threshold to be varied if necessary hut, to date, it has been considered that this issue should await the wider review of the legislation. My right hon. and learned Friend has asked the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights to take forward the independent review of the fair employment legislation which was promised during the passage of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. It is for SACHR to consider how this issue will he addressed in the context of the review.

    Employment Practices (RUC)
    Ms Mowlam
    To ask the Secretary of State of Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library the internal review of employment practices recently carried out by the Chief Constable of the RUC, Sir Hugh Annesley.

    Sir John Wheeler
    The position remains the same as when I replied to the hon. Member for Kingston Upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on 25 May 1994,Official Report, columns 200–01.

    Transport
    Ms Mowlam
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to improve or extend public transport services between the major towns and cities.

    Mr. Moss
    We are currently engaged on a major investment programme for public transport facilities aimed at producing better public transport services across Northern Ireland. We have completed the Belfast cross-harbour rail bridge to unify rail services for the first time; built the new Euorpa bus centre in Belfast; and provided new or upgraded bus stations in Omagh, Enniskillen, Cookstown, Newcastle and Newtownards. Work is continuing on the Belfast to Dublin rail line and rolling stock upgrade, on the reinstatement of the line to a new station at Great Victoria street, Belfast, and on a
    627
    new bus station at Donegall Quay, Belfast. In addition work is due to start soon on the re-opening to scheduled services of the Antrim to Bleach Green rail line.

    There has also been a significant modernisation of the bus fleet in Northern Ireland. This represents investment in public transport of some £110 millions since 1990, substantially assisted by the European regional development fund. As part of the guiding principles for future transportation planning which I announced on 17 January, the transport operation companies are to be restructured to provide a more co-ordinated approach to service planning and a more strategic use of resources and to cut out unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication.

    Water Services
    Mr. Spellar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to make an announcement on the options for water charging.

    Mr. Moss
    Options for new charging arrangements for water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland are still being examined. I intend to publish a policy document in advance of the introduction of new arrangements and I will make an announcement at that time.

    Mr. Spellar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are his estimates of water leakage from the water supply system.

    Mr. Moss
    The latest estimate for overall leakage is 28 per cent., of which approximately one third occurs within consumers' premises.

    HMS Caroline
    Mr. Spellar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to ensure HMS Caroline stays in Belfast.

    Mr. Moss
    The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that is has no plans at present to move HMS Caroline from its present Belfast location.

    Electricity
    Mr. Peter Robinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the terms of the contract between Scottish Power and Northern Ireland Electricity in respect of denial of and third party access to the Scotland-Northern Ireland electricity interconnector for 15 years.

    Mr. Ancram
    The terms of the contract between Northern Ireland Electricity plc and Scottish Power plc are primarily a matter for the two private companies concerned. NIE considered that a term covering its exclusive use of the electricity interconnector for the first 15 years was necessary in order to secure a reasonable return on its considerable capital investment. Government endorsed this arrangement in granting a transmission licence to NIE.

    Mr. Peter Robinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the relative economic efficiency of power production for Northern Ireland of(a) an indigenous generator and (b) the Moyle interconnector.

    Mr. Ancram
    None. Following the privatisation of the electricity industry in Northern Ireland, responsibility for assessing the merits of new generating capacity rests solely with Northern Ireland Electricity plc.

    Strangford Lough
    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans exist to carry out flood defence works at Strangford lough; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Ancram
    The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland is currently undertaking a feasibility study into possible options for refurbishment works on sea defences on Strangford lough. These sea defences, known as the Newtownards, Ballyurnanellan and Kilnatierney dykes, are designated in accordance with the terms of the Drainage (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 to provide protection against flooding from the sea to the town of Newtownards at its most northerly end, and to other valuable land and property on the Ards peninsula.

    It is not possible to confirm any plans for flood defence works at Strangford lough until the feasibility study has been completed and all necessary consultations have taken place with environmental and other interests in this area, which is recognised as an area of high conservation value.

    Areas of Special Scientific Interest
    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria his Department applies when considering for designation as areas of special scientific interest those locations that are primarily being considered for their(a) ornithological and (b) marine life values; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Moss
    The criteria used when considering for designation of areas of special scientific interest for ornithological reasons are largely based on the numbers of each species of bird using the site. For marine sites an assessment is made of the naturalness, diversity, size and rarity of the habitats occurring at the site.

    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what advice he has received about the predicted scale of deterioration in respect of areas of special scientific interest due to(a) non-enforcement of management agreement conditions and (b) lack of monitoring; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Moss
    Management agreement conditions arc generally respected, and there is little evidence of significant deterioration of the scientific interest of areas of special scientific interest due to non-compliance. However, it is accepted that, if management agreement conditions were not enforced, the scientific value would be likely to deteriorate significantly.

    Monitoring is important in the management of ASSIs, but in itself it has no direct effect on whether or not a site deteriorates.

    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which areas of special scientific interest have suffered deterioration since their designation; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Moss
    No declared areas of special scientific interest have deteriorated to such an extent as to lose the feature(s) which qualified them as such at declaration.

    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many management agreements with landowners and land occupiers have been established in(a) areas of special scientific interest and (b) prospective areas of special scientific interest; and if he will make a statement.
    629
    Mr. Moss
    At present, 31 management agreements have been established with landowners and land occupiers in areas of special scientific interest, and there are five agreements for prospective areas.

    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what plans or machinery exist to monitor the protection of areas of special scientific interest in Northern Ireland.

    Mr. Moss
    Conservation plans which will set out the monitoring requirements of individual areas of specific scientific interest are currently being prepared for some of the largest and most important sites, and it is planned to extend these to cover all areas by 1997. A trial monitoring exercise has just been completed, and it is planned to extend this work. In addition, it is intended to recruit more staff to help with the monitoring and management of ASSIs in the near future.

    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish the next tranche of areas of special scientific interest to be designated in Northern Ireland.

    Mr. Moss
    It is not our policy to publish lists of proposed areas of special scientific interest.

    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which areas of special scientific interest(a) have been designated in Northern Ireland (b) are being examined for possible future designation.

    Mr. Moss
    A list of declared areas of special scientific interest is set out in the following table. Other sites are being examined for possible future designation, but it is not our policy to publish these. It is the Government's intention to declare the remaining sites known to qualify as ASSIs by the year 2001.

    Number

    Site name

    1

    Carrickbrawn

    2

    Gortnagory

    3

    Moneygal Bog

    4

    Garry Bog

    5

    Teal Lough and Slaghtfreedan

    6

    Black Bog

    7

    Glenarrif

    8

    Cleggan Valley

    9

    Monawilkin

    10

    Lough Beg

    11

    Beagh Big

    12

    Garvros

    13

    Moneendogue

    14

    Lergan

    15

    Drumlisaleen

    16

    Inner Belfast Lough

    17

    Glenburn

    18

    Strangford Lough Pt 1

    19

    Ballymacormick Point

    20

    Strangford Lough

    21

    Kiltubbrid Lough

    22

    North Woodburn Glen

    23

    Dunloy Bog

    24

    Strangford Lough Pt 3

    25

    Moninea Bog

    26

    Fairy Water Bogs

    27

    Annacramph Meadows

    28

    Rathlin Island—Coast

    29

    Rathlin Island—Ballygill North

    30

    Rathin Island—Kinramer South

    31

    Rathlin Island—Ballycarry

    32

    Loughkeelan

    33

    Horse Island

    34

    Dernish Island

    630

    Number

    Site name

    35

    Sheep Island

    36

    Corraslough Point

    37

    Lough Neagh

    38

    Lackan Bog

    39

    Innishroosk

    40

    Slievenacloy

    41

    Crockaghole Wood

    42

    Glenmore Wood

    43

    Ness Wood

    44

    Ervery Wood

    45

    Drumlea and Mullan Woods

    46

    Altmover Glen

    47

    Strabane Glen

    48

    Owenkillew and Glenelly Woods

    49

    Deroran Bog

    50

    Portmore Lough

    51

    Banagher Glen

    52

    Culnafay

    53

    Pettigoe Plateau

    54

    Garron Plateau

    55

    Upper Lough Erne—Crom

    56

    Knockballymore Lough

    57

    Kilroosky Lough

    58

    Summcrhill Lough

    59

    Burdautien Lough

    60

    Cuilcagh Mountain

    61

    Mill Lough

    62

    Killymacken Lough

    63

    Derryleckagh

    64

    Magilligan

    65

    Slieve Beagh

    66

    Ballynahone Bog

    67

    Upper Lough Erne Galloon

    68

    Teal Lough Part II

    69

    Murlough

    70

    Upper Lough Erne—Belleisle

    Mr. MacKinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what environmental impact assessment is being carried out on actual and projected engineering works in and around the environs of Strangford lough; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Ancram
    The Government are conscious of the high conservation value and the protected status of Strangford lough and its environs both as an area of outstanding natural beauty and area of special scientific interest. Any engineering operations currently undertaken or proposed by the Department of Agriculture on the designated sea defences on Strangford lough or on designated watercourses discharging into the lough arc subject to rigorous assessment of the environmental impact. Where any environmental effects are considered significant, a full environmental statement will he prepared and made available for public comment, before the designs for any proposed works are finalised and works commence.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Indonesia
    Dr. Godman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with representatives of the Indonesian Government regarding the issue of human rights in that country.
    631
    Mr. Goodlad
    We have regular discussions with the Indonesian Government on a wide range of issues, including human rights.

    Mr. Fraser
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to pay an official visit to Indonesia to assess the human rights situation.

    Mr. Goodlad
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans to visit Indonesia at present.

    Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress to date in negotiations for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.

    Mr. David Davis
    The negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty began in the conference on disarmament in January 1994. A draft text containing the elements of a treaty has now been completed. The United Nations General Assembly has welcomed this progress. The conference on disarmament continues to work to achieve consensus on both the treaty text and on an international monitoring system to verify compliance with the treaty. The United Kingdom is playing a full part. We remain committed to negotiating an effective and verifiable comprehensive test ban treaty.

    Pakistan
    Mr. Waller
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations between the United Kingdom and Pakistan.

    Mr. Baldry
    We have good relations with Pakistan. We look forward to deepening and extending our political, commercial and cultural contacts.

    Chechnya
    Mr. Mullin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his Russian counterpart about the situation in Chechnya.

    Mr. Hurd
    I had a full discussion of the situation in Chechnya with Mr. Kozyrev in Stockholm on 14 February.

    United Nations (Conflict Settlement)
    Mr. Grocott
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the United Nations' role in the settlement of international conflicts.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    The process of assessing the UN's role in the settlement of disputes is a continual one. In the last few years we have come forward with a number of initiatives designed to strengthen UN capabilities and improve the UN's performance in this field.

    European Union
    Mr. Riddick
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if border controls will he one of the issues on the agenda of the next meeting of EU Foreign Ministers which he will attend.
    632
    Mr. David Davis
    The next Foreign Affairs Council meeting is on 6 and 7 March. Border controls are not on the agenda.

    Middle East
    Mr. Rathbone
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he is preparing for members of the Government to visit the Lebanon to discuss the middle east peace process.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    Members of the Government meet regularly with their Lebanese counterparts to discuss the middle east peace process and other issues. My noble Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will he visiting Lebanon in April.

    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's role in the middle east peace process.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    The Prime Minister's visit to Israel, the occupied territories and Jordan from 12 to 15 March will underline Britain's full political and economic support for the peace process.

    Social Development Summit
    Mr. Bayley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to attend the United Nations social development summit in Copenhagen.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    Baroness Chalker will represent the United Kingdom.

    Iraq
    Mr. Bill Michie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment the United Kingdom Government have made of the latest report of the United Nations special rapporteur on Iraq.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    We welcome Mr van der Stools' report and share his condemnation of the Iraqi regime for the continuing abuses of human rights. We will continue to press Iraq to comply in full with the terms of all United Nations Security Council resolutions.

    Lady Olga Maitland
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United Nations in respect of Iraqi compliance with resolutions seeking the release of Kuwaiti prisoners of war and missing persons.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    We attach great importance to the resolution of this issue. We take every suitable opportunity to raise it at the United Nations—for example, at each 60-day Security Council review of sanctions against Iraq.

    Western Sahara
    Mr. Gerrard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Moroccan Government regarding access to United Nations vote identification centres in Western Sahara; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    We have made no representations to the Moroccans on this issue. The United Nations is responsible for organising the referendum in the Western Sahara. As a member of the informal Security Council
    633
    group of friends of the UN Secretary-General in relation to the Western Sahara, we remain in close contact with the UN about all aspects of the organisation of the referendum.

    Patagonia
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals he has to improve trading relations between the United Kingdom and Patagonia.

    Mr. David Davis
    My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Welsh Affairs will lead a group of business men to Argentina from 13 to 17 May. He is considering going to Patagonia as part of the visit, which will aim to improve trading relations between the United Kingdom and Argentina in general.

    Information Technology
    Mr. David Shaw
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps British embassies are taking to promote United Kingdom interests in information technology and the information super-highway.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    UK posts offer support, advice and briefing to UK companies doing business overseas in all fields. They also monitor market conditions and opportunities and send information back on a regular basis for onward distribution to industry to help them take advantage of business opportunities. FCO commercial staff in the US, Canada, France and Germany are working closely with the DTI to research the commercial opportunities for UK companies in multi-media and information highway products in these countries.

    World Summit for Children
    Ms Glenda Jackson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what practical steps the Government will implement to fulfil its commitment in achieving the goals set by the 1990 world summit for children.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    We are responding positively to the summit's goals. The UK was one of the first 634
    industrialised countries to publish a national response to the summit. The needs of children in developing countries are also a priority goal of the British aid programme.

    UNESCO
    Mr. Canavan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received about the United Kingdom rejoining UNESCO; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has received 38 letters from both MPs and members of the public in the last five months about the United Kingdom rejoining UNESCO. In addition, there have been 10 parliamentary questions in the same period, the most recent in this House having been answered by me on 1 February 1995.

    We are continuing to keep this issue under review but as of yet have taken no decision.

    France
    Mr. Harry Greenway
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on measures being taken to strengthen United Kingdom relations with France.

    Mr. David Davis
    Our relations with France are extremely sound and developing in many important areas. This was confirmed at the Franco-British summit in Chartres last November.

    We continue to consult frequently and closely on all issues of mutual concern.

    Land Mines
    Mr. David Nicholson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the establishment of a UN anti-personnel mine clearance fund.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    We welcomed the UN Secretary-General's decision last year to establish a voluntary trust fund for assistance in mine clearance. The UK made the first financial contribution to the voluntary trust fund in September 1994 when we gave $150,000 for de-mining in the Yemen.

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

Lord Hoffmann
The Right Honourable Sir Leonard Hubert Hoffmann, Knight, a Lord Justice of Appeal, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and thereby created a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron Hoffmann, of Chedworth in the County of Gloucestershire—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Scarman and the Lord Browne-Wilkinson.

Turkey: PKK Cease-fire Offer
2.48 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether two offers for a complete cease-fire both officially made by the PKK (Kurdish Workers Party) were rejected in 1994 by the Turkish Government and, if so, whether they know the reason why.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we are aware that the PKK leadership made two references to starting a cease-fire in 1994. On both occasions their violence continued. The Turkish Government have said that they will not negotiate with terrorists; nor should they.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. However, will Her Majesty's Government, with their experience of accepting cease-fires in Northern Ireland, use every possible means to convince Turkey to adopt non-violent conflict resolution after a war which has lasted 10 years, displaced 2 million people, killed 15,000 people and nearly destroyed the Turkish economy by inflation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's great concern for Turkey. But there is no getting away from it: the PKK is a terrorist organisation. We condemn all acts of terrorism. However, we also condemn atrocities and human rights abuses carried out by both sides of the conflict. The noble Lord has asked the Government to convince the Turkish Government to adopt non-violent conflict resolution. I believe that Prime Minister Ciller is indeed seeking to do so. That is exactly what she and her new Foreign Minister Karayalcin have said. They want to get constitutional reform through and they want to bring a peace. But there are no short cuts when there are terrorists involved.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister comment on reports from human rights organisations that
1476
the incidence of torture being used against the Kurds by the Turkish authorities is again on the increase, especially in the south-east part of Turkey? Can the Minister also give us an assurance that the Turkish Government will be left in no doubt that their application for membership of the European Union will not be accepted until their human rights record improves?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the answer to the noble Baroness's third question is: of course that is so; indeed, it has been made quite clear. However, I should tell the noble Baroness that there are a number of ways in which we have to continue to express our deep concern about human rights. It always forms a major part of our dialogue with members of the Turkish Government, both bilaterally and with our partners in the European Union—most recently, less than a month ago. I also believe that it is most important that Turkey's western orientation should be maintained. That is why we seek to keep all channels of communication open with Turkey. We particularly believe that the Customs union between the European Union and Turkey would play an important part in the process. That is a major objective, not only for us but for all members of the European Union.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that constitutional reform is impossible to achieve in a country where any discussion of devolution, autonomy or other such arrangements is illegal under Article 125 of the Turkish constitution, which makes any act or words which threaten the indivisible integrity of the Turkish state, republic and people an offence punishable by death? Does the noble Baroness not agree that by imprisoning the Members of Parliament belonging to the Democracy Party, by destroying that party, by killing and imprisoning human rights activists, lawyers and political workers throughout the south east the state has driven the whole of the people of the south east into the arms of the PKK? Does she not agree that, as a solution is being reached by negotiation between the governments and the armed oppositions in EI Salvador, Guatemala, Angola, Georgia and Azerbaijan, it is likely that some progress could be made if the Turkish Government would agree at least to sit down at the negotiating table?
Noble Lords: Speech! Order!
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, most noble Lords in this House will know that we take every opportunity to make known to the Turkish Government our concern not only at their human rights performance overall but also about the need for constitutional reform, of which I spoke earlier. We have expressed our concern to the Turkish Government about almost all the issues which the noble Lord mentioned. However, giving any comfort to PKK terrorists does not assist in getting the government to change.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, do the Government accept that the only long-term solution to the Kurdish problem in Turkey, Iraq and Iran is an independent Kurdish state?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, no. The noble Lord should not confuse the situation regarding

1477
the PKK terrorists with the natural aspirations of Turkish Kurds, whom the Turkish constitution safeguards.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in view of the human rights violations by the Turkish Government about which we have heard at Question Time over and over again, what is the Government's position regarding arms exports to that country? If Turkey's membership of NATO is a problem in that respect and prevents us from banning the sale of arms, should the continued membership of NATO by Turkey be reconsidered?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's last question is genuinely no. Turkey has a need, as all NATO members have, for external defence. All arms sales are considered on a case-by-case basis. We take into account all the normal arms export criteria, including the country's human rights record and the likely end use of the equipment concerned. If arms are applied for which could be used for internal repression, licences are not granted.

Members' Conduct: Nolan Committee
2.55 p.m.
Lord Jacques Lord Jacques asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the responsibilities of Members of both Houses of Parliament for legislation affecting the conduct of those involved in local government, business and the professions, they propose to give statutory responsibility to the Nolan Committee for the conduct of Members of both Houses.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): No, my Lords.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. At least it gives me the opportunity to ask supplementary questions.
My first supplementary question is this. Am I right in assuming that the Government take the view that Parliament is supreme and that it can make regulations affecting those who have no choice but to accept those regulations, whereas in the case of Parliament there is a choice of saying yes or no, to accept or reject?
Secondly, will the Minister bear in mind that that is inconsistent with the point of view of people today? We live in a different age from the '80s; we are now coming into the late '90s. The view of most people is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have to confess to your Lordships that I was quite encouraged as I listened to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, to which my unequivocal answer is, of course, yes, Parliament is supreme. When the Nolan Committee makes its first report it will be for Parliament to consider what to do about it. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that it would be very
1478
unfortunate if all the liberties that our ancestors took so long to gain for Parliament were thrown away in the way he suggests.

No. 2 Marsham Street: Demolition
2.51 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have fixed a date for the demolition of the building in Marsham Street which is the headquarters of the Department of the Environment or are they satisfied that the process of decay is proceeding at such a pace as to render such action unnecessary.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the building at 2 Marsham Street will be demolished following the departure of the current occupants, the Departments of the Environment and Transport. The moves are likely to be completed by Easter 1997. The decision to demolish 2 Marsham Street was announced by the then Secretary of State in February 1992. The decision was taken following an appraisal of the options for the building which concluded that it would be neither cost-effective nor in the interests of the local environment to try to refurbish the existing building.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Does he recall that my noble friend Lady Blatch, on that same day, in one of those bold judgments which she is accustomed to make from time to time, went so far as to say that the period in which that building was put up was not the best era of all time for architecture? Is he also aware that that tremendous judgment was capped by an equally bold one from no other than my noble friend the Chief Whip, who said on 3rd November 1992 that the building did not have a very long-term life? All that was absolutely true. I hope that the process of demolition will not be left entirely to nature and the rottenness of the building.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend obviously has a great affinity for the building, because this is the fourth Question he has asked on the matter in the past three years. That may be because he was the first tenant of the building when he was Minister for Transport back in 1971. I am sure that, like me, he enjoyed working there because the view from the north tower is quite spectacular.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the noble Viscount assumes a reasonably early dispersal of the personnel from that building. Can I have some assurance that he will consider the question of distributing more Civil Service jobs outside London to the regions?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is perhaps another question. However, I have to advise the noble Lord that the civil servants who currently work at 2 Marsham Street will not be dispersed far. Those at the Department of Transport will move this year to Great

1479
Minster, a new building on Horseferry Road. Those at the Department of the Environment will move to Ashdown House on Victoria Street and Eland House on Bressenden Place in 1997, I believe with very good value for money.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, in these days of telephones and faxes, is it necessary to have more than a few advisers in close proximity to a Minister? Are not these vast bureaucratic anthills which cluster around Westminster quite unnecessary in these days? In view of that factor, when the building is demolished, might the area not be dedicated to a much wanted open space?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the last half of the noble and learned Lord's question first. The future of the site is as yet undecided. It will depend on what demand there is from government at the time. I shall take into account his views about retaining the area as an open site.
As to the first part of this question, of course a great many civil servants have been dispersed during the course of the past 15 years. I believe that we need to keep a balance.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, regarding what I call the Three Graces of Marsham Street, will my noble friend tell me exactly when the Department of Transport will move to Great Minster House? What remedial work is taking place there? How much is it costing?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not have the information regarding what remedial work was done to Great Minster. However, I can confirm that the department is moving to that new building this year. I shall do my best to find out the cost of that and write to my noble friend.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that it is not a laughing matter when we decide at considerable cost to pull down a building that has been occupied for only 23 years? Someone should be made answerable for that.
Is the noble Viscount also aware that in September 1992 the Auditor General confirmed with the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee that he would look closely at the proposals to move staff from the building in Marsham Street, and demolish it? Was that done? When was the report published? When will it be published? Will the noble Viscount put a copy in the Library?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Property Holdings commissioned a review of the options for the building's future. That was undertaken by Arup Associates. It reported in February 1991 that redevelopment was the only option that it could recommend without reservation. The decision to demolish was based on the Arup Report, as I indicated, and the decision was announced by the then Environment Secretary, Mr. Heseltine, on 6th February 1992.
I am afraid to say that it is because of the problem with the design and build methods used to construct 2
1480
Marsham Street and other such buildings—they were common in the late 1960s—that their lifespan has since proved to be short.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, my question was regarding the Auditor General.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend is slightly coy about the redevelopment of 2 Marsham Street. Was not one of the reasons that the building was built there in the first place the fact that it was contaminated land? Will the opportunity be taken to clean up the land in the redevelopment?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend is right. It was a gasworks site from 1813. As my noble friend Lady Blatch said when answering a Question at an earlier stage, if the buildings remained, they would probably be listed because it was the first public gasworks. However, my noble friend asks a good question. The towers of 2 Marsham Street are built on the rotundas of two larger gasholders. It is understood that when demolition takes place the base of the rotundas will be removed and contamination will be dealt with at that stage.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, will the Minister reply to my question? It dealt with the intentions of the Auditor General. It had nothing to do with the history of the building.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is right to indicate that, whatever the future of the building, it should represent good value for money for the Government. The choices have to be made as to whether refurbishment is required or whether the site should be redeveloped. The decision was taken on the basis of the Arup Report.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, makes a serious point: that it would be wise to consider dispersing civil servants, in particular those who are not immediate advisers to Ministers, out of central London? If that point were accepted, would it not be right that the demolition of the building in Marsham Street could take place before the departure of the current occupants?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes, I believe that it is important to consider the dispersal of civil servants. However, I believe that we should retain a balance. There is a good opportunity for employment in London on the basis of working in the Civil Service. I do not believe that that should be denied to people. The building is having a certain amount of trouble standing up. However, I am assured that it will do so until the dispersal takes place.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Viscount has now been asked twice by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, about the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General. He has not answered. Secondly, he

1481
was asked whether a copy of the report will be placed in the Library. Again, he did not answer that question. Could we have an answer to those two questions?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall consider the question that the noble Lord asks. I shall check whether the report has been placed in the Library. If it has not, I shall do so.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that the decision has been taken to demolish the building on 2 Marsham Street, and the obvious need for some form of redevelopment of the site, would it not be useful at this stage for the Government to list the various options for redevelopment and to consult with the people of Westminster, and of London generally, to ascertain their preference as regards what is a key site in the centre of London?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. There are no detailed proposals for the site as yet. However, it is envisaged that a mixed-use development, perhaps more in keeping with the local area, should replace the current building. An outline planning application was submitted for the site in July 1994. However, I stress that that is purely an outline planning application.

Lomé Convention and EU Aid
3.9 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they remain committed to the Lomé Convention and to strengthening the overseas development co-operation work of the European Union and what priority they give to these purposes within the overall aid programme.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we remain fully committed to the Lomé Convention and, above all, to improving the effectiveness of the EC's aid programmes. These are high priorities for us.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister accept that she will have our full support for any action that she is able to take to strengthen the effectiveness of the Lomé agreement and the European Development Fund? Such action is necessary in the aftermath of the Uruguay Round which adversely affected sub-Sahara and other similar areas. Does she agree that despite undertakings given by the Prime Minister three years ago to Commonwealth leaders, both bilaterally and multilaterally, resources are increasingly being diverted from the poor of the third world to the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe? What do the Minister and her European colleagues intend to do to correct that trend?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is right about seeking to strengthen the working of the Lomé Convention. However, we must ensure that the European Union makes its programmes
1482
as effective as possible. I noted, in the evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, that the European Commission said that:
"Only a third of its projects and programmes go well; around one-third are satisfactory but not brilliant and about one-third are not good value for money."
The noble Lord will, therefore, understand why I am keen to improve the situation. He is absolutely right that trade access to those countries is critical. That is why I have argued consistently that we should discuss the matter in detail, and I shall continue to do so.
I believe that the peaceful transition of the countries of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union is important, but we must also keep up the good progress which is being made by many of the African countries. That means that we must cut our coat according to our cloth and not make decisions which we cannot afford to fulfil. We must bring a balance to the situation.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to give the figures which would indicate the priority which the Government give, first, to Lomé and, secondly, to projects through the European Community? Can she indicate whether the figures are on an upward or a downward trend, showing the degree of commitment to which she referred?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the exact figures without notice. However, obviously the Berlin Wall only fell in 1989 and before that the European Union and we ourselves could not give help to the eastern European and former Soviet Union countries. Thus, those figures are inevitably on an upward trend, although not a continuing upward trend. The figures for the poorest countries of the world remain approximately level with some changes, according to the different projects that arise at any one time. The figures given for the poorest countries, particularly through special programmes for Africa and the assistance programmes other than that of the European Union, show an increase. It is important that they continue to do so and I shall write to the noble Lord with the details.
Lord Acton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Britain and all the countries of the European Union wish to assist in the development of post-apartheid South Africa? To that end, during the course of the current Lomé 4 mid-term review, will the Government do their utmost to ensure that a clause is inserted to enable South Africa to form the closest possible relationship with the Lomé Convention?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as a close friend of South Africa and its new government, we have been discussing what relationship is in the best interests of South Africa, both directly with bilateral donors and with the European Union. As the noble Lord may know, £100 million of UK aid is committed to South Africa, £60 million of which is bilateral aid. However, Ministers in South Africa are not yet fully agreed upon the

1483
relationship with the Lomé Convention. They will want trade access and help and Britain is already giving a major part of that help.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the European Development Fund, which provides the funding for the Lomé Convention, is not subject on any occasion to democratic control either by the European Parliament—because it is not in the European Community budget—or by a national parliament under present circumstances? Does my noble friend agree that the matter should be closely examined in order to encourage certain projects not to waste taxpayers' funds throughout the Community?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as my noble friend will know, I have sympathy with her view that we should have better control of European expenditure of aid money. We started a Horizon 2000 work programme under our 1992 presidency because we believe that if we could achieve greater co-ordination between the Commission and the member states we would not only make better use of EDF, but would also have better results. That is proceeding, albeit too slowly. I believe that the debates now taking place between our 14 partners and ourselves with the Commission will lead to improvement. However, as the commitment will be decided upon voluntarily, it will also be up to us to argue in the development council the best way of spending the money.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, does the Minister believe that adequate mechanisms are in place for considering the effect of European trade policies on the economies of the developing world? Does she believe that such effects are properly considered and taken into account in the formulation of policy?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I wish that there had been a debate when we were last in Brussels ready to discuss the matter. I sought to persuade members of the ACP and the EU to engage in a debate. The two chairmen declined, even though all our friends in the ACP wanted a discussion about trade. I do not believe that the trade discussion is as adequate as it needs to be.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, how does the Minister reconcile her first Answer about the Government remaining committed and having aid as a high priority with the undoubted fact of the diversion of resources to the Soviet Union and eastern Europe? Is it not a fact that finances to the third world are being cut? Statements by the Minister that we must cut our coat according to our cloth ignore the fact that the cut has taken place. It is the Government's responsibility to restore the cut.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has omitted to note that there is not only an increase in what we spend but also a continual increase in the European development funds. I remind him that the seventh programme now in operation has an increase of over 45 per cent on the sixth programme which operated at nearly a 40 per cent. increase on the fifth programme. So there is no question but that those
1484
countries are receiving attention. However, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union also need help. I said that we must achieve a balance and we are striving to achieve that now.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, would it be a more effective use of resources if the ACP secretariat were urged to reassess its capacity for efficient delivery in terms of its role as facilitator to ACP countries in this critical period of the Lomé Convention?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is important that the ACP countries and governments are kept well informed by their secretariat about all aspects of the convention. We must help to bring that about.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister accept that in the European programme it is not a matter of quality against quantity, but the need for quality with quantity? Is not her real problem that, despite her valiant efforts, both multilaterally and bilaterally the British aid programme has been steadily decreasing as a proportion of GNP and is set to fall in real terms over the next four years?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there are many problems in helping the third world. We must give quality and ensure that it is effectively targeted.

Pensions Bill [H.L.]
3.18 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 13,

Clauses 85 to 98,

Clauses 14 to 70,

Schedule 2,

Clause 71 to 84,

Clauses 99 to 110,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 111 to 114,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 115 to 131,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 132 to 148,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 149 to 153,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 154 to 157.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Income and Wealth: Rowntree Report
3.19 p.m.
Lord Eatwell Lord Eatwell rose to call attention to the Rowntree Report on Income and Wealth and the effect of inequality on Britain's economic and industrial strength; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the publication of the inquiry into income and wealth by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation marks an important and, indeed, chastening moment in the social and political life of our country, for this deeply disturbing report demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that over the past 16 years there has been an extraordinarily sharp increase in inequality in Britain. The increase has been so sharp that the real incomes of 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. of the people in this country have actually fallen, or at best failed to rise, even though the economy as a whole has grown by over 30 per cent. That large minority of the British population has not benefited from the economic growth of the past 15 years. Instead, they have been left behind, left out, marginalised, and typically concentrated in decaying areas in which economic and social problems have proliferated.
It is worth quoting the report at length. It states:
"a substantial proportion of the population is unable to afford the goods which the majority…regards as basic necessities…many of those dependent on state benefits —particularly for long periods—are unable to make ends meet, or are doing so by accumulating ever higher levels of debt and arrears. If such low incomes were a temporary phenomenon, there might be less cause for concern, but there is disturbing evidence that lengths of time with low incomes, for instance because of lack of work, are becoming longer. Low levels of income are disturbingly correlated with poor health and high mortality".
The report argues, quite rightly, that the rapid increase in inequality is something which concerns us all. It states:
"Regardless of any moral arguments or feelings of altruism, everyone shares an interest in the cohesiveness of society. As the gaps between rich and poor grow, the problems of the marginalised groups which are being left behind rebound on the more comfortable majority…unless something is done to reintegrate these groups, all of society will end up by suffering the consequences. The very richest may be able to build walls around their suburbs, but most people cannot. It is only necessary to look across the Atlantic to the USA to see the consequences of an impoverished minority for the quality of life of the majority".
I have quoted these sections of the report at length to stress the fact that, while it demonstrates that inequality has increased unambiguously throughout society, with income differentials among the employed and the non-employed widening, the report's principal concern is with the living standards and life opportunities of the poorest. I stress this point because, when the report was debated in another place a fortnight ago, there were quite disreputable attempts to discredit its findings as "the politics of envy". Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Rowntree Report contains an enormous quantity of carefully presented statistical argument which it is impossible even to summarise adequately in a single speech. I am sure that noble Lords will range widely over the information in the course of the debate this afternoon. But two characteristics of the changes in UK
1486
income distribution are worth emphasising. First, the rapid growth in inequality over the past 16 years more than reverses the gentle trend towards equality which has been evident since the Second World War. The overall result is far greater inequality than at any time in the past 50 years. Secondly, growing inequality in the 1980s was not an international phenomenon. Although inequality grew in many countries, in others inequality was reduced. Inequality increased in Britain faster than in any other advanced country except New Zealand. The absolute increase in the standard measure of inequality in Britain was more than double the largest increase anywhere else in the advanced world.
Before turning to the reasons why inequality has increased, it is worth considering for a moment the important misconceptions and criticisms of the report that were made, most notably by Mr. Peter Lilley, when it was debated in another place. It is worth noting that Mr. Lilley failed to make clear in his speech that virtually all the statistical material contained within the report was derived from official government publications and used a methodology proposed by government statisticians. Indeed, Volume 2, which contains the details of the analysis, was made available to Mr. Lilley's department prior to publication and was checked by his officials. It should also be noted that the conclusions of the study are the agreed views of the entire inquiry group, including Mr. Michael Bett, the deputy chairman of British Telecom, and Mr. Howard Davies, the director-general of the CBI.
Unable to refute these basic statistical findings, Ministers in another place attempted to obscure them by making a series of quite irrelevant points. For example, it was stated on several occasions by Mr. Lilley that average incomes increased in the 1980s. They did—but that is irrelevant to the issue of inequality. Let us suppose for example, that the entire growth of the British economy since the Industrial Revolution had accrued to the family of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, alone, leaving the rest of the entire population of Britain living in grinding 18th century misery. The average growth of the British economy would have been exactly the same; but the distribution of income would have been quite different. So I hope that we hear nothing today about the performance of averages, whether it be the average income of production workers, pensioners or any other average. They are quite simply irrelevant.
Another attempted smokescreen was the argument that, since the poorest groups in society have acquired a number of consumer durables such as washing machines or televisions, they cannot possibly be as badly off as the statistics suggest. That argument is also bogus. It so happens that the prices of consumer durables have fallen sharply relative to other consumer goods over the past 20 years or so. People have accordingly bought more of them and fewer other goods. These effects are already incorporated in the price index which is used to measure the real incomes of the poorest groups. They are already taken account of. To pick out one item of expenditure from the rest is a totally misleading exercise.
Yet another smokescreen was Mr. Lilley's argument that society is mobile, and the membership of the poorest groups is not constant. That was as true 16 years ago as it is today. As the report makes clear, mobility out of the poorest groups in society is today less than it used to be.
Finally, in this litany of half-baked excuses, there has been a lot of cant about whether inequality is absolute or relative. As we have already seen, the point is largely irrelevant, because much of the focus of the Rowntree Report is on the fall in absolute real incomes of the very poorest groups. But it is worth a moment's consideration.
Let us consider the relevant example of transport. In the 1950s, when there were few private cars, there was an abundance of cheap public transport which those on above average and below average incomes could use and would use. Today, most can afford a car. Public transport is limited and expensive. That severely reduces the living standards of the relatively poor, who are forced either to buy a car that they cannot really afford or not to travel at all. Relative poverty is, in these important respects, absolute poverty. Therefore, I hope that we shall hear none of those bogus excuses from the Government Benches this afternoon. Indeed, I hope the Minister realises that the Government's search for excuses in this matter is thoroughly offensive to the British people. I hope that the Minister will accept the findings of the report and tell us what practical steps are proposed to reduce the massive increase in inequality which has occurred during this Government's time in office.
The report makes clear that there are a variety of factors which have contributed to the growth in inequality, some of which are the direct outcome of government policy. Others, of which the links are less direct, on careful examination, are the Government's responsibility too.
First, higher unemployment and a number of demographic and social factors mean that more people have become dependent on state benefits. Since the Government have chosen to link benefits to prices and not to earnings, the gap has widened between those on benefit and those with earned incomes. Secondly, changes that the Government have made to the tax system have robbed taxation of its earlier automatic tendency to reduce inequality. Instead, the burden of taxation has shifted from higher income groups to lower and middle income groups. Also, differences in earned incomes have grown rapidly. Since 1978, hourly real wages for the lowest paid men hardly changed at all, while top wage earners have enjoyed real increases of about 50 per cent. For households that increasing inequality of earned incomes has been reinforced by the trend towards work-rich, two-earner households and at the same time towards more work-poor, no-earner households. Moreover, the changes that the Government are introducing into the pension system, moving from the pay-as-you-go state pension to funded private pensions, will result in the growing inequalities of earned income being translated in later years to growing inequalities of pension income.
Given that so much of the increase in inequality has been the direct outcome of government policy, the crucial question which the Government must answer is why they allow that to happen. What justification is there for it? For example, has the increase in misery and deprivation brought with it superior economic performance? The question we need to confront is whether inequality is efficient.
It is well known that greater inequality brings in its wake deterioration in health. Across the advanced countries the more unequal a country may be, the lower will be its life expectancy, the higher will be the mortality and the worse will be its general standards of health. Inequality makes us sick and inequality kills. It is also well known that greater inequality is associated with rising crime. That is hardly surprising when inequality marginalises whole communities, destroying their stake in society.
Ill health and rising crime impose heavy economic burdens on our society. In that sense inequality is clearly inefficient. But I want to concentrate this afternoon on the more narrow economic issue of the impact of the increasing inequality among wage rates and earned incomes. Is that efficient? In this case, is increasing inequality simply the outcome of the logic of efficient market forces? The Chancellor of the Exchequer clearly thinks it is. In his Mais lecture entitled "The Changing World of Work in the 1990s", delivered on 4th May last year, Kenneth Clarke argued that the widening of pay differentials in the 1980s was, "inevitable and probably desirable". Moreover, he stated that no one knows how far the gap between the highest paid and the lowest paid will continue to widen.
In his lecture the Chancellor made clear that the increasing inequality is the result of government policy, and he is proud of it. Wage bargaining is more flexible and decentralised so that pay is now increasingly market-determined, he declares. Market mechanisms are the key. To give him his due, the Chancellor also argued that market-determined inequality should be alleviated by a strong welfare state. He argued that the urban underclass is a major plague in American society. It is thanks to our welfare state that an underclass on that giant scale has not yet developed in Britain.
Surely the Chancellor's position is now hardly sustainable, given that the Rowntree Report revealed the truth of what is really going on. Indeed, the Chancellor's advocacy of the need for a comprehensive welfare state is disingenuous. There is a key contradiction in his argument. As he makes clear, the American labour market is the model for the deregulated flexible market he wants to create in Britain. But the high levels of employment in the United States derive exactly from the absence of any comprehensive social support. When, as is the case in many US states, there is little or no unemployment benefit, there will be no unemployment. It is as simple as that. People must scrape by somehow and, far from boosting economic efficiency, the American case is extremely inefficient.
Productivity growth in the United States in the 1980s was the lowest in the western world. Indeed, productivity growth in the American services industry has, for the past 20 years, been zero—hardly a model of

1489
economic efficiency. The American culmination of social deprivation, crime, falling health standards and negligible productivity growth shows us exactly what could happen here if the Government's policies continue in their current direction. The urban underclass is an essential component of American employment policy—the policy which the Chancellor wishes to pursue.
It is not only in America that Kenneth Clarke's core proposition that increasing inequality is inevitable and probably desirable is revealed to be false. A recent Columbia University study of growth in 65 countries over the period 1960 to 1985 reached the unambiguous conclusion that countries where income is more equally distributed also grow faster. That finding was supported by the World Bank in its 1991 world development report. The World Bank argues that there is no evidence that income inequality leads to higher growth. If anything, it seems that inequality is associated with lower growth.
The Chancellor has got it spectacularly wrong. Far from increasing inequality being "probably desirable", it is associated with lower growth of output and productivity. Inequality is inefficient. A careful examination of what has happened in this country reveals some of the reasons for this. An important element in growing inequality in earned incomes has been the collapse in full-time employment for men as huge sections of British manufacturing industry have been allowed to decline—a conscious policy of Mrs Thatcher's Government, it should be remembered.
If the reaction to the competitive pressures associated with the fall in manufacturing employment is to allow inequality to increase, a self-reinforcing spiral of inequality and inefficiency is put in place. First, increased impoverishment of parents is associated with the deteriorating educational achievements of their children. As government figures reveal, of today's British workers whose parents were unskilled manual workers, 60 per cent. have no educational qualification at all and only 3 per cent. have a degree; whereas of those whose parents were professionals, only 7 per cent. have no qualification at all and 32 per cent. have a university degree. That waste of talent is handed down from generation to generation and as inequality increases, so the waste increases also.
Secondly, as inequality increases and wages fall, there is a powerful disincentive for employers to invest in new technologies or in the skills of their labour force. If they try, they will simply be undercut by those who fail to invest and who secure competitive advantage through the use of cheap labour. Low wages are a means of keeping inefficient employers in business and penalising the efforts of employers who would seek to compete upmarket.
Thirdly, as the stock of skills is in increasingly short supply, inflationary pressures in the labour market increase and those inflationary pressures can only be contained by higher levels of unemployment, increasing inequality yet further. On the supply side therefore, and on the demand side, inequality and inefficiency reinforce one another in a deadly downward spiral. As the inefficiency grows, the competitive strength of the
1490
nation declines, jobs are lost and the potential for inflation increases. That process is neither inevitable nor desirable.
The cycle of deprivation, loss of skills and increasing inequality can only be broken if action is taken at every point in the chain. A direct attack on poverty itself is necessary to reintegrate the large marginalised group back into society, and that needs to be combined with high quality education and training. Too often services for the poor are poor services. At the same time, every incentive must be given to employers to invest in high quality training and in the latest techniques.
I have focused on one aspect of the growth of inequality in our country—the growing inequality among earned incomes. I did that not just because there happens to be a particularly clear statement of government policy by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but also because it is an area in which the Government's policy is so obviously wrong. By reinforcing inequality, they are reinforcing inefficiency.
The Rowntree Report contains a large number of broad, mutually reinforcing proposals for addressing the problem of inequality in all areas and from wherever it may come. A more comprehensive analysis along exactly the same lines is provided by the outstanding study entitled Social Justice produced by the independent Social Justice Commission established by the late John Smith. In both cases what is provided is a long-term strategy for tackling the inequality and inefficiency which are blighting our economy and our society. As both reports made clear, there is no quick fix; there is no simple, costed programme on offer. Those who call for such quick fixes either do not understand the scale of the problem in our country or are deliberately trying to obscure it.
The Rowntree Report concludes:
"At present too much public spending is directed at paying the costs of failure rather than in promoting future success… Public spending appears to have got into a trap, where short-term savings have had long-term costs, in turn creating pressure for later short-term savings, in a continuing spiral".
We must escape that trap. We need a new, comprehensive approach to tackling inequality, which is the source of inefficiency, and inefficiency, which is the source of inequality. The great Conservative economic and social experiment of the past 16 years has been an appalling failure with terrible consequences for millions of people in this country. That failed economic and social philosophy must not be allowed to blight our children's future, too. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for giving us the opportunity to put the Rowntree Report under a more critical examination than he and a number of his right honourable and honourable friends in another place have chosen to do. The noble Lord seems to have accepted the entire argument hook line and sinker with no sort of recognition of some of

1491
the flaws and failings in the methodology of the Rowntree Report. Not surprisingly, that has led to some pretty strange conclusions.
As we have limited time, I shall not attempt to follow the noble Lord in all his arguments. My examination of the report has led me to agree with a recent writer on the subject who described it as being "deeply flawed". Those are not my words but those of Daniel Finklestein of the Social Market Foundation. That is an organisation which both the Labour and Liberal Democrat party have been very pleased to quote when producing arguments in their favour.
I argue that the report is deeply flawed for three very clear and specific reasons. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, made the point that of course the figures are based, as so often they are, on government statistics. But on what government statistics? The first point that one notices is that in attempting to develop arguments about inequality and poverty, all the figures in the report leave wholly out of account any of the benefits in kind which are enjoyed by the population. By that I mean the benefits of a free health service, a free education service, free school meals for the poorest, housing and travel subsidies and all the rest.
I am very interested to note that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has put down his name to speak later in the debate. There have been many times when he and I have found ourselves opposite each other in another place when he has sought to persuade the House that one cannot look at prosperity and wealth simply in terms of income; one has to take account of the benefits of public service. Since that is one of the principal instruments of redistribution of wealth, it is a pretty damaging blow at the thesis of the Rowntree Report which says nothing about it at all.
As the whole House will recognise, the percentage of the final household income represented by the benefits in kind I have been describing, varies enormously. Of the lowest income households, the poorest 20 per cent., the figure is close to 50 per cent. of the value of their household "income". The actual figure is 48.3 per cent. There is a net value per household of about £3,610. For the top 20 per cent., the percentage is only 6 per cent. of their "income", the actual value is smaller in being just over £2,000 per household.
The report, which was intended to be about poverty and inequality, has ignored this crucial element in the standard of living of families which is the biggest single source of the increased standard of living of families in recent years. The noble Lord will know that as regards health, education and all the other public services, expenditure has soared to the benefit of the poorest families in many cases. That is the first fatal flaw in the Rowntree Report.
The noble Lord did at least touch on the argument that the Rowntree Report concerns only income. It does not seem to take any account of what are the visible factors this year in the standard of living of the poorest families in the land. He went so far as to say that the arguments based on what people actually spend their money on is bogus. The noble Lord will recognise that that cannot be right. When one looks at the Government publication Social Trends, one finds some quite
1492
remarkable figures as to what has happened to spending at all levels on some of these desirable products which people now have in their households.
Taking the Social Trends figures at random, in 1972 42 per cent. of households had a telephone. Ninety per cent. of households had a telephone in 1993 and I expect the figure is now higher. Many housewives regard a washing machine as an absolute necessity as part of the standard of living. In 1972 the figure was 66 per cent. and in 1993 it was 88 per cent. The figure for households with a deep freeze or a fridge freezer used to be below 50 per cent. in 1981. It is now nearly 90 per cent.
I see the noble Lord grin; but the fact of the matter is that those are the products on which people are spending their money. That applies not just to the top 80 per cent. of the population, but goes right down to the very poorest families in the land. The noble Lord did not say very much about poverty; he talked about inequality. In some cases he seemed to regard inequality as the source of poor health and poor education; it is not, it is poverty. If the noble Lord had directed more of his remarks towards poverty, perhaps there might have been a greater readiness to follow him on that. Fatal flaw number two therefore is that the report takes absolutely no account of the actual spending of the poorest families. The Rowntree Report paints a very partial and misleading picture.
The third fatal flaw is that the report states—and this we welcome—that it is its aim to reduce dependency. When I was Secretary of State for Social Services, the question of the growing dependency of people on benefits of all kinds was a source of considerable anxiety. The desire to reduce it is something which we would all applaud. But when one looks at the report's recommendations, one can see that there is a whole range of measures which are liable to increase dependency.
What was remarkable about the noble Lord's speech from the Dispatch Box and therefore speaking on behalf of his party, is that there was absolutely no indication whatever as to whether his party is going to do any of the things which are recommended by the Rowntree Report. I shall give him a list of the things which I hope he will not do because they would be immensely damaging. He said he wants to increase benefits faster than prices, and that is what the report said. There has been no real attempt by the Labour Party to seek to reverse the legislation which I introduced which broke the link with earnings otherwise we would have been bankrupt by paying pensions at the higher of earnings and prices.
There is also a recommendation for a relaxation of the 21-hour rule which enables people to undertake training and education part-time while looking for work. That would increase Government expenditure on benefits. The Rowntree Group appears to favour the retention of unemployment benefit entitlement for 12 months rather than the Government proposal of six months. It would be very costly and a further disincentive to return to work. They want a maintenance disregard for single parents on income support. Again,

1493
that would increase Government spending and reduce work incentives by reducing the clear water between income out of work and in work.
The report says that the housing benefit tapers should be lowered, but this too could only be achieved at huge expense. What is notable about the speech we have heard is that none of these concrete proposals was referred to by the noble Lord at all. He preferred to devote most of his speech to abusing my right honourable friends in another place.
So, I do not attach all that amount of weight to the Rowntree Report. I think perhaps that the Labour Front Bench might be a little cautious when having regard to the source of much of the statistical work. That is the only name on the outside of the statistical supplement; namely, Mr. John Hills who is credited by the Guardian of having invented Labour's tax bombshell in 1992, which perhaps helped us to win the election. Again, last year he was advocating increased spending on social security by 5 per cent. I fear that the Rowntree report is not only flawed but tainted.
However, it has some very important points to make and there are important points to make about it. One of them is this. A speech which the noble Lord did not mention was one made by my right honourable friend Peter Lilley in Belfast last November: the Northern Ireland CPC speech. That was described by his honourable friend Mr. Frank Field, secretary of the Social Security Select Committee in another place, as the most important contribution to social thinking for a decade. What Mr. Lilley talked about there—and I paid tribute to his speech—was the dispersion of earnings power. I should like to quote one or two passages from that speech because they are very relevant to the subject that we are debating today. He said:
"Rising productivity generates rising earnings. For most of this century that growth of earnings was spread fairly evenly across the whole working population. If anything, the earnings of those in lower paid occupations tended to rise a bit more rapidly than the average. So earnings differentials diminished. But over the last couple of decades, although average earnings have grown strongly, the differentials have widened. The earnings of the less well off have tended to rise less rapidly than those in jobs earning average or above average rates of pay. In general, those with skills have outstripped those without skills. The earning power of brawn has fallen behind that of brain".
It seems to me that in these circumstances that is something of which we all need to take account. And of course the report has some useful things to say about the need to get people back into work, the need to improve work training and also the need to improve education. But I have to say that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, when he got involved with inequality and inefficiency actually stood the argument on its head, because we have it on the authority of the OECD that if you have an inflexible labour system such as one has in a number of continental countries, which seek to underpin labour by means of such things as the social chapter, what you have is unemployment rising much faster, whereas if you have more a flexible employment scene where there is greater room for differentials, unemployment rises much more slowly. It is a fact that jobs have been created in this country faster than in
1494
almost every other country in the European Union because we have had a more flexible labour force. As the OECD said,
"In most countries where relative wage rates have been inflexible (the United States, Canada and Australia) both the relative employment and unemployment rates of the unskilled changed little during the 1980s. In comparatively inflexible Europe, on the other hand, both employment and unemployment rates deteriorated".
My Lords, my time is up. I do not attach a great deal of importance to the report because I think its argumentation is flawed. There are many things which can be done and indeed which the Government are doing which will raise the standards of living of the poorest. That is what we want to do, and it seems to me that to concentrate on poverty is a great deal more important than to concentrate on inequality.
3.53 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for introducing this debate and for doing so on St. David's Day, thereby drawing attention to the fact that there is an international as well as a regional dimension to economic inequality in Britain. That is something which we on these Benches would like to do something about. I should also like to congratulate the authors of a very distinguished report. I hope I am not being immodest in doing so, since the report says everything that I have been saying in the House for the past four years. But that in fact is because I have been paying attention to the distinguished series of reports from the Social Security Advisory Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Barclay, chairman of the committee which produced the report.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, was, I think, extremely unwise to be so critical of the report. He is not paying attention to the fact that this report represents what is now a firmly set consensus among the academic community and among all those who know anything about this subject, save only for the party opposite. Whether that is in fact an exception is a question I will leave open.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, criticised the report for not dealing more with the question of benefits in kind, a free national health service and so forth. I have made something of a study of that. When I went to America in 1979 and when I returned in 1984 I naturally wanted to know in real terms what the difference in salary was going to mean. In 1979 I calculated that the welfare state meant that the British salary was actually worth 20 per cent. more than its paper figure. In 1984 I reached the conclusion that the real figure was rather nearer 10 per cent. I put a great deal of calculation into that, with which I will not bore the House now.
It seems to me that the noble Lord's example tends rather in the opposite direction from the one he would have wished. This is an economic debate, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, on that also. It tends logically to divide into two halves. One is the effect on general economic performance of inequality; and the other is the effect on economic performance of an economy with a very long tail—if I may so put it, an economy which does not bat below No. 7. Any social

1495
security spokesman is obviously going to be tempted to talk about the second, which is why I will for a while resist temptation and begin with the first.
The notion of efficiency, though it is unfashionable to say so, does in fact involve some concern with how the job is done. Recently I had occasion to employ a breakdown service. I was chatting to the driver of the breakdown service and asked how long he was on duty. I discovered that he worked a regular shift of 20 hours. I do not think that is efficient. If I were proposing to take a job which kept me at the wheel all that long, I am sure that at home I would be told about it in no uncertain terms.
If we look at the Hidden report on the Clapham Common train disaster, one of the key facts was the extraordinary length of time that the electrician who made the key mistake had been on duty. I heard of a person who was required to be at work for 18 hours, without a break to go to the lavatory. That is not what I think of as efficient, in economic or any other terms. Mr. Alistair Burt, in his Glasgow speech just over a year ago, drew attention to the effect of these very long hours on family life and on the increasing and expensive tendency to family breakdown. That was a speech which I think calls for a great deal more thought on all sides of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, made great play with washing machines. He may not have noticed, but there are now many households which cannot support themselves unless the woman goes out to work. Since there are many men in this country who still need education on the subject of washing, it is very often impossible for the household to support itself without such a machine, and in many more cases than was true in 1979.
The noble Lord was also rather unwise to rely without comment on the arguments of the OECD about rigidity in the labour market. He may not yet have read a report published last Wednesday by the ILO on World Employment in 1995. It will interest the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, since it quotes him in his academic capacity with considerable approval. That report argues the case which I think deserves attention on both sides of the House; namely, that the Government's diagnosis of the labour market was in essentials right in 1979 but has not been right for some 10 years or so.
That report argues that it is now not rigidities in the labour market which keep unemployment up; it is deficiency of demand and the fact that our increased competitiveness does not give us the advantage that it should because the demand is not there to sustain it. To take a sadly topical example, it is at least a tenable hypothesis that the failure of Pentos may have something to do with the very substantial weakening of demand in the student market, on which both Ryman and Dillons relied heavily. Without the demand, a business simply cannot be kept going.
I have no doubt that a Conservative Peer will invoke the phrase "trickle-down". There is a lot to be said for childish games, but it is a great pity that whoever invented the phrase "trickle-down" did not spend more time playing with sandcastles as a child. I used to experiment with trickle-down and sandcastles. It was
1496
always clear that a great deal of water never reached the bottom; it soaked away into the sand. A great deal more of it ran away somewhere else. One of the disadvantages of trickle-down in a global economy is that the trickle-down is extremely likely to be outside this country and to add further to balance-of-payments problems which we could do without.
To turn for a while to the other half—to the economy not batting below No. 7—there is a very big problem here. I listened to the Minister last Monday arguing that the weight of the social security budget was a great drain on our competitiveness. I understand that argument and I do not dispute it, but this year's up-rating statement illustrates the realisation in the Department of Social Security—and, indeed, even in the Treasury—that the alternatives are worse. People do not voluntarily starve. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, mentioned people in the United States building walls around their suburbs. I remember reading a column by Russell Baker describing a visit to Beverly Hills where, at the edge of every lawn, was a notice saying, "Do not enter. Armed response". We do not want to get to that point in this country.
If one looks at a place like Carlton Ward, Kilburn—the ward next to my own—where last year 37 per cent. of the adult population was dependent on means-tested benefits, one can see why those who live there might regard drug dealing and muggings as the path of opportunity. That is not in any of our interests and, when it comes to prison and policing bills, it is very expensive indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, was right to mention health. Tuberculosis is now back on our streets, as Crisis has drawn to our attention many times. TB is a very expensive illness. It is not economically efficient.
I shall not dwell at length on top salaries. The Minister may be wondering what he can say about that, but I advise him not to follow the example of other members of his party and simply to say "envy". That statement may be true, but I hope that no noble Lord opposite thinks that we are going to abolish envy. We should not wantonly give in to it, but we must accept that in the real world envy exists and we should not wantonly provoke it. Paying people salaries so large that, if they are earning them, I do not see how they can possibly find the time to spend them is unnecessarily provoking.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will not rebuke me for not going into greater detail about the remedies, but I have already argued for almost every remedy that is mentioned in the report—and the noble Lord has argued against me. He knows that I am ready to argue the detail until the cows come home—but they will be coming home very soon now.
We need to consider the bottlenecks that make it difficult for people to come off benefits. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is already doing that and I congratulate him on it. However, I think that we should look further at an income support disregard. What I said to the Minister last Monday about the up-rating of capital limits and the possible use of a Motion to Resolve on the next statement applies to income support disregards also. It also applies to childcare. I shall not develop that now, but the alternative route through the

1497
Child Support Act has not been a great success. That point applies also to housing repairs about which I should like to say a lot, but cannot. It also applies to the real holes in the safety net, to 16 and 17 year-olds and to the Social Fund.
It cannot be economically efficient to let people fall through the safety net so that they become unemployable for life. That is making society carry too large a tail. It cannot be good for education to have 25 per cent. of this country's children dependent on income support. If I have one criticism of the report, it is that you cannot rely on education alone without putting people in a position such that they can afford to take advantage of it. But that is only one criticism in a great deal of approval.
4.6 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for providing us with this opportunity to debate a very important subject and for the information and analysis that he has shared with the House.
The Rowntree Report is by no means all bad news. Most families are substantially better off now than they were in the late 1970s. That may not necessarily bring happiness, but in general it brings more comfort and opportunities. Many people have worked hard and honestly to achieve that general increase in wealth and it would be wrong for them to feel that they have not achieved anything. Moreover, most pensioners are appreciably better off than their counterparts 20 years ago and although we cannot be complacent, that, too, is a social improvement and an achievement.
It would be wrong to encourage further fatalism and despondency on the basis that however hard we try, we are no nearer a good and decent society. We need not fatalism but hope—and, I hope, commitment also. Part of that is to recognise that in many ways, thanks to the efforts of so many people, there are unprecedented opportunities and choices from which all our people could—I stress the word "could"—benefit if only we do not give up on the idea of a just society.
I join the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in expressing gratitude to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and to Sir Peter Barclay's working party. The report is a fitting embodiment of the Rowntree tradition, whereby successful wealth creation is pursued not as an end in itself, but as a means of service to one's fellow human beings. The Rowntrees, I gather, built their fortune not on narrow individualism, but on the moral ideal of service. For the Rowntrees, society was as depicted in the Biblical tradition: a collaborative moral project under God; not just a conglomeration of competing individuals.
But there is bad news—and that is why we cannot rest easily. First, I refer to the key finding that the poorest 20 to 30 per cent. have failed to benefit from the economic growth since the late 1970s and that we have indeed become a more unequal society. Page 35 of volume 1 of the report contains information about the care of children. According to the statistics given by the
1498
International Year of the Family fact sheet No. 2, 3.9 million children are poor—that is, one in three of our families receive less than half the average income of this country. That is a figure of which all of us must be ashamed.
Secondly, I should like to share with your Lordships a picture of the city in which I live. When I first arrived in Bristol nearly 10 years ago, there were no beggars on the streets. There are now. They are all, in general terms, those seeking work, a home or food. The homelessness figures have increased. I believe that a just society cannot tolerate those figures. That matters because it weakens social cohesion. It matters because it undermines the human solidarity which should bind us together in a well-ordered society.
I was glad that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, reminded us that today is St. David's Day. It is also Ash Wednesday, which may well be an appropriate day for this debate. In many churches throughout the country, these words were read earlier this morning from the Prophet Isiah:
"The kind of fasting I want is this. Share your food with the hungry and open your homes to the homeless. Give clothes to those who have nothing to wear and do not refuse to help your relatives".
And that is the minimum requirement of a community in which we would wish to live.
A substantial minority of our people are left feeling that they are not valued as part of the whole. They do not participate in society's benefits and opportunities, and that damages their self-esteem and dignity. Amid the many successes of the past 20 years, that is a major failure.
I shall quote from A.H. Halsey of the Guardian—and, yes, I know that it was in 1987, but I believe it to be true today—
"A pattern has emerged of an unequal society, as between a majority in secure attachment to a still prosperous country and a minority in marginal economic and social conditions."
Moreover, the casualties of inequality tend to be concentrated, in the most acute form, in the larger metropolitan areas of northern Britain and in inner London, and in particular in wards and estates. The churches have long borne witness to those realities, not least in the report Faith in the City, in the work of the Church Urban Fund, and in the pastoral commitment of so many churches in areas long since abandoned by banks, building societies, most shops and other services. There may well be more consumer durables bought; but you have to go a long way to buy them in many of the estates about which we are talking.
In general, the call of the Rowntree Report for a continuing, multi-dimensional onslaught on inequality, deprivation and social exclusion echoes what many Church leaders have put forward over the years as one essential dimension of working for a more just and equal society.
Let me make three points about the response that is needed. Technocratic solutions will not be enough. It will involve moral decisions, too—as it did for Rowntree—a bringing together of individual responsibility and social responsibility, one for another.

1499
Self-restraint and hard choices will be involved. I was delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, also played with sandcastles; wealth does not trickle down as we are invited to believe it does —and the cost is there to be seen by all.
Let me quote what the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said in a speech last year. It is appropriate to our debate today.
"One-eyed individualism and the privatisation of morality exact a high price in personal and public dimensions of life alike. It is not just about economics, it is about a moral society which believes in a just and equal community."
Secondly, we need to encourage the concept of participation, and that may well be the key. Nobody really wants to be a passive dependant. Perhaps we can go back to the care of families and the place of children in our society. Many single parents wish to be economically viable for their family unit; but they are incapable of doing that because the right kind of child care is not available. Social benefits need to be provided in kind, and the right structures put in place, so that all our people can be enabled and encouraged to take care of themselves. Dependency is not a good thing, but we need to put in place the structures which will allow people to join in and make their contributions.
The Church Urban Fund is based on putting local people in charge of their own plans for self-improvement and helping others. Safety nets are no substitute for real opportunities and fair incentives to play a part in advancing the common good. I realise that that is easier said than done, but it is an important principle. We need to concentrate on participation.
Let me give one example. In the south side of Bristol, in the estate of Hartcliffe—where not very long ago there were major riots—there is partnership between the local community, the Church Urban Fund and business in the community. They know very well that to do good enables wealth to be created. Not the other way around—create wealth in order to do good—but do good in order to create wealth. That partnership and participation is a basis for the way in which this country needs to move forward.
Lastly, to moderate inequality is not necessarily to impair economic growth. As the commentator Will Hutton has argued, the World Bank has produced impressive statistics showing that lower inequality throughout the Third World is one of the most important determinants of growth. The more an economy can integrate all of its people into national development, the greater their skills, the larger their incomes, the more rapidly economic growth takes place. We have not heard much about East Asia—the most dynamically growing part of the world—but that is one of the least unequal areas. We should not carry a large section of the community as poor and unskilled—a social and economic burden that holds us back.
Perhaps I may return to Ash Wednesday. We have heard about the politics of envy. Envy is a sin. But there is one greater sin, and that is providing people with occasion to sin. That is the crux of the debate today. Your Lordships' House prays daily for the uniting and
1500
knitting together of the hearts of all persons under saints, in love and charity towards one another. Love and charity mean a just and equal society.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol in his assessment of the report that we are debating. I went along with what he had to say in many respects.
I felt very sad that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, not only sought to rubbish the Rowntree Report, its facts and figures, its conclusions and recommendations, but also to say that it was tainted. No doubt he will take some other opportunity to explain what is tainted by this report and this working party. I have looked at those who have participated in it—I am proud to know some of them, but not most—and certainly in no sense are they a political group of people but they are very broadly representative of the caring spectrum of experience.
I suppose it was inevitable that the noble Lord's response to Rowntree would remind me of his response to the Black Report in 1980, which was also carried out by a very distinguished team. It drew on the facts available and made a series of assessments and recommendations, which he, as the then Secretary of State, rubbished in rather the same way as he has today. I will say no more, but I am sad about that.
I want to thank and congratulate the Rowntree Foundation and its chairman, Sir Peter Barclay, whose contribution to social work in the United Kingdom is indeed a substantial one. The report should provide a very firm basis on which to build social policy in this country, based on fairness and equality. It sits very comfortably with the report of the Social Justice Commission, which no doubt at some time we will have the opportunity of debating.
In his introduction to the report, the chairman, Sir Peter Barclay, describes a picture of a dramatic social and economic change in Britain over the 1980s, the scale and consequences of which are probably not yet fully appreciated by policy makers or the population at large. I fear that he may be right, the policy makers have not recognised just what is happening in terms of inequality of opportunity, and hardship based on that inequality, in Britain today. I hope that we shall receive a response from the Minister which is different from that we had from his noble friend.
The report reaches some devastating conclusions. It makes comparisons with inequitable trends in other countries, particularly the OECD countries and some Commonwealth countries. They include many of our competitors. As was said by my noble friend Lord Eatwell—he explained that he would be out of the Chamber for a short time, and I want in his absence to congratulate him on his speech—if one looks at page 14 one can see just where Britain stands in relation to countries such as Norway, Australia, Sweden, the Netherlands, Japan, the United States, Belgium, and so forth, in terms of the extent of the inequality which exists now in British society.

1501
On page 14 there are three conclusions from which I should like to quote. The first describes:
"The speed with which inequality increased in the United Kingdom between 1977 and 1990".
It continues:
"Since 1979 the lowest income groups have not benefited from economic growth."
We should remind ourselves that there has been some economic growth. Of course better standards of living are to be found in Britain. If one takes an average, of course our living standards are higher than they were two decades, or even one decade, ago. It would be extraordinary were that not to be the case. The third conclusion is:
"Since 1977 the proportion of the population with less than half the average income has more than trebled. As a result, the proportion of the population with low incomes relative to the average has risen".
The House will not be surprised at my interest in the subject. It was as Secretary of State that in 1977 I asked Sir Douglas Black and a distinguished team to produce a report. I did so because I was concerned then (18 years ago) at the inequalities which continued to exist in our society and upon which I even then thought we needed to concentrate. One of the tragic things is that the situation has since become significantly worse. If one looks at health, which was one of the factors, we see that the situation has worsened in many respects.
I shall give one or two examples. The baby of an unskilled manual worker is one and a half times more likely to die in the first year as the baby of a professional or a manager; the poorest children are twice as likely to die from a respiratory disease as a child from social class I. In some of the poorest parts of Britain, death rates are now as high as they were 40 years ago. In many ways, statistics upon which we can base the inequalities in health are becoming worse in some respects than they were 40 years ago. The mortality ratio in the 10 per cent. most deprived electoral wards in the north of Britain is almost double that in the 10 per cent. least deprived. My last example is of unemployed men. They are 10 to 15 times more likely to attempt suicide than others.
The picture is a disturbing one. Looking at the different categories, according to the latest figures, one sees that one in four people (including children) in the UK were living in poverty in 1991–92 compared with under one in 10 in 1979. Children are even more likely to be in poverty. Nearly one in three, as has already been said, were living in poverty in 1991–92 compared to one in 10 in 1979. If we look at the number of people (including children) living in poverty, we can see that there has been a dramatic increase. Including children, in 1979 we were looking at 5 million; in 1991–92, we were looking at nearly 14 million. That is a dramatic increase. If we look at children in particular, we are looking at an increase from 1.4 million to 4.1 million. Again, that is a dramatic increase.
There were more children than pensioners living in poverty in 1991–92: 4.1 million children lived in poverty compared with 3.2 million pensioners. It is fair to recognise that the extent of inequality has varied in
1502
different sections of the community. Pensioners have not suffered as much as lone parents (six in 10 were in poverty); or single pensioners (4 in 10 were in poverty); and couples with children perhaps suffered most. They formed the largest group in poverty; 37 per cent. fell into that group. Pensioner couples—I am grateful for this, because I am part of a pensioner couple—have perhaps suffered less inequality than single pensioners, couples with children, couples without children, and lone parents. It is a disturbing situation. It will be interesting to see how the Government react to it.
On the other side, it may be asked why we have not put forward a set of proposals. Well we are asking the Government what are their proposals. We can have a further debate on our proposals. The late John Smith set up the commission which has already produced its report. So, for heavens sake, we have done more than the party opposite. I should be interested to hear whether the Minister replies in the same way as did Peter Lilley, who was referred to by my noble friend Lord Eatwell, or, for that matter, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding.
On Monday, my noble friend Lord Molloy tabled a Question asking the Government what they were doing to decrease poverty. I hesitated, but not for long, to intervene. I said that I was surprised by the Question, because I should not have expected the Government to have taken action to decrease the disparity in wealth between the rich and the poor, because that is part of their motivation. If they are to be converted on the road to Jerusalem, I shall certainly welcome that. I admire the report which we are debating but I am extremely pessimistic about the response that we shall be given by the Government.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I do not entirely follow the way of thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, although we may all find ourselves on the same road to Jerusalem, and I suspect I know who will get there first.
This debate on the Rowntree Foundation's recent inquiry into income and wealth is to be warmly welcomed. I applaud the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has introduced the matter. It raises important economic and industrial issues, but it also gives us the opportunity to refute some of the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report.
I should be grateful if, when the noble Lord, Lord Peston, winds up on behalf of the Opposition, he will state whether the recommendations contained in the report are part of Opposition policy and whether those which involve public expenditure, so widely, it seems, encouraged by the report, will also form part of eventual Opposition policy.
I do not find fault in all the recommendations as did my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, because the Government have already initiated some of the work incentive measures listed in them. I welcome that.
It is generally accepted that there is a dispersion of earning power. My right honourable friend Peter Lilley mentioned that specifically in his very important speech in Belfast in November 1994. He underlined that it is a

1503
phenomenon applicable to western industrialised countries as a whole. It is not confined to the United Kingdom.
Different countries are seeking solutions through different measures. It is doubtful whether the word "poverty" can be assumed to apply to anyone with income in the bottom one-fifth of income distribution; that is, to those whose incomes are less than half the national average. To my mind, that is an abuse of the word "poverty" and, considered in the context of international statistics, is grossly misleading. To use the same terminology to describe millions of people existing in many parts of the globe—for example, India, South America and large parts of Africa —and the 20 per cent. living below the so-called poverty line in this country, even if they live on unattractive or run-down housing estates, must give a completely false impression of the wealth and social conscience of this country, including the social conscience of all noble Lords who work towards the relief of poverty.
Nick Adkin, in his interesting article in Social Trends 1994, points out that although that 20 per cent. represents 11.2 million of the United Kingdom population, it should not be assumed that all the people in the bottom quintile are poor or on low incomes. Such a definition would mean that 20 per cent., and only 20 per cent., of the population would always be poor or on low income. Selection is necessarily arbitrary. He adds also that income of groups such as the self-employed has not proved as helpful as wished. I shall not name all the categories listed in the report but farmers and accountants are included in that category. That gives leave to question the sense of the exercise and makes it more difficult to identify the truly financially disadvantaged.
There are dangers in averages, the tool of the statistician —the man who says that if you have your feet in the fridge and your head in the gas oven, you are averagely comfortable. That is of little help to the policy maker and to those determined to raise the standard of living for all while living in a society—common to all contemporary, industrialised societies—based on high wages, high-level skills and high productivity, but with declining opportunities for unskilled manual labour. As the average line rises, so will the number of relatively poor.
It must be made clear that, sadly, there are truly poor in our society. Most of us in this House have been made aware of tragic situations which are incidental to individuals rather than to any recognisable, identifiable group. Perhaps fortunately, that is often at one time in a person's life. Many examples come to mind—a wife who is suddenly deserted; ill health, especially where someone is living alone; a physical accident, or death of a partner. A whole gamut of tragedies can hit people regardless of age or origin and can reduce that person to genuine destitution.
However, if statistics are anything to go by, the majority of the 20 per cent. have a very different lifestyle. To maintain, as the inquiry does on pages 6 and 46, that it is unsatisfactory that a large part of the population is not sharing at all in rising living standards is frankly nonsense. Some figures set out in Social
1504
Trends 1979 and in 1995 show the real difference. It is shown in particular by the charts which cover disposable income and consumer durables. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding mentioned consumer durables and various answers cover that particular argument. But it is difficult to argue against the fact that in 1979, of the disposable income of pensioners—I take the lowest level, the poorest of that particular sector —food accounted for 35 per cent. and housing 16 per cent., leaving 49 per cent. of net income to spend on other factors such as alcohol, tobacco, travel, services and so on. But by 1993, which is the latest figure, food accounts for 20 per cent. of disposable income and housing accounts for 13.4 per cent., which makes a maximum of 33.4 per cent. That leaves 66.6 per cent. net. That 66.6 per cent. is in the hands of that particular pensioner to be spent as he chooses. I accept that there are other items of expenditure but that is clearly evidence that it is not only the wealthier who have benefited from increased economic growth.
But while the rich are getting richer, I have not found real evidence to show that the poor are getting poorer, other than in relative but not material terms. So far as I am aware there is no recognition in the report that without a wealth creating society it would not be possible to transfer nearly £80 billion or just under half of total national expenditure this year to those who are in need. There is no recognition, except in general terms, concerning benefits.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin referred to education, health and so on. Of course, I accept that those services may not always be adequate. They are run by human beings. But they cannot be left out of the calculation. Equality as such is not a desirable objective. As Disraeli said over 150 years ago,
"There is the equality which levels and destroys as well as the equality which elevates and creates".
It is the quality of opportunity which has to be guaranteed and the effective targeting of those sectors and individuals in our society who genuinely suffer financial disadvantages and who are the weakest economic sector of our society.
One obvious sector is the unemployed. I welcome the recent statistic given by the Government that a further half million have come out of that sad statistic. The Government have introduced policies such as the jobseeker's allowance and the work start programme, about which I have no doubt my noble friend will wish to speak.
Much is focused on training and education but I agree with those noble Lords who have said that, in isolation, they are not sufficient. Throwing money at a problem does not always produce solutions. But there are steps which can be taken. I started an organisation called Target in the Thames Valley in 1986 under the European Community's programme. I declare an interest, although I am an entirely voluntary chairman. We receive funding from the European Community. It links industrialists, including small businesses, with training providers, to ensure that the training courses provided correspond with the identified skills needed by companies in the area. That encourages young people to attend training courses, because they know that they will

1505
be able to obtain employment. A raft of activities includes programmes for women returners. They mainly identify the need for confidence building and opportunities available. There are training courses for self employment, and work experience is arranged for collegers and young students both in the area and on the Continent.
It may be of interest that unemployment in the area of Berkshire in January was 5.4 per cent., whereas elsewhere in the United Kingdom it was about 8.8 per cent., or just under 9 per cent. Identification of genuine need in a complex society when some people's needs are far greater according to their education, tradition, training and so on is not easy. But recognising, certain areas to be targeted, as the Secretary of State has done, is an encouraging sign.
I wish to mention three matters which should be more closely looked at and given wider encouragement. They are opportunities for more tax-free savings so that people will be able to meet crisis more easily; tax incentives for married couples, not to encourage marriage necessarily—although I would no doubt be accused of being political correct—but as a sign from the Government that their policy is to encourage stable family life for the benefit of children; and further and greater efforts by employers to ensure that women's wages rise to a level where they do not remain permanently disadvantaged in terms of their earning capacity and are reflected also in the level of their occupational pensions.
Several noble Lords mentioned the question of envy. I believe that there is more than one sin in the Epistles. Indeed, there is envy on the one hand and greed on the other. Undoubtedly, both combined have a detrimental effect on the fabric of society. Therefore, in order to maintain a peaceful and stable society the issue of growing disparity in earnings must be addressed. Whatever else the inquiry has done, it has given us an opportunity to identify such a serious problem.
4.41 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, one of the striking facts mentioned in the report was that, during what the Government claim to be a period of economic success, more people have become dependent on state benefits. The reasons for this, according to the report, are:
"Higher unemployment and economic inactivity (like early retirement and invalidity) and demographic factors such as lone parents".
No doubt the Government will say that it is all the people's own fault: people are choosing to become unemployed and to retire early because of the benefits available. This is also the cause of marital breakdown, they say, and similar social problems and is not the concern of the Government. Is that the Minister's view? It is not mine and not that of most people who have looked at the problem.
People are unemployed because they have been fired and cannot find new jobs, or, when they are young, they cannot find a first job at all. Retirement is also, in many cases, a version of premature unemployment. There is little or no correlation between marital breakdown and
1506
the benefit system. The hoary old myth that young people become lone parents because of the availability of benefits is precisely that. Indeed, if any of that were true, the trend should be the opposite of what it is. The report shows the relative and, in some cases, the absolute decline in benefits. Why then has unemployment remained so high and the social problems referred to so persistent?
The report says:
"There have been polar shifts towards double-income families, where both parents work but are able to spend less time with their children".
Do the Government have an explanation as to why that is so? Do they think that it is desirable?
Will the Minister admit that most people do wish to support themselves and accept state support faute de mieux? They hate being a burden, but the system makes them so. I guess many of us here today have relations who have been forced to go on to benefits and know how reluctant they are to take that first step and to apply. I may say that the time between applying and receiving any cash should be shorter. The young unemployed, I know, are longing for work. The benefit that they receive does not lead to an exactly comfortable lifestyle.
The report has a number of suggestions for encouraging and helping those forced on to benefit to make it easier to return to work. That is not made easy at the moment. At present, too much public spending is directed at paying the costs of failure, rather than in promoting future success. Public spending seems to have got into a trap, where short-term savings have had long-term costs, in turn creating pressure for later short-term savings in a continuous spiral. Are the Government convinced by some of the proposals for helping people back to work and in the early stages of being in work when extra money is sorely needed? I shall mention some of those proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, criticised my noble friend for not doing so; but I shall.
There should be disregard of child maintenance in income support. The Enterprise Allowance concept should be extended to benefits, to allow continued payments of benefit for a short time after a person finds employment; employment on trial (where benefit is not lost if a person leaves a job after a short trial period) should be made better known; lump sums should be available for back-to-work grants; income support disregard should be £10, not £5, and it should be able to accumulate—for instance, up to £60 over a six-week period—to allow lump sums and not disqualify occasional casual work. Legitimate childcare costs and working expenses should be allowed as a deduction in assessing earnings for the disregard; free school meals should be restored for family credit recipients; the taper for housing benefit and family credit should be lower to reduce marginal tax rates. All these may involve short-term costs, but surely will result in long-term gains in getting more people back into employment and—it is to be hoped—making them happier.

1507
Above all, the importance of raising education and training standards in Britain cannot be put too strongly. While people are on benefit, it must surely make sense for them to occupy themselves productively. The report states clearly:
"For those out of work and on benefit:—The rule generally limiting participation in education to no more than 21 hours per week should be relaxed".
Therefore, it is a pity that the Government have moved policy in exactly the opposite direction to reduce the number of permitted hours and to make the whole business of education for the unemployed most difficult. The training guarantee should be honoured; if not, there is a clear case for widening benefit entitlement for 16 and 17 year-olds.
The report says:
"We are concerned by the position of children being brought up in low-income families, particularly those in neighbourhoods where most families are poor. Whilst parents have the primary responsibility of their children's welfare, the community as a whole has a vital role in supporting them to carry out that task".
Do the Government agree with that? If they do not, I can see a very gloomy future for this country.
This year sees the 150th anniversary of the publication of a novel by a distinguished leader of the Tory Party. Sybil describes the condition of early Victorian Britain and the two nations into which its peoples were divided. During the 1960s and 1970s we experienced what Eric Hobsbawm calls "a Golden Age" when, for a brief moment, we seemed to be moving towards a more unified and fairer society. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Eatwell about the economic gulf that now separates the richest and the poorest in our society. My particular concern is with the social and human consequences of this increasing divide and the frustrated dreams and ambition of those who can never hope to share the security and lifestyle of the often undeserving rich. That applies especially in relation to the young.
During the past 15 years, recorded violent crime in this country has doubled. A recent report from the Employment Policy Institute (by Dr. John Wells of Cambridge University), shows that Britain's departure from full employment and the emergence of mass unemployment since the mid-1970s have coincided with a strong rising trend in recorded crime. The report notes that the inner-city riots and disorder during the recessions of the 1980s and the 1990s were accompanied by "spiralling unemployment" and that a,
"society with such large numbers of children in poverty runs the risk of massive criminal delinquency".
Unemployment, moreover, does not affect all sectors of our society equally—unemployment among young black males in London was recently shown by the Labour Force survey to be 62 per cent., and overall, the unemployment figure for blacks, (10 per cent.) was more than double that for whites (4 per cent.). As the Rowntree Report observes,
"the incomes of certain ethnic minority groups are well below the national average and a large proportion of their populations live in areas ranked highly by indicators of deprivation…Certain parts of the country seem locked in a spiral of decline…notably with the problems of Inner London growing substantially"
1508
We have only to look across the Atlantic to the United States to see the awful prospect of what may lie ahead for our cities. As in Washington, New York and Los Angeles, there will be increasing ghettoisation of the poor in crime-ridden, drug-sodden and bleak inner-city areas whilst the rich retreat to affluent suburbs or the countryside. That is, of course, a potent recipe for social unrest, as in the recent Los Angeles riots, and for increasing crime and drug taking.
It is unfortunate that, at a time when our society's bonds are already weakened, we have a Home Secretary who deals in stereotypes and short-term populist tactics to address problems that need complex and long-term solutions. Those who commit crimes are not very different from other human beings and are unlikely to respond to the simplistic Skinnerian models of reward and punishment currently favoured by the Home Office that work well with rats and pigeons but not with humans.
I should like to end with two sentences from Disraeli's Sybil or The Two Nations:
"In an age of political infidelity, of mean passions, and petty thoughts, I would have impressed upon the rising race not to despair, but to seek in a right understanding of the history of their country and in the energies of heroic youth, the elements of national welfare…From the state of Parties it now would draw public thought to the state of the People whom those Parties for two centuries have governed. The comprehension and the cure of this greater theme depend upon the same agencies as the first: it is the past alone that can explain the present, and it is youth that alone can mould the remedial future".
4.51 p.m.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. Not only was her speech eloquent; it showed a mastery of the issues raised by the report and it was unusually literary. The sentiment she expressed about one nation is one with which I hope everyone in this House would agree.
Like other participants in the debate I thank the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for providing the opportunity to discuss this very important subject. When preparing my speech I jotted down that it would be quite wrong to use an occasion such as this to make party political points. However, as I listened to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, I was provoked to the limits. I shall nevertheless try to exercise self-discipline and not make this a political issue.
However, I should like to make one point. I have not had the opportunity of reading Daniel Finkelstein, but as someone who was at least trained as an economist I find a number of aspects of the report somewhat flawed: for example, the emphasis on inequality and not poverty as such, the measurement of the problem of inequality using snapshots at points in time rather than lifetime earnings and the Gini co-efficient, the cursory treatment of the distribution of wealth, and knowing exactly how much confidence one can have in the official data on households below average income. I was therefore somewhat surprised by the confidence shown by the noble Lord when he introduced the report. I almost felt that he had more confidence in the report than the report had in itself.

1509
Page 113 of volume 2, which is the penultimate page of the report, deals with the question of how one measures inequality. It states that,
"one might want to look at income differences not in a single year [as the report does] but over complete lifetimes…In the 'snapshot' the poorest tenth have annual incomes which are only just over a fifth of the average, but the 'lifetime poorest' tenth have lifetime incomes which are more than half the average. Lifetime incomes are much more equally distributed than annual incomes: depending on the measure, the inequality observed on an annual basis is reduced by between a third and a half".
As I recollect, dealing with statistics on income and wealth distribution is not the same as measuring output from steelworks. It is very tricky. Therefore, a degree of caution is needed in relation to the methodology of the report.
Secondly, the noble Lord stated categorically that what was happening in the UK in terms of increasing inequality was not an international phenomenon. As he spoke, and as my blood pressure rose, I turned to figure 37 in volume 2 where there are three pictures. In the graph of countries with rising inequality, Britain is shown alongside Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden. Countries with slowly rising inequality are the US, France, Japan, West Germany and Belgium. I note, incidentally, that although they have slowly rising inequality three of them start from a position of higher inequality than we do. There are other countries with falling inequality. Therefore, it is misleading to suggest that somehow the UK is alone in the trend towards greater inequality, even though the extent of the movement may be much greater here.
It would be wrong to dismiss the report on those grounds. That is why I felt that it would be wrong to use an occasion such as this to try to defend the record of the past 15 years. The report is important not because of its emphasis on inequality but because it puts its finger on something disturbing in our society. As we were reminded by the right reverend Prelate, the report Faith in the City on the significance of underprivileged areas in this country jarred us all. Similarly, the Rowntree Report draws attention to those people, including young people and children, who have not benefited from the growing prosperity of the past 15 years, or who have benefited only to a limited extent.
I should like to address three issues raised by the report which should be of concern to the House. They deal with the causes of the problems with which the report confronts us.
First, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said, there is a growth in the differential of earnings between those in the labour market with substantial skills and those with few skills. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, which studied the position in the UK between 1960 and 1990, concluded that wage inequality has risen at an unprecedented rate since the late 1970s. I do not believe that that is a direct result of government policy. The institute says that between 1966 and 1972 the dispersion was flat; that between 1972 and 1977 it was compressed; but that since 1977 the lowest percentage of the earnings distribution has shown zero growth, the median has
1510
risen by just under 30 per cent., and the top part of the distribution has shown growth of 45 to 50 per cent. That is not a British phenomenon. It is a trend which is taking place throughout the whole of the industrialised world. To the extent that governments try to stop the trend and try to compress wages, unemployment rises.
The cause or causes are open to debate, but most people emphasise two facts, which again are global. One is associated with trade and investment, and particularly with the emergence of Asia as the most dynamic region in the world economy with its huge labour market, much of which has limited skills. The second is the extraordinary revolution in technology we are living through, particularly associated with telecommunications, computing, information technology and the media.
Having travelled to China many times in the past two-and-a-half years, and also having taken the opportunity to visit schools, it seems to me that that is a trend which it is not easy to reverse. I also doubt whether parents or the education profession in this country have come to terms with it. Asian economies still face barriers to trade in the West. As those barriers are reduced, so we can expect higher imports from those countries, particularly of goods produced with low wages. Countries such as China, with 1.2 billion people, are committed to moving to a more market-oriented economy, and once again we shall face increasing competition. Nearly all the leading companies in this country, western Europe and the US are making investment in Asia a priority, if not the priority, of their business development. Our workforce therefore desperately needs greater skills if it is to avoid being paid a world wage rate for unskilled labour which will be set by the Asian economies.
My fear is that the report does not go far enough. The better the skills, the greater the remuneration. I envisage the divergence between very skilled people and unskilled people increasing rather than decreasing, therefore exacerbating the problem. Because of that, I believe that education deserves emphasis today. I fully accept the point a number of people have made about education in a more general context. However, I am still not happy about one specific area of education. I am happy about a number of the reforms introduced in the 1980s, in particular city technology colleges and technology colleges in general, and the greater variety of schools through the grant-maintained system. Those must surely be steps in the right direction. But vocational education leaves me with doubts, as it did when I was chairman of the School Examinations and Assessment Council, and confirms the magnificent work done by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. The quality of vocational education in this country lags behind our competitors in Europe.
The second issue I wish to raise—it is raised in the report—regards unemployment. We have now experienced high unemployment for approximately 25 years; we are in danger of treating it as given. It is clearly a major factor driving poverty. And, as the report points out, and as has been pointed out today, it has serious long-term consequences quite apart from the wasted resources.

1511
It is because of the seriousness of unemployment that the Government have introduced policies specifically targeted at getting people back to work. The report discusses a number of measures ranging from improved childcare provision to more flexibility in working hours, subsidies to employers, and so on. However, there is one glaring omission in the report. The chairman's introduction states that the terms of reference were to consider evidence on matters relating to living standards, income and personal wealth and to make recommendations regarding public policy which bear on living standards. The extraordinary omission was the creation of wealth itself. Surely wealth creation is by far the most enduring form of job creation, far more powerful in the longer term than job creation programmes.
A growing economy provides opportunities for people of all income levels to improve themselves. Unemployment fell during the latter part of the 1980s until there occurred that totally unnecessary cycle of inflation and severe recession. At present unemployment is falling again. I do not know whether that is considered a trickle-down effect but it seems to me that it is an important factor. We should support measures to improve and sustain our growth.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach. Let me start on a rather serious note. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, is not in his place. However, the noble Lord, a former Secretary of State for Social Services, sought to denigrate the Rowntree Report, especially the second volume, by stating that my colleague John Hills (who is associated with it) is somehow a troublemaker. I want absolutely to deplore that. John Hills is meticulous. He cannot defend himself against such attacks. His scholarship is not in doubt. The sources on which he relies are absolutely impeccable. I would take on anyone on the opposite side in or out of government who challenges his competence in the matter. Let it not be said that he was the man who planted a tax bombshell. He may have planted it, but the people who exploded that tax bombshell are in power now. We only propose tax increases. The Government implement them and their tax proposals were much more severe than John Hills could possibly have imagined. Therefore let us not hear any more about tax bombshells. Let us not have any further unfair attacks on a man who cannot defend himself.
The Rowntree Report is a careful and scholarly document. The point was made about whether or not direct benefits were included. At the back of volume 2 there is a careful consideration of the effect of introducing direct benefits into the calculations. As the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, pointed out, lifetime incomes are also considered. It has been said that if data on lifetime incomes were available they would be used. They were not available and therefore the report carefully carries out a simulation experiment and seeks to guess the effect. It quite honestly states that if life cycle incomes were available one would not find a great amount of equality but less inequality. It is not that the
1512
results in the report are somehow flawed by methodology; they are not flawed. If one reads both volumes carefully, and—dare I say it?—understands what is stated, every aspect is well covered. If people wish to defend the record of the present Government, they should find a better method than by attacking the report.
I wish to take up various points. First, it has been stated that the report deals with inequality and not poverty. I am untouched by the sentiment of those on the opposite Benches about poverty. I have not heard it for all these years; and suddenly, when inequality is debated, those noble Lords like poverty. Had we been attacking poverty they would have liked inequality.
What does the report say about it? I shall refer to volume 2. Its author is my colleague, John Hills. Page 31 indicates that in the bottom two deciles—and that is the area of poverty—there has been no increase in income after allowing for housing costs. Indeed, with regard to the bottom decile one can hardly see the faint green line. There is a slight deterioration both ways. Therefore poverty has actually increased. Regarding inequality, the bottom decile has been affected. Who are in the bottom decile? Obviously many unemployed people, old people, single parents and children. First, it is said those groups are transient; they come and go. Careful research indicates that many single parents and old people are not transient. When children are in poverty it takes them ages to get above poverty. I do not believe that one should use the transient argument too frequently.
Let that go. It has been suggested that average incomes have risen in this country. The truth is that they have not risen fast because the growth record of the past 15 years is appalling—there is no other word for it—compared with any previous 15 years. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, spoke about wealth creation but there has not been enough, I am sorry to say. If we compare the growth in income and the growth in wealth over the 15 years before 1979 with that over the 15 years after 1979, there is no serious statistical dispute; the growth has been lower. There may have been some diminution in unemployment over the past two years, about which the Government are excited. I remember that when I first came here all the problems were due to our competitors causing the recession in this country. When things go badly it is the fault of foreigners and when they go well it is all to our credit.
Unemployment in this country has not been lower in a single year since 1979 compared with when Labour left office. Despite all the miracles of productivity, lean growth and the marvellous things about which we shall hear, unemployment has not been lower in a single year. What is more, we are talking about doctored unemployment figures, not even the real ones.
Perhaps I may read some rather nice remarks about statistics of unemployment written by an impeccable authority who had to deal with them. I will give the author later:
"Faster than I can digest them great wadges of documentation are whumped into my 'In' tray. The subject matter is turgid: a mass of 'schemes' whose purpose, plainly, is not so much to bring relief to those out of work as to devise excuses for removing them from the

1513
Register. Among my other responsibilities are 'statistics', so it will be me who has to tell the House each month what is the 'jobless' total.
"The Enterprise Allowance Scheme, the Job Release Scheme, the Community Scheme. Convoluted and obscure even at their inception, they have since been so picked over and 'modified' by civil servants as to be incomprehensible. I ought to welcome these devices, and must try and master their intricacies. But my head is bursting. I understand Nabokov's analogy of a traveller in a foreign city, whose language he does not speak, attempting in the middle of a power strike, in the late evening, to find his hotel."
So said Alan Clark. That is the attitude on the unemployed, thinking of them as statistics to be got rid of. Various benefits have been announced, but probably 1 million people have been taken off the unemployment register and hidden somewhere. Is it any wonder that we have a growth in poverty?
Late in the past 16 years there is some decline in unemployment, but it is not enough to compensate for the sluggish growth that we have had for 16 years. The growth has been marred by two of the most severe recessions since records began in this country. So it is not as if we have had fantastic growth and the poor people who did not have enough skill and education—entirely through their own fault—have been left behind, and I actually dare to show the Government up as bad. It is not like that at all. It is that the country has had a low rate of investment and growth because policies which have been followed by the Government have, without fail, been inconsistently bad. The Government have adopted monetarism, Keynesianism and various other policies but they have not succeeded in achieving the trend rate of growth that was achieved in the 15 years before they came into office.
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, talked eloquently and rightly about globalisation and how we face the challenge of the skill revolution. He said that we ought to do more about education. However, being skilled or unskilled is not a matter of birth; unskilled people can be made skilled. It is not a matter of saying, "Those poor unskilled people! What should we do about them?" If they are unskilled, we can do something about it through education. What we should not do is to cut the education budget. If the Government are not going to pay teachers enough money then they should not say, "Oh, the poor unskilled workers! What should we do about them?"
Subjects like education have been deprived of funds. I work in higher education and I can tell noble Lords that despite the growth in the number of people in higher education, the per capita amount of money per student has been cut so badly that many teachers in higher education are unable to do their job properly. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has been saying that to us for a long time. Education has not only been starved of funds but has been so badly politically manipulated over the past 15 years that we no longer have the first class education system that we used to have. Let us hear more about what the Government will finally do about education. Are they serious about education and skills?
On our side, my right honourable friend Mr. Gordon Brown has for many years been setting out our policies for enriching education, skills, research and
1514
development and on how we shall change policies so that British firms become more investment-oriented and less dividend-oriented. We need a cultural revolution in the City. It is not the other side who will do it; it is we who will do it. I can only hope that events in another place this evening and perhaps tomorrow will hasten the day when we get the opportunity to solve the problems of the country.
5.17 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, G.K. Chesterton once remarked that the English working man was less interested in the equality of human beings than he was in the inequality of race horses. What he is also interested in, however, as are your Lordships, is the availability of the basic elements of a decent life. All of us here know the absolute necessity of adequate education, good job opportunities, health care and housing. So my concern now is not so much with the gap which has opened up between the rich and the poor—important though that is—which has been dealt with so thoroughly by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell; and I too am grateful to him for the opportunity to engage in this debate. My concern is above all what might be done to support those who are now losing out so badly—the bottom 10 per cent. so frequently mentioned in the Rowntree Report.
We live in a world increasingly dominated by market forces. The market, as Reinhold Niebuhr once put it, in words later echoed by Sir Winston Churchill, is the worst possible system in the world—except for all the others. It needs to be put like that because no human mechanism or institution is perfect. One of the great Christian insights into political thinking is that because we are all flawed, tending to pursue our own interests at the expense of others; and, to use old-fashioned language on this Ash Wednesday, because of sin (it is structural sin that is revealed in the Rowntree Report) some are bound to be pushed to the margins. The market as operated by human beings of unequal power and unequal wealth is not a purely neutral device. It does not benefit everyone equally, as the Rowntree figures show so starkly. Therefore, the market needs to be set within a wider and, above all, ethical and political framework which takes that into account. That is a point which I could demonstrate by a number of quotations from some of the most fervent advocates of a free market, including the writings of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach. In a world in which, as a result of market forces, there will be continuing high unemployment—at the moment it stands at 2.6 million people, of whom 850,000 are below the age of 25—there will be a continuing need for support of many kinds. If we say yes to the market and its mechanisms, as I would want, as the least inefficient means of increasing national wealth (which is desperately important), then no less fervently we must say yes to the need for compensatory action by government on behalf of those who, through no fault of their own, still stand at the foot of the ladder, unable to climb on.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, complained that the report had not taken into account benefits in kind. He maintained that on them expenditure had, in

1515
his words, soared. But let us simply consider the point that is made by Rowntree on housing. The report says that the reduction in subsidies to local authorities and the housing associations has gone too far. It has indeed. General government expenditure on housing fell from £13.3 billion in 1979 to £5.3 billion in 1994. In the past two years, housing association funding has been cut by £635 million. As a result, in the year commencing 1st April, the number of public rented housing starts will be the lowest for 50 years. There is no evidence here of expenditure "soaring", or of real commitment to those most in need.
I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, about the need for education, particularly vocational education, if we are genuinely committed to a flourishing, wealthy society. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, pointed out, it is no good having that commitment unless we are prepared to put some money into education.
The housing association movement is one of the great successes of the post-war period. It brings together local initiative, knowledge and energy, local authority expertise and government policy and resources, in a creative partnership. The result has so often been new housing, on a secure basis, in which the inhabitants can take proper pride. But the housing need is still acute. Last year, 130,000 families were accepted as homeless and at least the same number were refused. It has been estimated that over 1 million people are either homeless or have to live in sub-standard, over-crowded or totally inadequate accommodation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, quoted Disraeli's words about the importance of equality of opportunity. It was nearly 65 years ago when R.H. Tawney wrote his classic work on the subject of equality. There he wrote words which have not lost their force and which need to be heard again today in relation to our market-orientated society and the uncomfortable figures revealed by the Rowntree Report. Tawney wrote:
"Equality of opportunity is fictitious without equality in the circumstances under which men have to develop and exercise their capacities".
Those circumstances certainly include adequate housing. I believe that the Government can and should respond to the Rowntree Report in the area of housing need, first, by restoring the £635 million cuts in housing associations' allocations; and, secondly, by the release of local authorities' capital receipts in order to enable them to make their contribution to meeting that great need.
Not all can be winners. Perhaps some degree of inequality in wealth is inevitable in the world in which we live. But all of us have exactly the same need for education, job opportunities, health, and, as I have tried to emphasise, decent housing.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate. I usually listen to him at 10 minutes to eight in the morning on a regular basis. I am particularly pleased that he mentioned housing. That is still a most important issue in many parts of the country—not in all parts as it was in the years from
1516
1946 to 1948, but in some areas. The right reverend Prelate reminded the House of the quotation from Tawney on equality. That enables me to say at the beginning that it would be a very interesting subject for a debate. However, a different aspect of equality is the subject of this debate.
I learnt early in my life that there were people who—what is the right way of putting it?—were more unequal than I was; but that their position did not depend on their ability. There are blockages in our social system that prevent everybody from breaking through in the way in which they ought perhaps to be able to. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Eatwell on instigating the debate.
What we say in this debate today is not likely to have the slightest effect. Nobody seems to listen to the debates that we have in this House. They are not reported in the press or the other media to any great extent. We talk to ourselves, more is the pity. I have learnt in two or three years that in this place there is a wide spectrum of experience that is not available everywhere. My brief remarks are based on my own experience (not over a lifetime by a long chalk) of poverty before the war. I have never forgotten it, and perhaps it influences me too much. I also had 30 years' experience in an inner-city part of Leeds which another right reverend Prelate still knows very well. There, before I left three years ago, I remember visiting a primary school in one part of the city and the head teacher telling me, "We ate beginning to have to feed some young children breakfast because, like many years ago, they do not get a proper breakfast at home". That was in one part only; it does not apply to everybody, but that is what I was told.
I should like to concentrate on one part of the Motion; namely, the part that refers to,
"the effect of inequality on Britain's economic and industrial strength".
It was good to see that the Rowntree Foundation had published a report. Again it relates to my past. As a young man, I was brought up on the Rowntree Report on York —one report being published in 1901, before I was born. One was a classical work in the 1930s, and further reports were published, I believe, in 1936 and 1951. The reports are in the tradition of Booth's Life and Labour of the People in London, and Mayhew. There were other reports on Liverpool, Southampton and South Wales. Perhaps I figured as a statistic in a previous report.
I am made constantly aware in my old constituency and in my own family life today, where poverty is a million miles off the menu, that much has changed since the days when those reports were written. There is a danger of someone like me living in the past and trying to come up with solutions to problems that are no longer with us, or which show themselves in a different way. There is de-industrialisation. I have on my wall at home an aerial photograph of my constituency eight years ago. Compared with 10 years before that, it is like Hamburg in 1945. The engineering works and the clothing factories have gone. Britain is no longer the workshop

1517
of the world. That has happened not just in the lifetime of this Government; it began earlier. There has been a decline in manufacturing wage earners.
At polling time, I used to address political meetings at lunch-time attended by men in overalls who came straight from the lathe. You cannot do that now. People wear white jackets in places—they can hardly be called factories—where they distribute goods that are made in Japan. It is a different world. You cannot run an election in the way in which it used to be run. You cannot reach people. We did not have full employment until 1942. There were three years of war before we had it. I agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Desai. That is the key to much of what we are discussing today. Unemployment has been high again in recent years. It has improved in recent months, but it is still far too high.
Another factor is that, unlike in the past, Britain is among the poorest countries in the European Union. When I hear that stated, it sticks in my political gullet. I repeat, we are among the poorest in the European Union measured by GDP —no wonder we have Rowntree Reports.
There are other reports, such as Social Trends. Of all the findings mentioned, which means that I do not need to go through them again, it is interesting that it was the Tory Deputy Chairman who said,
"The reality is now that the rich are getting richer on the backs of the rest, who are getting poorer".
He was making a political point. Was he wrong? He said it behind closed doors so he was not worried what the media would make of it. That is what he said and there is an element of truth about it. I have seen the facts and figures, no doubt to be qualified by statistical analysis or said to contain weaknesses and so forth. I do not know. All I know is that there is a problem, as there was a problem in the 1930s. And the major problem is that of unemployment.
We talk in this House of inequalities and list recommendations in relation to different forms of payments such as "transfer payments" as I had to learn to call them at one time. There are 6 million people in this country receiving transfer payments. I am one of them. I collect a war pension. We could cut out people like me—my payment is not given to me because I need it, but because the community says I should receive it, as my father did before me from another war. A community that does not generate income by work for 4 million people—I refer not only to those who are unemployed of course—should cut back on such payments. There is something wrong in such a community. We see it in the United States and in France; I do not know about Germany because I do not go there very often.
Most of the recommendations in the report only ameliorate the situation. What can we do now to deal with it? I do not know. I listen to the economists. At one time I was a kind of economist. They say "There is this; there is that. There are problems that if we expand the economy too much we are being too Keynesian. If we take too much notice of savings being greater than investment it will affect the price levels. Unless we have
1518
tight control of price levels we will go back to 1988". I understand all that, but there is a problem in relation to unemployment.
Perhaps we would do better—this is not conventional wisdom, if it is wisdom—if we had three managed currencies; the yen, the dollar and the ERM. There may be some sense in that. It may well be that there should be more regulation of the European banking system, not just the banking system in this country. We are being very insular in our talk about the European Union, as though we can stand alone, and I am as sceptical as anyone else about Brussels in general.
In 1940—not in 1920 and 1930—few people were interested in the underclasses. The war brought about a realisation that there were people who were poor, when poor children were evacuated to middle-class houses. People said "We didn't know people lived like that. We must do something about it", and we should be thinking of what we can do now. There should be a more even distribution of wealth. I could afford to pay more taxation. We must consider the training aspect. A great deal of discussion takes place in regard to training and I know that this Government, for the past 15 years, have tried, as did the government before. But it is no good training people if there are no jobs at the end of it. It is no good offering training only to unskilled people; there is a need to train people with far higher aspirations. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, talked of the difference between us and the Pacific Rim. He is certainly correct. If we are among the five poorest in Europe, we shall fast reach the pitch where we are even lower than that.
Unemployment is the key to the whole of the report. We concern ourselves with other matters in relation to the fairer distribution of income, payments being made to the unemployed in different ways—job-seeking allowances, old age pensions and so forth. I understand all of that. But I learnt from experience that the great transformation in my life was when my father obtained a job. That is what matters—when the income comes along. I remember my mother paying back the poor relief that we received from The Guardians (that takes me back because they ended in 1929). She paid back every penny because she did not want to be beholden to them. I have never forgotten that. Unemployment and the cure for it cannot be beyond our capabilities. It was not when it was a national phenomenon —heaven only knows that in South Wales there were international aspects of that because of the nature of the coal industry.
I am glad that the report was published. We should read the Social Trends report, and there are others. The more we think about it, the more chance there is of doing something about it. But if I was sceptical at the beginning, I shall be sceptical at the end. In the 1920s and the 1930s those who had a job were not worried about those that did not have a job. In the RAF we called it, "I care not for thee, Jack; I am fire-proof'. That is the situation at the moment. I am not sure that we care very much in this House, though we are all good, decent types and we say "Of course we do; we are sorry for them". Everybody was sorry in the 1920s and 1930s, and they did nothing about it except arrange for transfer of labour from one place to another.

1519
It is an excellent report; perhaps statistically flawed, I would not know—I did not listen all that carefully to my statistics lectures at the London School of Economics. But I know there is something wrong, and I know it from spending 30 years as a Member of Parliament for an inner city constituency that nobody visits.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I welcome the debate. I am glad to be able to take part in it and only regret that I shall not be able to stay to the end owing to a prior engagement.
The Rowntree Trust has a great tradition of social investigation and we should take its findings seriously. However, we should not treat them as gospel. There has been some tendency, especially in the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, to treat the report with more confidence than it showed itself, as one noble Lord aptly remarked. The authority of the signatories, the quantity and complication of the statistics, can easily blind the unwary to omissions, hidden assumptions and questionable methodologies. I want to concentrate on one methodology which was mentioned earlier. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding pointed out that the report did not consider, in its calculation of income trends over the past 15 years, benefits in kind. That assertion is correct, and the logic of omitting them was not supported by anyone on either side of the House. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, when he makes his final speech, will address that point.
The report purports to show that during the period of Conservative Government since 1979 inequality has grown significantly; the rich have been getting richer and the poor poorer. That finding is based on the measurement of net incomes. For Britain's poorest people income is fundamentally made up of state cash benefits—family credit, income support, housing benefit and the state pension. For the poorest one-fifth of British households, state cash benefits amount to 70 per cent. of total gross income. The Rowntree Inquiry's conclusion that the poorest people have failed to see their incomes rise at anywhere near the same rate as Britain's wealthiest people is merely a platitude. Since the decision was taken to link the rate of increase in cash benefits to prices, rather than to earnings, it was inevitable that over the years an income gap would emerge between those who are predominantly dependent on benefits and those who are not. As it was intended, that has been taken by the press as the main conclusion of the report. But it follows absolutely inevitably from the decision to de-link cash benefits from earnings.
We may regret that; but let us suppose that we were to re-establish the link for state pensions. In 10 years we would be spending as much on the state pension as we now spend on the National Health Service. Is that the kind of expenditure that the Opposition are willing to contemplate with all its tax implications? Are they willing to restore the link between state cash benefits and earnings? If not, logically the Opposition have to accept that the gap which the Rowntree Trust has highlighted will continue to grow.
1520
The measure of how well-off people are should surely include more than simply cash income. Britain's welfare state is built on benefits in kind as well as benefits in cash. The provision of public service is free at the point of use. In the 1970s the Labour Party used to talk about the social wage. We have not heard that phrase today. An increasing social wage was proclaimed as the great quid pro quo for restraint on the growth of cash incomes. In fact, a rising social wage was put forward as the key to social cohesion. But the social wage has been rising in the 1980s and the early 1990s precisely for that group which is most disadvantaged. Yet the Rowntree Report entirely omits the social wage—the benefits in kind—in evaluating how the poor in Britain are faring.
These benefits in kind include housing subsidy, travel subsidies, free school meals and milk—and, most significantly, state education and the National Health Service. Consumption of these benefits in kind is, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has noted, substantially redistributive. I believe I understood the noble Earl rightly that he calculated benefits in kind were about 10 per cent. of average income. But that is not the point of course; it is the proportion of benefits in kind in the income of the lowest 20 per cent. which is relevant for this particular inquiry. The Central Statistical Office estimates that in 1993 these services were worth £3,600 to the poorest one-fifth of households which is 48.3 per cent. of their net income. It is not 10 per cent. nor indeed the 6 per cent. of the net income of the richest 20 per cent.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me which of the benefits in kind he mentioned are more generous now than they were in 1979?
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, certainly. Real spending on the National Health Service and state education has increased very substantially since the 1970s. A greater share of those benefits has been going to the poorest 20 per cent. of the population. It is not surprising that the Rowntree Report found that Britain's poorest were growing poorer when it omitted from its calculations 48.3 per cent. of their final household income. If these services do not matter for that sort of calculation, why are we redistributing so much money through these benefits? If, as is surely the case, they do matter to the standard of living of this section of the population, what reason can the Rowntree Report have for not taking them into account?
The explanation offered by the report for excluding benefits in kind from the calculation was referred to briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. He said that it was tucked away at the end of Volume 2 of the report, which is a very good device for not attracting attention to anything you say. The explanation offered by the report was that the benefits were based on need and therefore somehow they should not be included in the calculation. But cash benefits are just as much based on need. Indeed, that is the reason for the entire system of redistributive benefits, whether in cash or in kind.
If benefits in kind were abolished and £3,610 were given to the poorest one-fifth of the population directly in cash, say, through weighted vouchers instead of via

1521
the National Health Service, education and other subsidies, the Rowntree Report would find that part of the population that much richer when in reality it would be no better off than before.
When the value of these benefits in kind is taken into account, it emerges that because of their redistributive nature and the increasing real resources devoted to them, Britain's poorest citizens have been growing better off both relatively and absolutely since 1979. That is QED so far as I am concerned with that particular argument in the report. I am not denying that the report is very valuable in many other ways, but the particular argument that the poorest 20 per cent. have been getting either poorer or have not been benefiting at all through the growth of the economy during that period, cannot be seriously sustained.
In the final few moments of my speech, perhaps I may turn to some of the wider issues. Some of the points have been made before but they are worth repeating. It is a mistake to assume that we would have had less inequality had we had fuller employment over this period. Greater wage dispersal has been the result of the technological revolution which has brought to an end the era of a mass production economy —"Fordism" as it is sometimes called—which required standardised labour. Howard Davies, writing in the Financial Times on 10th February said,
"Global competition and technological change have increased the incomes of skilled workers. But the UK force is less highly skilled than those of its main competitors".
Nature's short-term remedy for that situation is greater wage dispersal. Of course, one can compress incomes through an incomes policy, minimum wage legislation, and so on; but the result will simply be higher unemployment, as my noble friend Lord Griffiths pointed out.
It is frequently claimed, even by capitalism's supporters, that there is no trickle down effect. I am always amazed when that claim is made. As an historian, how can the noble Earl, Lord Russell, explain the continuous growth in the real incomes of all sections of a continually expanding world population since the Industrial Revolution without the existence of a very powerful trickle down effect continually at work? At various times there may be increases in inequality, but the tendency of the system is to produce both higher incomes and greater equality over time than anything known before the emergence of capitalism as a world system. That trickle down effect was at work before the existence of trade unions, social legislation and other things. That should be the premise on how we think of the development of our system in future.
Noble Lords have referred to the World Bank report which says that greater equality is good for growth. Of course that is so when one is thinking about the less developed countries. But there is no comparison at all between the spread of income in this country and the gross inequalities in Latin America, Brazil, Peru, Sub-Saharan Africa and so on, which hold back growth. There is nothing in this country with its huge middle class that is remotely comparable with that situation; so
1522
it is a sham to use that kind of argument, which is perfectly valid for very poor countries, in relation to our own situation.
I want to end by saying that certainly we should consider very seriously what this report says. But let us at least start the argument about what we should do about unemployment, and so on, from the right premise—that is, that trickle down works and that this proposition is validated by a fair consideration of the facts and figures of the past 15 years.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, from the mid-1960s to 1979 we could keep track of inequality in income and wealth through a Royal Commission. In 1979 the Government abolished it; so all we have now is the Rowntree Report. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Eatwell for introducing the debate. The report details today's inequality. I shall add nothing to what other noble Lords have said except to say that this rising inequality has not helped Britain achieve a better economic performance. As the report says, the trend towards greater inequality of incomes has not produced a faster rate of growth than in previous periods when the gap between rich and poor was smaller.
The report looks at how this rising inequality is reflected in the distribution of wealth. Table 5.23 in the 1995 edition of Social Trends tells us that if dwellings are excluded the most wealthy 10 per cent. now own two-thirds of all the marketable wealth of this country. Much of our debate has concentrated on the poorest 10 per cent. in this country. I would like to examine the lessons that the top 10 per cent. should learn from the report. Should they be quietly satisfied that they have done rather well? Or does this report tell them something important?
Unfortunately, our greater accumulation of wealth has not been matched by a faster rate of growth, so there has been a transfer of wealth from the poorer section of society to the richer. I am not satisfied with this. Nor apparently is Mr. John Maples, who, as my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees reminded us, is the Tory party deputy chairman. He said:
"The reality is now that the rich are getting richer on the backs of the rest who are getting poorer".
Perhaps he, and certainly I, would want to see us all getting richer together. Sadly, Mr. Maples does not tell us how to deal with the situation because the Tory free market dogma does not work in this case. As the report says:
"Left to themselves, market forces will not deliver levels of education, training and investment in human capital which are optimal for the economy and society".
It is the 10 per cent. élite then, and not market forces, who must be the ones to influence events which will deliver the education, training and investment. It is in their own interests to do so, for two reasons. First, few of us want to live in a society, so aptly described by my noble friend Lord Eatwell, which is so divided that many families and individuals have no stake in future prosperity. The prospect of protecting ourselves from

1523
this minority with excessive security and all that that means in lack of freedom of movement both for ourselves and for our children is totally unacceptable.
Secondly, the World Bank report and experience has shown that the higher the share of income taken by the top 10 per cent. or 20 per cent., the slower the economy grows. A greater share for the poor, and particularly the middle income groups, is associated with faster growth. Countries where income is more equally distributed grow faster and everybody gets richer. That is what we want to achieve.
The practical solution, as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, told us, lies in managing our assets so that we get people back to work. What are these assets? Going back to Social Trends, Chart 5.22 tells us that if we exclude dwellings the top 10 per cent. have most of their assets in stocks, shares, unit trusts, life assurance and pension funds. We have to take an active interest in the management of these assets. Whether we manage them ourselves at work or whether they are managed for us by investment managers, we have to make our long-term wishes known. I have made this point to the Minister during proceedings on the Pensions Bill. I am sorry that he is not in his place, because although he disagreed with me about mandatory voting then, it looks as if he may be becoming a little isolated. His right honourable friend the Prime Minister yesterday seemed to be moving towards some sort of legal obligation. I make no apology for again calling on investors to vote their shares in exactly the same way that I called upon pension fund trustees to do. The Cadbury Committee recommendations apply as much to the 10 per cent élite as they do to pension fund beneficiaries.
We are reminded every day of the importance of good corporate governance in improving Britain's prosperity; yet much as the United Kingdom Government would like to see more longer-term investment, neither business nor government believe the other is willing to make long-term commitments. We, the ultimate owners of the companies, must break the cycle by taking an active interest. By taking an active interest, I mean that we should turn up to company meetings and ask the questions posed in the Rowntree Report. The report sees childcare provision as a key to getting single parents back to work. What is our company doing about that?
The report favours extending the Government's current experiment with subsidies to employers over hiring people out of work for two years. Is our company taking advantage of this? The report talks about future international competitiveness depending on investment in human and physical capital. Is our company doing this? What is our company doing about training and introducing information technology into the business? We should not be afraid to ask these questions; they are the very points raised in the Government's own White Paper on the competitiveness of British industry. The social needs of the Rowntree Report coincide exactly with our industrial and commercial needs in the report on competitiveness.
The only justification for being a passive owner has been the trickle down effect, about which many noble Lords have spoken. The argument over whether this has or has not occurred is totally irrelevant. I reject the idea
1524
as being feudal and out of date. The notion that crumbs from the rich man's table are the means of feeding the poor is degrading to both the poor and to the rich man. In a modern society surely the task of the rich man at the table is to make his assets work for the benefit of the nation as a whole. Most of us want to live in a fair society and many of us care about the poor, but compassion alone will not create wealth.
Are we then, the 10 per cent. élite, happy with the fund managers who, in the last recession, rather than encouraging companies to maintain their investments for the long term, demanded and got higher dividends? Indeed, the Government encouraged the process by offering lower effective tax rates on dividends to pension funds than on money reinvested in the business. This was done in our name. Are we satisfied with this?
We have to get the balance right between profit and long-term interest. We, the 10 per cent. élite, have to make sure that our rewards are deserved and reasonable; otherwise we may be faced with the politics of envy. I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will call on those who have benefited from this inequality, many of whom must be his supporters, to welcome the report. I hope that he will urge them to use the assets they have accumulated to help reduce inequality by creating long-term work. If we, the 10 per cent. élite, are ambitious for our vested interests only, we shall end up with a society of which we do not wish to be a part. So we must be ambitious for all our people. On these Benches, that is what we mean by social justice.
6 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the House will not be surprised that I shall not be joining in the battle between the five professors or former professors of economics who are taking part in this debate nor with the one professor of history, but that I shall be talking about health and its relationship to wealth.
I shall attempt to justify two propositions: the first is that social inequality and relative poverty are related to increases in ill-health and decreases in lifespan or, put more succinctly, to increased morbidity and mortality. The second is that that increased morbidity and mortality has a deleterious effect on the economy.
There is now a large body of scientific evidence to back both of those propositions—so much so that they can now be regarded as research-based truths rather than hypotheses. The best known evidence comes from the report on inequalities in health which was published in 1980 by the working group that was set up by my noble friend Lord Ennals, who described it in his speech. That working group was chaired by Sir Douglas Black, hence its usual title, the Black Report, which has nothing to do with its contents (although some people might have thought so).
Further evidence has been built up over the past 15 years showing that, as my noble friend said, although health has improved generally, the gap between rich and poor in health terms has increased in parallel with the increasing disparity in incomes, which is so graphically (in both senses) demonstrated by the Rowntree Report.

1525
Nearly all causes of ill-health and death have a social gradient, with the poor being the worst off. The two main exceptions are skin cancer, which is related to excessive exposure to the sun in white races, and breast cancer, which has a relationship with alcohol consumption and late first pregnancies. Both are more common in better-off people. It is now clear that the major task of public health medicine is to convince governments that the best way of improving the health of nations is to bring about conditions which will raise the health status of the less educated and less well-off people to that of those who are better off and better educated. Departments of health cannot do that alone; almost every department of state needs to play a part.
There is a steady gradient in health across the whole social spectrum—it is not restricted simply to the poor. That has been shown most clearly by Professor Michael Marmot of UCL in his longitudinal study of 11,000 civil servants, the second Whitehall study. He has found that there is a threefold rise in mortality between the top administrative grades and the lowest grade doing the most menial tasks. The same applies to spells of sickness absence, with the lowest grade taking four times as many spells of time off work as the highest grade. That gradient persists even after allowance has been made for the known risk factors such as smoking and lack of exercise which are more common among those in the lowest groups.
A small study that I am carrying out on an inner-city practice population—it has not yet been published, although I hope that it will be by the end of the year—reflects those findings, but in the general population. Drug costs and other measures of morbidity follow the same pattern.
I should like briefly to mention the work of Dr. Richard Wilkinson, who is based at the Trafford Research Centre at Sussex University, a centre named after the late much respected Tony Trafford, who was a popular Member of your Lordships' House, sitting on the Government Benches. Dr. Wilkinson has discovered that among developed nations it is not the average income, or GDP, which determines the country's average expectation of life, but the distribution of income within the country that matters. Interestingly, he found that it is the share received by the lowest two-thirds of the population that matters, rather than that of the very lowest 10 per cent.
Perhaps I did not need to use scientific papers to prove the point that health and income are related. Many would accept it as fairly obvious. But the Government sometimes seem to need to have uncomfortable facts demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt before taking them seriously, although even then action is slow to materialise. In The Health of the Nation White Paper, this, the major public health problem in the world, receives scarcely a mention. Of course, I am pleased that the Department of Health has set up a working group under Dr. Jeremy Metters, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, to look at what the National Health Service could do to deal with health inequalities, but the wider implications (which require high level interdepartmental action) have not been faced.
1526
The need for such high-level strategic co-operation between ministries and departments was recommended by both the Black Report of 14 and a half years ago and the Canterbury Report of 1984 on the prevention of coronary heart disease, but for many years little was done. The Health of the Nation White Paper and the activities emanating from it are very welcome, but far more needs to be done.
I have not left quite as much time as I wanted to discuss my second proposition: that bad health is bad for the economy. It is harmful for three reasons. First, increased illness costs the health service more. Poorer people with less good health make more demands on GPs, nurses and hospitals, and their drug costs are higher. I could go into details and give examples of research that has shown that, but I do not think that there is sufficient time. Secondly, there are higher social security costs because the higher morbidity of poorer people results in greater claims for sickness absence, as I described earlier. Thirdly, a sick workforce is a less efficient workforce—quite apart from the disruption of production that is caused by frequent sickness absences.
Finally, it is worth looking at the role of education in relation to both health and wealth. Developed countries—in fact, all countries—need a skilled workforce to run high-tech industries. Several noble Lords have referred to the skills revolution. There is a strong link between health and education. It is not only that educated people can usually obtain better paid jobs, but the jobs are usually more intellectually stimulating and in better surroundings. Better educated people usually make more decisions themselves in their work and are more likely to be in control than to be controlled. Professor Marmot suggests that that is a key factor in the relationship between job status and overall health.
Prescriptions and remedies are clearly stated in the excellent report. Among the most important are those relating to increasing employment opportunities. Another very important prescription, which both the report and a number of noble Lords have put forward to help to solve the present economic divide, is increasing educational training and retraining opportunities at all levels from nursery school upwards. We need the same prescription to improve the nation's health.
I should like to end by echoing the conclusion of Robert Reich in his book The Work of Nations, which is quoted in the Rowntree Report. He stated:
"Each nation's primary asset is no longer its stock of raw materials or physical assets, but predominantly its stock of human capital—the skills and insights of its citizens".
6.10 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and I hope that derives comfort from the level of erudition applied to the debate. There is no doubt that people of considerable experience have risen to the occasion and given their thoughts pro or con the report. I hope that the press will take a sincere and dignified look at what has been said today on all sides of the House.

1527
There are one or two points that worry me about the Rowntree Report. I would not like them to be omitted by default. It is acknowledged that we must be vigilant. We must be vigilant in examining trends in living standards, income and personal wealth, and take steps to deal with any that are adverse. In that sense, I warmly welcome the objectives set out in the introduction to volume 1 of the report. There are, however, some aspects of the evidence laid out in the report that worry me profoundly, as they have other noble Lords.
In their haste to draw the most sensational possible conclusions, the authors of the report have been extremely selective in their handling of data. The report seemingly moves at will from a base comparative year of 1979 to 1977 when such a change will support the thrust of the report's conclusion. As Samuel Brittan pointed out in the Financial Times on 16th February:
"Students of the subject have long been aware that such snapshots are highly misleading."
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding referred to the writing of Daniel Finkelstein in the European edition of the Wall Street Journal in which he pointed out the issue of benefits. My noble friend Lord Skidelsky dealt with that, and I shall go no further than remind your Lordships that, at the end of the day, the figure for the poorest 20 per cent. of households in 1993 amounted to £300 a month plus. That is, if I may say so, a fairly fundamental omission.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has stated that the Government have a responsibility to reduce inequality—and I certainly acknowledge that—but it is wholly impractical to assume that some form of inequality will not always exist.
I was glancing through the books in a friend's library at the weekend. My eye alighted on a volume entitled Soviet Communism—A New Civilisation written in 1935 by Beatrice and Sydney Webb. How often have we been bemused into a sense of false security or beguiled by a seemingly simple solution of the well-meaning prophets of the Left? It is clear, 60 years later, that Soviet communism did not succeed in eliminating inequalities in Russian society. In fact, the reality of the situation was well parodied in George Orwell's Animal Farm. As I read through the Rowntree Report, and some of the press comments it produced I have to admit to a sense of déjà vu.
So what action can we take to reduce inequalities in our society? The Government had gone some way towards implementing some of the report's more sensible conclusions before it was published. I refer to work incentive methods, including the childcare disregard and the back to work bonus, which the Government announced in the recent Budget.
To go further, we should look at the fields of education and training. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, speaking in another place—this has been mentioned already but it is worth repeating—rightly highlighted that the earning power of brawn has not kept pace with that of brain. Over the past few years technology advances have made the skilled more productive while increased competition from the lower unit cost labour markets of the Pacific Rim have eaten away at the relative productivity of our
1528
manual and semi-skilled workers. This trend can only be addressed by more relevant and more flexible training, by redoubling our efforts in the vital field of vocational training and by urging businesses to pay more attention to their own training policies—as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel—including training for part-time workers. The key to business success in the future will be a flexible labour force geared to a flexible labour market.
Throughout my industrial career I have travelled widely and have seen for myself the great inequalities between rich and poor. In India—where the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has some experience—a visit to Calcutta in 1975 was a singularly salutory experience. It naturally worries me to see beggars on our streets and at our railway stations, but I assure you that this bears no comparison to third world poverty.
Many of those asking for change at underground stations are in the same category as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's beggar in the Sherlock Holmes story who commuted home every night to a comfortable suburban lifestyle. I do not say all; just some. Many are the unfortunate product of the mistakes made with our educational system in the 60s and 70s, young people somehow brainwashed into losing the will to work.
Speaking in 1964 about the situation in the United States, President Lyndon Baines Johnson said:
"For the first time in our history it is possible to conquer poverty."
I am sure that in a theoretical sense he may have been right. I still saw beggars on the streets of New York when I was there last year. I have also seen beggars on the streets of Brussels and, more rarely, in Geneva and Zurich.
The conquest of poverty is more about creating an environment of enterprise, of generating the will to succeed and of training to get the right skills in the right place at the right time than it is about providing state handouts. I have to admit that none of us in the world, and in particular in the United Kingdom—not even the learned authors of the Rowntree Report—has all the answers.
As one starts to read the Rowntree Report, it is easy to miss one of the early statements—widely picked up by the press and mentioned today by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell—saying that the speed of the rich/poor differential is greater in the United Kingdom than in any other industrial country with the exception of New Zealand. Having held a New Zealand passport for 12 years, I took some exception to that. So the other day I got in touch with the High Commissioner. The response was electric. There was a 22-page fax awaiting me on my return home. I say that only to make the point about using such a large league table in that way. If we are going to make such comparisons we must balance the books with reality. My noble friend Lord Skidelsky can confirm that the march forward in New Zealand in recent years has been dramatic.
New Zealand and Britain have led the way in economic reform which has, in effect, created the speed of the divide. The important point is that New Zealand farmers, whose contribution to their GDP is nearly 5 per cent. greater than in the UK, have accepted voluntarily

1529
the removal of subsidies. What would the Rowntree Report look like if there were no Brussels-sponsored CAP? We must show compassion, but we must be realistic, just as we must be realistic in drawing too hasty conclusions from Rowntree.
My final point concerns our seemingly black economy. I suspect that it is no coincidence that a large number of Rowntree's bottom 10 per cent. are self employed. The figures can be found in the report; we need not mention them here. Like the Secretary of State for Social Security speaking in another place, I quote one significant paragraph from the second volume of the report:
"households reporting zero or negative incomes in 1990–91 also reported expenditure above the average for all households … the suspicion is that some may habitually misreport income to the authorities, disguising comfortable life styles".
I rest my case.
We must work to reduce inequalities; we must show compassion; but we should not be over-impressed by the quality or the conclusions of the report.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I always like to start a speech by finding such common ground as I can, and so far as concerns the noble Viscount's speech, the only thing I can say to him is that I share his admiration for New Zealand, where a large part of my family lives on South Island. If I did not have to live here, I should be happy to live there. As to the rest of his speech, I am afraid that I cannot go with him one inch.
I want first to thank my noble friend Lord Eatwell, and to congratulate him, not just on today's excellent speech, but on yesterday's, which I was privileged to hear. To make one good speech may be one-off; but to make two good speeches on two day's running, shows promise. My congratulations must be a little muted, because he said virtually everything that I wanted to say. I shall repeat just some of what he said, because the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, repeated the irrelevancies of the speeches made in the other place. No doubt he was duly briefed, and loyally kept to his brief, in trying to pretend that we were not talking about inequality, which is comparing one thing with another. So long as one's definitions are the same at both ends of the comparison, it matters not one whit so long as one compares like with like. I hope that the noble Lord will be good enough to listen to what I have to say as I was delighted to listen to what he had to say.
The reports published over the past 20 years, including government publications such as Economic Trends and Social Trends, ministerial Answers to Questions—I have here one to me—the nine reports of the Royal Commission, the present Rowntree Report and several others, all tell the same story. I have not heard from anyone on the other side of the House a single assertion that there is an authoritative report anywhere which pretends, or tries to drive to the conclusion, that inequality in incomes in our society has not increased since 1979.
1530
The same story is told in all those reports, and the story is that in the early years of this century, the gap in incomes between the top and the bottom was very marked indeed. The policies pursued by every government since then, irrespective of party, were such that the gap narrowed gradually. Decade after decade, the trend was clear and consistent. But in the early 1980s, the trend was seen to falter, and then to go into reverse. For the following 10 years, the gap grew so that we are now back to where we were over 40 years ago. The progress made in those years towards a more cohesive and stable society has been lost as a result of the policies pursued by the present Government.
That position has not arisen by accident. It has come about deliberately. Let us look for a moment at the three main levers available to a government if they wish to make progress towards a fairer society. The first is income tax —a progressive tax which rests, as we all know, on the simple proposition that the broader shoulders are best able to carry the heavier burdens; but year after year since the early 1980s, new income tax provisions have been introduced which have had the effect of favouring those with the highest incomes. I shall give the figures shortly, although there is no need to because everyone in the House will know, if they have taken the trouble to compare rates of tax at the end of that decade with rates of tax at the beginning of that decade, the effect that they have had on their own bank accounts.
Secondly, I must look at indirect taxes such as VAT—a tax the very opposite to a progressive tax where the burden falls equally on the giant as on the weakling. So the Government reduced the progressive effects of income tax and increased substantially the tax which falls disproportionately on the poor.
If any further evidence were needed of the Government's deliberate intention to increase the gap in final incomes, we have only to look at the poll tax—well-to-do householders living in highly rated houses were favoured with an enormous reduction in their rates bill while millions of those who were badly off found themselves faced for the first time with large charges. As is well known, the overall burden of taxation was not reduced in that period so that the benefit to one section—those at the top—could only be at the cost to others, including those at the bottom.
The figures are illuminating. The top 1 per cent. has received tax cuts since 1979 of £75 billion; the bottom 10 per cent. has suffered an extra tax burden of £3 a week. In addition to using the tax system as a means of income redistribution in reverse, the Government turned their attention to social security benefits. Since the early 1980s, as we know, benefit levels have been linked to prices rather than wages. That has had the effect of denying to the poorest section of the community a share in all the modern improvements which their neighbours have come to regard as necessities. So in those and other ways the Government have legislated deliberately for greater inequality in final incomes. The figures show that not only has the gap widened but there has been an absolute fall in the living standards of the poorest. I regard that as deplorable. If I were asked to suggest the

1531
best single indicator of the level of civilisation of a society, unhesitatingly I would answer that it would be the way that society treated its poor.
The results of the Government's policies are to be seen inevitably in fields other than the financial one, as referred to by my noble friend, and in the greater alienation of large numbers in our society, with the consequent increase in crime and lawlessness, the gap in the incidence of illness and the gap in the expectation of life itself, of which we have had such valuable confirmation.
The Government's justification has always been that in implementing these measures they will benefit the economy as a whole in which all will share. That has never been more than an unjustifiable assertion. Nevertheless, let us test it by relating it to the facts. In addition to the long-term trend towards greater equality in incomes, there is another well-known long-term trend. Since World War II the economy has, with negligible exceptions, grown at an average annual rate of a little over two-and-a-half per cent. What happened to each of these trends after the present Government took office? The equality trend changed course and became a trend towards greater inequality. Growth in the economy, far from accelerating in the way it was claimed, slowed down to a figure of a little over one-and-a-half per cent. compared with the trend of two-and-a-half per cent. established over all those years. What went with greater inequality in our society was slower growth in the economy. There was an improvement at the top and a deterioration at the bottom. The much vaunted trickle-down effect was nowhere to be seen. A huge but not impossible task faces the next government.
I should like to suggest two matters for consideration by my Front Bench. Unless one takes a series of positive steps to move towards greater equality, the situation will automatically get worse. The dynamics of decline are such that even if one follows neutral policies, the gap will widen. Not surprisingly, the well-educated and well-connected will prove more than a match for the poorly-educated, with no friends in the right places, however level the playing field may he. A simple policy of equality of opportunity will be quite inadequate. In addition to the inbuilt tendency for the gap in incomes to widen, there is a tendency for those at the lowest income levels to remain there, or thereabouts, even through the generations. They may move from the lowest level to the next one but, with rare exceptions, no further than that. Often they will drop back as the years go by. That is not surprising, but it should not be overlooked in policy-making.
In short, fairness and stability in our society and the physical and financial wellbeing of its members, all point in the same direction. There is a need for long-term policies to restore the century-old trend to greater equality and a fairer and more prosperous society. Future Labour Ministers should have ringing in their ears the advice which those of us plebeian enough to use the Underground from time to time know so well: "Mind the gap!".
6.35 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am very happy to precede the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam. My old
1532
Oxford friend and much admired Hugh Gaitskell would have been particularly pleased to find the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, back in the fold and speaking so effectively along Socialist lines. He would have welcomed him like the father welcomed the prodigal son, with a fatted calf and all the rest of it. Whether or not the noble Lord confessed to any sins or claimed that he had remained the same and we had all changed, what he said was very effective.
I have one vivid memory of the ancestor of the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam. He was chairman of the Carlton Club and I was a young Conservative who was about to desert the party and the club. I went to see the eminent man, who said, "Have a glass of port, my dear boy." I blurted out, "I'm awfully sorry, but I want to leave the club." He said, "What on earth for? No one has ever done it before." I said, "I have written a book." He replied, "If all the fellows here who had written damn silly books resigned, we would not have a member left." With that, I had to find an alternative way out.
I listened with great admiration and envy to the fine speech of my noble friend Lord Eatwell and the speeches of others who have spoken with highly relevant knowledge. In these latter days I certainly do not dare put myself forward as an authority on economic matters. At one time I hoped to be a professional economist. I entertained the dream of becoming one day somebody like my noble friend Lord Eatwell, or in fantasy, a professor like my noble friend Lord Peston. However, neither of them had been born at the time. Those dreams were shattered by an interview with J. M. Keynes. I was introduced to him as a likely recruit to his research team at Cambridge. He had peculiar gimlet-like eyes which bored into me. He leant across the table and said, "In Cambridge we claim to be possibly 10 or 50 years ahead of the rest of the world. I cannot see into your mind." I had the terrible feeling that he could see into it all too clearly and appreciated exactly how unequal I would be to the task. He asked, "Would you be able to keep up?" He left me in no doubt about his view and my answer. As a result, I crept back to Oxford and proceeded to teach politics, which was a much softer option.
I realise that in these days, when serious-minded people come to decide whether or not to vote Labour, if they are not already committed, they ask themselves the relevant questions which have been discussed this afternoon with such learning. Will Labour do a better economic job than the others? For me, that has always been a very significant question, though not a decisive one. When I worked in the Conservative research department between 1930 and 1932 I was familiar with all the arguments now used in favour of inequality. I remember a leading article in The Times which said that unfortunately wealth was like heat; it was only when it was unequally distributed that it performed what physicists called work. The trickle-down effect is simply a modern version of that. I suppose that the argument about "fat cats" is the same kind of thing. We need fat cats if we are to have plump kittens. Those were the arguments which I propounded more or less cheerfully in those days.

1533
At the same time, I was working, curiously enough, for the Workers' Educational Association. There I acquired very different ideas: for example, that the Labour ideal was a much nobler one. The question was: could one convince oneself that Labour, if returned to power, would do sufficiently well economically to produce something to which one could give one's life?
The Labour Party's record in government at that time had not been very happy. It had twice been in office but, as we used to say, not in power. On neither occasion was it very successful. For four years I thought about all that. I came under the irresistible influence of my wife, and in 1936 I joined the Labour Party. I have been a member of that party for longer than anyone on the Front Bench. How I saw it then is how I see it now. The divisions within the Labour Party are moral divisions. One cannot ignore practical questions but, for me, the decisive issue is moral.
I was once asked by George VI, when I was a Lord in Waiting, why I had joined the Labour Party. I felt that it was impertinent to give the true answer, which was that all human beings are of equal and infinite worth. I stood there bowing and said instead, "I am on the side of the underdog." Having founded the Duke of York's camps, he was entitled to add, "So am I." Being on the side of the underdog is part of it. But the fact that all human beings are of equal and infinite worth applies to criminals and to Mr. Michael Howard, the Home Secretary. At least, I try to remember that it applies to him. That is a fundamental, moral reason.
I am a Socialist because I am a Christian. I say that again now with even stronger conviction. But I must make two major qualifications. First, I look around this House—I am rather short-sighted and cannot see everybody very well —when it is full and I can see many better Christians than myself in all parts of it. That is one aspect of the matter. Religion does not decide one's party politics. Inevitably, other factors come into the decision.
The present Leader of this House is a representative of the most famous Christian family in this country. Five of his predecessors have been Leaders of the House, so there is plenty of Christianity there, as elsewhere. I recall that Lord Salisbury, who is commemorated in the Corridor, said of Gladstone, the great Liberal, when he died, "He has kept alive the soul in England. He was a great Christian man". I do not say that if one is a Christian, one necessarily joins one party or the other. I merely explain how it has worked out in my life.
As my noble friend Lord McIntosh reminded me the other day, there is a strong Christian tradition in the Labour Party. But there are other strong traditions. My noble friend Lord McIntosh represents one such tradition very bravely and effectively. I remember introducing Lady Wootton, who was a dedicated humanist, and waiting while the Clerks hunted for the alternative form of the oath. It was a great honour to sponsor such a tremendous humanist. Moreover, outside my family and the clergy no one had more influence on me than Victor Gollancz. He was a great, noble Jew, although, in later days, he called himself a Judaeo-Christian. Therefore, I wish noble Lords to be
1534
aware of all those considerations when I say that I am a Socialist because I am a Christian. I am speaking about one man's faith. No one should speak for anyone except himself on such a fundamental matter.
In the last resort, I shall go to my grave believing that the Labour Party would make far more just and humane the distribution of wealth in this country. On that, at least, the Labour Party will always be united.
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for his kind remarks about my uncle. The noble Earl referred to bringing back to the fold the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. Perhaps my uncle would wish also that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, would return to the fold of the Carlton club and the Conservative Party.
The noble Earl said that all men are equal and indeed they are. But inequality is another matter. That is inescapable as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, to whom we are extremely grateful for introducing the debate, said. He suggested to my noble friend on the Front Bench that at one stage in his life, he might own all the wealth in the world. That makes the point that inequality exists and has existed throughout the ages.
The solution to the problem lies in reducing poverty. The Rowntree solutions are somewhat inflammatory. It is disturbing that the Rowntree Report found that 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. of the population failed to benefit from economic growth in the 1980s and that the factors which led to that inequality were themselves contributors to overall economic growth. The report concludes that a balancing act is needed to decide how to compensate losers while maintaining economic growth. I ask your Lordships to note the word "compensate". The report refers to income transfers. Is that a form of further taxation? It refers also to support for education and training. We are all in favour of education and training, but does that not mean more taxation?
In the 1980s we were living with the educational legacies of the 1960s, when the perception of personal integrity had been denigrated. The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, told us that his mother's dedication to honour and integrity was entire and intact. I believe that such honour and integrity were lost in the 1960s. But in the meantime the Government have been overcoming the educational problems caused by poor teachers, and improperly politically-motivated teachers to boot.
The report refers to changes in the relative distribution of wealth and income and, in particular, income which is the index of poverty. It says that changes have not allowed the rich to subvent the poor and makes recommendations as to how to achieve that in relation to the trickle-down effect. As my noble friend Lord Skidelsky pointed out, the trickle-down effect is constant. It happens all the time and it goes with the cyclical change in economic growth.
Falling relative incomes cause problems regardless of whether they reach an absolute standard. But we must ask what is that absolute standard and where poverty starts. Is it to be 50 per cent. of the average wage? Are

1535
we to say that those earning £7,000 per annum are poor? Is that not an insult to the poor in Africa and Asia? How can we, in all morality, complain that 50 per cent. of the average wage is poverty? That is ridiculous.
As my noble friends Lord Jenkin of Roding, Lord Griffiths and Lord Skidelsky said, social security payments have not been counted in the report. It calls for investment from every sector of the economy. That is easy to say, but does that mean that there will be a minimum wage which, at one stage, the report advocates? On this side of the House, we know that the argument in favour of the minimum wage is ridiculous and mistaken. It imposes an additional charge on the economy and creates rising unemployment.
The report talks about payment grants. There may be something in that because when one sees on television the crowded rooms of the unfortunate people who are living in extreme poverty, one cannot fail to see also the television sets, the VCRs, the microwaves and stereos and, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, the famous washing machine. All those items are purchased on HP at an APR of 30 per cent. per annum. Over three years the taxpayer has paid twice over for those items. It seems to me that if we wish to reduce poverty, it is a mistake for the taxpayer to pay twice over for those items at an interest rate of 30 per cent. per annum.
Housing is one of the great factors in the development of inequality. We are living with the legacy of the 1960s housing schemes where the poor were concentrated together and poverty became endemic. As has been clearly said—and, indeed, as is stated in the report—poor housing creates family problems such as divorce, lone parenting, poor parenting (which I believe is, perhaps, a euphemism for children being badly brought up), low standards in personal life, youth unemployment and crime and vandalism. I believe that the cure is improved housing and the creation of a mixture of tenure, as the report suggests, in an estate using different income groups such as present-day rural village life presents. That creates a population with a range of occupations and skills.
I believe that there is a reference on page 39 of the report to what I interpret as "domestic help". I must declare an interest in that respect. I can claim to be a pretty good butler, excellent in the cellar, not a bad footman and certainly one of the best scullery boys in Wiltshire. However, the village is being destroyed by shopping centres and supermarkets. London is one of those examples where there is inherent in the city village enclaves; for example, Fulham is well known as North Sussex to some of us. We need to revive society, not to throw money at it as the report suggests.
I cannot conclude without saying a few words to my noble friend on the Front Bench in respect of pensions. The creation of wealth is the vital activity in removing inequality. The production of wealth by the population can only be done through savings and through proper pension arrangements. That pension plans should be started at the earliest possible moment is a plea that I make to my noble friend on the Front Bench. The report
1536
is important. It needs great study, but it is to be welcomed. However, I suggest that there are some flaws in it.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend Lord Eatwell for introducing the debate, I should also like to couple that with my thanks and express my pleasure at the article which he wrote in the Evening Standard a few days ago. In that article, my noble friend said:
"The economic constitution has as much, if not more, influence on the freedom and happiness of the people as does the political one".
I should like to deal with that point during the 10 or 12 minutes that I have at my disposal. I do not believe that it is necessary for anyone to start dealing with the Rowntree Report. The consequences of the gap widening in our society with regard to equality were amply demonstrated by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. No one can quarrel with that analysis. It is good. But, if I wanted more confirmation, all I would have to do is to look at the fact that the European Parliament has now decided that Liverpool is on a par with the poorest places in the whole of Europe. Indeed, some people have even suggested that it is perhaps worse off and more deprived than some places in the Pacific Rim—and I am not talking about Hong Kong or the other places. So I would need no further confirmation about the inequalities that exist in our society.
However, there is another inequality that springs from the economic circumstances. How is it that a man earning £450,000 a year can say that the question of his salary has nothing to do with ordinary people? It has a tremendous effect on ordinary people. He claims that the only people who should be told about it are the shareholders. But who are those shareholders in this so-called "democracy" of ours? They are people who have achieved their position of authority purely because of the possession of money.
Tonight I feel somewhat sad because it has just dawned upon me how old I am. There is a phrase called déjà vu—if I have pronounced that wrong it is because I am ill educated and cannot speak French—in other words, I have been here before. Who at my age has not? How many reports were there in the 1920s about equality? How many reports were there about deprived areas in the country? Moreover, what was the factor that started that cycle of deprivation for some people and prosperity for others? I suppose that one could say that it was the Great War when it fostered all the technology that began to build the technological revolution that we have today. That is a fair guess—although some people might go back further than that and may even go back to the Boer War. I shall not touch on any of that. It is said that we won the war in 1918. But who is "we"? It certainly was not the miners in 1924 and 1925; it certainly was not the Jarrow marchers; it certainly was not those deprived people of whom the Prince of Wales said that something must be done; and it was not the people who were the subjects of other reports similar to the Rowntree Report. I pay tribute to them. We owe a

1537
debt to those people who produced the Rowntree Report, and other reports, upon the social life of this nation. They are the conscience of the nation.
When one looks at it very closely, one has to ask: why were there such areas of deprivation? It was because the free market had full rein. Those concerned were determined to get what they wanted, and that was their philosophy. What lessons have we learnt from that? Well, I believe that we are about to see a transformation in the political guidance of the country. During the war when ordinary working people and other people were needed to win the war, we got rid of the inequality. People began to believe that we were one nation and that, in fact, all our interests were the same.
The war came and went with the consequent loss of all those lives. Then came peace and a transformation had taken place. The transformation was that the concept of one nation was beginning to be felt. I believe that the last defender of that concept was Mr. Heath. So, for a few years, the inequalities were not so pronounced, although there was still unemployment of 750,000 or 1 million. However, then came 1979, and what happened? The year 1979 was the high watermark for free enterprise and capitalism. They were to be freed; and, being freed, they would release everyone else from poverty. That was the theme. But, as has been pointed out in today's debate, what a failure it was! All it did was accentuate the divisions in our society.
However, the situation became worse. It took on a new note. Those people who had previously operated in local government and who had done so as a voluntary service with, in most cases, payment of expenses only, those who had contributed efforts to electricity, gas, water, sewerage and all the other supplies which are so necessary for decent communal life and so necessary to ordinary people, were suddenly thrown into a new world. But what was that world? It was that money counts—"efficiency" is the word. So, we privatised. As one well-respected Member of this Chamber said, we sold the silver. However, we were not only selling the silver; we were also selling the only possibility that people have to get a decent standard of life. We were selling employment. On the basis of wholesale redundancies, some of these elevated people in the privatised utilities suddenly became efficiency experts. Never mind that they had to scrap 250,000 jobs and put people on the scrapheap. That did not matter, the company was becoming efficient.
The unemployment which in 1979 the Tories said they would get rid of began to mount. It is still there. The Tories say it is hovering around the 2.5 million mark. It is not: it is hovering around the 4 million mark. When one counts those unemployed people and their dependants, within our society there is a growing threat to the stability of our political and social system. I make no bones about it: that threat exists. One has only to look at the demonstrations that have taken place over the export of live animals. Imagine what will happen when those people who are being deprived of a decent standard of life in this country suddenly decide that it is time that they enjoyed some of the prosperity, not all of it but a decent standard of life. When they decide that
1538
that is worth demonstrating about, believe me, the demonstrations that have taken place over the transport of live animals will be nothing.
Your Lordships may think that that is an exaggeration. What about the case of the chairman responsible for a health trust that was criticised by this very Parliament for the system, which he had organised, which allowed a lady to go for eight months without being told that she had breast cancer? I wonder what she and people who are interested in her case think about the justice of the situation when the person in charge of that health trust went home with a £200,000 pension while that lady was left to go home and worry the very soul out of her, and her family was left to worry, about the fact that she had not been told.
What about the man from British Telecom who thinks it a big joke to compare himself with a junior doctor in a hospital? That is the kind of mentality that is bred by the current attitudes. People know that, and sooner or later they will not stand for it. I shall be on their side, and I hope a lot of people will be on their side. Society is moving towards breakdown unless we do something about it.
I want to deal with one other point, whether this free enterprise of ours is patriotic. I remember somebody who was once a director of the Bank of England—I am getting old. Famous words were ascribed to him. It was at a time of financial difficulty, and I am not a financial expert. He said that he knew that it was not good for the British economy to sell sterling, but it was good business. He did it. That was a measure of his patriotism.
Three years ago I raised a Question as to whether British Aerospace should be prevented from selling off some of our industry. I mentioned in particular the manufacture of the 125 jet. That was a successful jet which was making £500 million profit. There was nothing wrong with it. But British Aerospace had a little problem and decided to "flog" it. It was sold to Raytheon. Raytheon said that they had a manufacturing base at Broughton in Cheshire. They built the jet there for 18 months, but 500 jobs have now been exported to the United States of America. Rover is another example. The list is endless. What is going to happen when we arrive at a situation when, as is in the pipeline, some of those privatised utilities are owned by foreigners.
Our new Labour Government, which will come into existence, may talk about regulating the economy. They may talk as much as they like about the whole of private enterprise, never mind the privatised utilities, and the long-standing pattern in free enterprise whereby the amount of money paid to executives is well above anything paid to others. The rules of the game are to get as much as one can. The new government will not be able to regulate that: they will have to control it.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. There have been some big hitters. I refer particularly to the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, and the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston. We all owe a debt to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for introducing the debate so well.

1539
I was concerned by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding—which set the tone for the contributions from the Government Benches—which suggested that the report was flawed. Somebody referred to taking snapshots. One of the interesting aspects of the report is the way in which a number of snapshots run together to show a moving picture. We must recognise that there is a difference between the basic statistics and factual information that should be the basis for our decisions and the way we interpret those figures and the decisions we arrive at as a result.
The report we are debating today, the Rowntree Report on Income and Wealth, has provided us with the statistical, factual information that has not been available to us up until now. Up until now we have had to take on board the Government's view that their way of running the economy was the best one in the sense that it increased wealth and growth and that everyone benefited from that. The report has highlighted the fact that the incomes of the bottom 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. of our population have not increased over the past 20 years, but the incomes of the top 10 per cent. of the population have increased significantly more than inflation.
I would have hoped that the facts presented to us in the report would be accepted. How we interpret those facts and the decisions that we arrive at as a result of that interpretation are open to debate and question. However, it is unfortunate that basic facts which are presented to Parliament are denigrated and ridiculed and it is suggested that they are not accurate.
The statistics show the moving picture which has been provided by taking snapshots. They show that people on lower incomes have not benefited over the past 30 years and the theory of trickle down has not worked in practice. It is interesting to reflect on the fact that the report identifies the period from, I think, 1977. We can legitimately ask: why did the situation change then? We have to look back to the mid-1970s and realise that the whole of the Western world was dislocated by the massive increases in oil prices engendered by OPEC. We must recognise the destabilising effect that that increase had on world economies.
As a response to that destabilisation there was—dare I say it?—an unfortunate reversion to old style economic thinking referred to as monetarism. That pervaded not just the Conservative Party but also the Labour Party and was prevalent around the world. The Labour Government in this country attempted to ameliorate the difficulties which faced the economy. However, after 1979, as many noble Lords have pointed out, instead of seeking to ameliorate the difficulties, the Conservative Government made them worse. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, seemed pleased with himself for having been the one who broke the link between average earnings and pensions and unemployment benefit. We have to recognise that the statistics in the Rowntree Report effectively indicate that that was one of the factors which made the situation worse.
As an engineer I look at facts, figures and statistics. In this House we have a tremendous advantage through the amazing knowledge that some Members bring to bear regarding the historic dimension. The noble Lord,
1540
Lord Merlyn-Rees, encapsulated the problems that we face by comparing the situation on unemployment that we face today with that faced by the country in the 1930s. As an engineer it is interesting to reflect on what has happened in engineering production firms. What are the comparisons between now and the 1930s? There were similar disparities between income and wealth, in particular in the 1920s. With regard to the production of motor cars, a number of leading motor manufacturers produced motor cars with large V-12 engines, appealing to the upper end of the market. A number of rich people wanted the very best and they were provided for. However, that period in motor development lasted for only a few years. The crash then came and those wealthy people could not afford the big cars. They could not afford to put in the petrol to keep them running. It is interesting to note that exactly similar events have occurred over the past few years. All the leading prestigious manufacturers of motor cars have produced V-12 engines over the past 10 years. I refer to Jaguar, BMW, Mercedes Benz and some of the prestigious American manufacturers too. I speak in a European context.
When considering the differences between income and wealth, we must look at the way in which people with excessive incomes spend their money, and at the result for poor people of not having money to spend. I have spoken of the expensive, prestigious motor cars that in some respects are a blot on our landscape because of excessive consumption of petrol and the attendant pollution problems. That is one problem relating to the high income end.
Regarding the lower end of the income scale, let us consider young people with inadequate incomes. What do they do? They buy run-down motor cars. They cannot afford to maintain them so they are run inefficiently and pollute the environment. The chances are that they cannot afford the tax, the MOT or the insurance, and inevitably they will fall foul of the law. Large numbers of those young people are sent to prison. That is an added cost to the Exchequer and to our society.
These factors have a knock-on effect on the economic and industrial strength of the country. That is the key to what we are talking about. I have referred to motor cars. However, one can use that practical experience in a range of other areas. One can see that rich people over-consume on housing. They may have a second or third house abroad which does nothing for the economy of this country. The poor people do not have enough money to maintain their houses. Therefore the housing stock of poor people deteriorates.
Perhaps I may refer to what noble Lords opposite have suggested is a problem: that the report does not take into account benefits in kind—education, health and others. The costs of those benefits in kind have increased for poor people. Education is not completely free because parents have to buy books. Prescription charges have gone up. However, one of the interesting aspects relates to wealth. Before this Government came into power, we were all shareholders in the large, nationalised utilities. But those have been sold off and the poor people are no longer shareholders in those

1541
privatised utilities. Therefore, they have effectively lost wealth. I hope that the Government will recognise that the report contains important statistics which we need to bear in mind when developing policies for the future. I suspect that the Government will not respond satisfactorily to the report. I am sure that a Labour Government will do so, and will ensure that our country makes progress.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate and very good speeches. I select in particular the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Haskel and Lord Sefton of Garston, and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. We have had some not-so-good speeches. We have had one or two good speeches from noble Lords who had to leave before the end of the debate. I believe that that should not happen. Your Lordships are of a mind that there should be a very good reason for that; no doubt there was. However, I should like to suggest Beaumont's law. The more important you consider your speech, the more important it is that you stay until the end to hear people answer it. If you have airy nothings to say that is fine. You can slip away. If not, you ought to stay whatever happens.
I wish to concentrate on the undesirability of extreme poverty and extreme riches. I personally have experienced both poverty and riches and have no doubt that both are undesirable, although one is considerably pleasanter than the other. My experience tends to protect me against the usual small arms fire which has not been absent from the debate and which implies either that one does not know what one is talking about or that one is consumed by envy.
In deploring poverty, I am clearly in tune with the majority of your Lordships' House, although some noble Lords on the Benches opposite would claim, and have claimed, that since there is no such thing as absolute poverty in this country there is really nothing to deplore. However, we need to hammer on about poverty which seems to have passed out of mainstream political debate in this country, although one would not think so from today's proceedings. I define poverty in the same way as Adam Smith (surely acceptable to the party opposite) defined necessities. He said:
"By them, I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever a custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even in the lowest order, to be without".
I was present yesterday evening as a member of the executive of the family service units of Lambeth and Southwark. We were discussing our plans and the budget available for the next year to help abused children, refugees and battered wives, almost all of whom live in extreme poverty. The FSU executive committee was wondering what on earth it would do with an income which would be reduced, first, by the saving of funds of the local authorities on which it depends and, secondly, by the difficulty of going to charities when a major charity has just gone bust. The charity went broke through gambling. It was not simply
1542
that the man absconded; the firm had been quite happy to receive income from his gambling last year when it made a profit. It was only when he started making a loss that he became the villain of the piece.
The party opposite, with some honourable exceptions, has never been much interested in the topic of poverty. The Labour Party has an honourable record. But the main reason I never sought to join it was that it seemed to me that the basic contradictions in the party—those which drove colleagues like my noble friends Lady Williams and Lord Jenkins out of it—would prevent the party ever being able to do anything about it.
The Labour Party has more or less got rid of those contradictions, but at the same time the baby appears to have been thrown out with the bathwater. With the exception of some speeches, I no longer detect the burning zeal for the abolition of poverty which I used to admire. A fair question is being asked of the Labour Front Bench which I request them to answer this evening: which of the recommendations of the report will they themselves put into operation?
I have always thought it honourable in this cause to be on the radical wing of my own party, the party of Beveridge. However, since I am being rude about others, I may say that I am not proud of my party's refusal to continue with a policy of citizen's income for which my noble friend Lady Seear fought so hard and for which the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has been a major protagonist. No more do I admire the inability of the Borne Commission's report to do more than toy with the subject.
As to riches, I find myself in a small minority in deploring them. Without making comparisons, I am always heartened by the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. While not paying a great deal of attention, according to the Gospels, to poverty, he paid a great deal, not at all complimentary, to riches. On poverty, his most prominent pronouncements were that "the poor are always with us" and that they are "blessed", a saying which, given the arguments used by theologians over the years, we cannot really use as the basis for very much. He also said that the poor will have the Gospel preached to them. About riches and rich people, almost all his references are pejorative—in which, of course, he stands in the great tradition of the Jewish prophets and the Jewish religion.
I am likely to get more of a hearing from noble Lords if I concentrate on the evils of major inequality in society, to which the Motion calls attention. The Government, in a rather oblique way, added their own welcome comment on the subject in the Prime Minister's remarks yesterday about high salaries.
The Motion is careful to limit its reference to the effects on our economic performance, but I argue that you cannot separate social performance from those effects, as did the noble Lord who inaugurated the debate, to whom we are extremely grateful. A nation at odds with itself, as a country with wide disparities of wealth is, will not, in the long or medium term, be an economic success, and probably not in the short term either.

1543
In a democracy it is important that the governed be in social touch with the governors. The dustman thinks that all politicians are crooks and that members of the Cabinet are the crookedest of all. If noble Lords doubt that statement, they have not been canvassing recently. I know that all politicians are not crooks, partly because I know members of the Cabinet who are not crooks. It is impossible for all dustmen to know members of the Cabinet, but society needs to be so reticulated that MPs, councillors and their electors form a web of personal connections, recognising each other's worth, even when they dissent violently from each other's opinions. Major disparities of wealth, accompanied by policies of segregation, either of the rich or the poor, make great gashes in that web. It is sad that the middle classes have entirely deserted the ghettos. It is true that the only profession who still live in the ghettos are the clergy. Social workers do a wonderful job, but they move out in the evenings.
There are some who say that we must have these extremes if we are to be internationally competitive. I believe that they are probably wrong, even in terms of the present economic order. In terms of the future economic order, to which all the governments of the world, including our own, are committed—that of the sustainable economy—they must be wrong.
The implications of the sustainable economy clearly involve an immense decrease in international and national inequality. Of course, there are major conceptual and practical difficulties in the way of equality, but as Tony Crosland so rightly pointed out, in the tradition of Karl Popper, that is no reason not to try to diminish inequality. I suggest that a differential within a nation of family incomes after tax of something like 5:1 is a target at which to aim. Every party and almost every person in this House would subscribe to the aim of a coherent society at peace with itself. Let us turn our words into action and realise what are the necessary steps to achieve that and then let us take them.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, my time is limited and I must not take any from the Minister. Therefore, I can only cover some of the points raised in this afternoon's extremely interesting debate. If I fail to deal with all the errors made by noble Lords opposite—and there were many—I ask them not to be insulted. If I neglect any, perhaps they will approach me privately later, when I shall be perfectly happy to explain where they went wrong!
The central question, which was emphasised by many noble Lords but certainly by my noble friend Lord Desai and the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is: has there been any sort of economic miracle, and has the increase in equality been beneficial to the country at large, albeit at the expense of the poor?
As the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, pointed out, under this Government GDP has grown at about 1.75 per cent. per annum, which is less than the long-run trend in growth of the UK economy of 2½ per cent. per annum. Manufacturing productivity has certainly risen, but manufacturing output has not risen to anything like the same extent. Essentially, firms have shed labour. The
1544
market mechanism has failed in that most of the workers who have been shed have failed to find employment elsewhere. They are unemployed or prematurely retired.
Unemployment was at 1.3 million when this Government came to power. It has not fallen below 1.6 million since then, and for the most part has been above 2 million. Indeed, it is a measure of the Government's acceptance of failure that they boast that a fall below 2.5 million is a triumph. The inflation rate has fallen. But that is not surprising. If you are willing to weaken the labour market and allow unemployment to rise and stay high, there is no difficulty in controlling inflation. But even then, the alleged success is less than impressive. With unemployment above 2 million, there is already talk about rising inflation and the need to tighten policy; i.e. a new rise in unemployment in due course.
That is one reason why the Rowntree Report is so valuable. It brings out what noble Lords have said: much of the problem of poverty is connected with lack of jobs for workers who want to work, which is exacerbated by low pay in some of the jobs that are there. Low pay is precisely what the Government advocate—people must price themselves into work. It is also connected with the fact that the Government oppose worker protection and a minimum wage. In this connection, I must quote the greatest of all economists. He said:
"Our merchants frequently complain of the high wages of British labour as the cause of their manufactures being undersold in foreign markets"—
that is an argument that I have heard several times this afternoon—
"but they are silent about the high profits of stock. They complain of the extravagant gain of other people; but they say nothing of their own. The high profits of British stock, however, may contribute towards raising the price of British manufactures in many cases as much, and in some perhaps more than the high wages of British labour".
That was said by Adam Smith, an economist often supported by noble Lords opposite but never read.
May I say how delighted I am that the Prime Minister has stopped shilly-shallying and has recognised how appalled most people are at the greed of the heads of the former public corporations. Now that the Prime Minister has spoken, I hope that we shall hear no more from noble Lords opposite about "the politics of envy". In the old days, the Right-Wing press used to refer to trades unionists as having their snouts in the trough; but these people have immersed their whole bodies in it. They have shown how moderate the trade unions were, even at the height of their powers, in their demands for more pay.
The public are happy to see high rewards corresponding to merit and economic efficiency. But what we have seen recently is quite different—especially bearing in mind that most of the people involved have little obvious merit above the average. What I think ordinary people find most distasteful is less the greed and, as noble Lords have pointed out, more the attempt to justify it. It is one thing to take the money if you can get it, and if someone is fool enough to give it to you. But it is quite another to make comparisons with those who lay down their lives for their fellow human beings and serve the community.

1545
I happen to know some of the people about whom we are talking. When I have met them, they have seemed to me to be decent, ordinary human beings. One can only reflect sadly on the corrupting influence of large sums of money when we look at the events of recent weeks.
I turn to philosophical principle. I advocate the Rawlsian proposition which is implicit in much that has been said; namely, that we should justify a policy initiative according to how it affects the poorest in the community. The simplest way to put this is to ignore relative incomes for the moment and to say that policy is good if it makes the poor better off and bad if it makes the poor worse off. In a world of uncertainty, perhaps we ought to say—Rowntree alludes to this—that a policy is good if it has the potential to make the poorest better off; and, as a minimum, that a policy which neither makes the poor better off nor has the possibility of doing so, is bad. That is precisely what has happened in the lifetime of this Government.
My noble friend Lord Longford raised the question of morality. He and I may differ on the underlying basis of morality, but what has appalled me during this debate is that not a word of ethics or morality has been uttered by noble Lords opposite. I have sat through many education debates in which noble Lords opposite have argued for, and voted for, compulsory religious education of a predominantly Christian character. Why have they not expressed such beliefs in connection with the subject of today's debate? If they were teaching a religious education class, how would they reply to a young person who queried the morality of a society in which those who have most are getting more still, and those who have least are getting least in addition? I give way to the noble Earl.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, did not the report say that it was not dealing with morality but with facts? The report has nothing to do with morality at all; it says so.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Earl may think that it has nothing to do with morality. I am simply telling him that I think it has.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: I did not say that it has nothing to do with morality; the report says that.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Earl, if he wishes, can take the view that this has nothing to do with morality. If that is the line that he wishes to take, I shall not argue with him—particularly as he has taken a whole minute of my time, which has also to do with fairness. I happen to believe that there is a moral issue here.
I turn briefly to the "benefits in kind" problem. I do not believe that the problem is hard to explain. We are discussing a dynamic phenomenon. We are asking what has happened to incomes over time, relative or absolute incomes. Rowntree has certainly shown that, measured in the ordinary way, the position in regard to relative incomes has deteriorated. As the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, pointed out —this is enormously important—every other single study has shown it. That is worth bearing in mind.
The important point, as a matter of technical economics, is of course that the poor received benefits in kind at the start of the period we are considering. They
1546
also receive benefits in kind at the end of the period. But for benefits in kind to reverse the figures demonstrated by Rowntree, it is necessary for them (this is an arithmetic point) to have risen significantly more quickly than GDP in real terms—real terms being correctly measured, I might add. But they have not, and that is the point. I am sorry to be giving a lecture in elementary economics to one or two noble Lords, but they have mistaken the difference between statics and dynamics. Education in volume terms, which is the way in which we used to publish the figures, has risen by only 12 per cent. Health, again in volume terms, in the way we used to measure the figures and not the way the Secretary of State prefers, has also risen by hardly more than 25 per cent. since this Government came to power. That is not remotely sufficient to reverse the argument. What it says is that if we could do the calculation properly about benefits in kind, the position would look worse rather than better.
In that connection, I particularly address the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding and ask: why does he not use his common sense? Let us take that example. When we look at the schools with the leaking roofs, the schools that are short of teachers, and those which Her Majesty's inspectors say are not performing as well as they should, where are those schools? Who goes to them? The children of the poorest in our society, the ones who have suffered most, go to them. The notion that benefits in kind would offset this is simply absurd.
I say to my former pupil and good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, that he is quite right to emphasise that a better study would be a lifetime income study. As he knows, 30 years ago I must have been one of the first people in this country ever to do a lifetime income study. The technical point is correct. Some of the present poor are temporarily poor, and some of the present rich are transitorily rich. That is perfectly right. Therefore, if we could measure lifetime incomes, we should see a smaller variance than measuring incomes at a point in time. But we should still see an enormous variance—unless the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, believes, as I do not think he does, that today's poor will be tomorrow's rich, and today's rich will be tomorrow's poor. In other words, I agree with the noble Lord on the elementary technical economics; but that does not help the argument very much.
I come finally to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. I apologise for missing the first minute of her speech because I was outside the Chamber. My remarks relate also to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, whose speech I found immensely interesting. The noble Baroness asked about Labour Party policy. I was delighted to hear that question. I am bored out of my mind by the way in which the Government continually kick the ball into their own goal. Noble Lords did it again this afternoon. Let me try therefore to score a goal or two directly from our side.
The report makes many recommendations. Noble Lords opposite, including the Government, would do well to consider them rather than seek to undermine the report by impugning the integrity of one of its main authors, as my noble friend Lord Desai pointed out.

1547
Let me make a few points on policy. First, and central to this argument, is that we shall restore full employment. Full employment is a pot of gold. Noble Lords opposite constantly stand up—the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, does it always to my great pleasure—and say that they are keeping a list of my commitments. I can say that if we get back to where we were in 1979, the GDP will be much higher. More to the point, the enormous waste on social security benefits will simply disappear.
In that connection a fact well worth considering is that the total average revenue taken by the Treasury in the decade up to the period that this Government came to power was 39 per cent. to the nearest whole number. Today it is still 39 per cent. to the nearest whole number. The greatest public relations success of modern times is that the party opposite have managed to convince the public that it is a tax-cutting party. Nothing could be further from the truth.
First, we shall restore full employment. Perhaps the Minister will say whether the Government are opposed to that. It may take five years, but that five years may start tomorrow. Secondly, we shall re-establish—echoing what many of my noble friends said—a sound system of education and training. In particular, we shall do nothing to stop people from pursuing such courses of education and training.
Thirdly, again following the Rowntree Report—I hope that the Government will not say that they are opposed to this—we shall give the highest priority to childcare provision. Fourthly, we shall change income support and similar benefits, so that they are not a disincentive to work, but become an incentive. I hope that the Government are not opposed to that. Lastly—this is the central point about policy—whatever the level of taxation (and until my right honourable friend gives his first Budget, I cannot predict what that will be), we shall make sure that in that Budget the burden borne by the poorest will decline and the burden borne by the richest will certainly not decline. Perhaps again the Minister will tell us what he thinks of that.
I apologise to your Lordships. I do not like to go beyond the assigned time. There are other topics with which I should have liked to deal, but there will be other days.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I expected, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, got nearer to fleshing out the bones of what he hopes will be a future Labour Government policy than anybody else this afternoon who speaks remotely for the new Labour Party. The attacks on privatised industries come from those who hark back to the days of Socialism and nationalisation. The one thing I believe I understand about the new Labour Party is that it is not committed to renationalisation of any of the privatised companies.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, made a statement in relation to restoring full employment. We all want to see a reduction in the rate of unemployment, and I shall come to that in a moment. But I ask myself: if full employment was as easy to bring about as it is to say it, why did the last Labour Government—as did all governments since the
1548
1950s and 1960s—watch unemployment grow? Noble Lords may dissent from that. But the last time they dissented I checked the facts and they show a rising trend in unemployment over the past 20 or 30 years. If it were easy to bring about, why have none of our colleagues in the European Community, including those governed by Socialists over the past 10 or 15 years, not found the magic wand? Later in my speech I shall come to the problem of unemployment and what we are doing to address it.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, did not give us much in the way of commitments. In fact, it was not until the 19th minute of his 20-minute speech that he spoke of what may be done. Even then it was all broad generalities, some of which most of us would agree with. I am not sure that I heard a specific commitment to all that is written in the Social Justice Commission report. I shall check that. If I did, I shall be interested to see how the party opposite responds when we come back to the Pensions Bill and the provisions regarding retirement at 65. That is one of the recommendations of the Social Justice Commission. I have a small feeling that it was not being supported a week or so ago in the Committee stage of the Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, with whom I sometimes agree, at least indicated his support for some specific policies and for the extra spending that would go with them. However, I hope that nobody will accuse me of trying to brush under the carpet or rubbish, or any of the other things of which I have been accused almost in advance, any of these matters. These are serious issues. But it is well worth putting one or two points on the record. To be fair to one or two noble Lords opposite, they agreed with the propositions I shall make, though they hastily started to qualify them.
The vast majority of people in our country are better off than they were in 1979. The average household disposable income has risen by 36 per cent. Those rises are not confined to a few top earners. Average income has risen for all family types. Indeed, far from falling behind other countries, the living standards of ordinary British people have been catching up. The latest OECD figures reported in last month's Employment Gazette confirmed that when it stated,
"Estimated take home pay for a married couple [with two children] on an average production worker's earnings is higher in the UK than in all other EC countries except Luxembourg, Belgium and the former West Germany".
Overall, the 1980s saw a much more rapid growth in income of people under pension age than in the 1960s and 1970s. Of course, there will always be a bottom decile. I was not sure whether one or two noble Lords were equating poverty with the bottom decile. I caution them against that. I am sorry to tell them, not as an economist—I have no qualifications—but as a mathematician that the bottom decile is always with us. Therefore if we define the bottom decile as poverty, then whatever we do we will not get away from the fact that that bottom decile is going to be in poverty. But of course it is a group of people who are the least well off. It is not a constant group. During the course of our lives, we shall all slide up and down the income scale of the Gini coefficient as our circumstances change—when we marry; when we have children to support; when the

1549
children leave home; when we have two incomes coming in; and when we retire and have to live on a fixed income.
So it is not the case that there is a fixed group of people who are always left behind by the rest of society. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Griffiths drew attention to the appendix in Volume 2 and the piece about time periods. It is addressing the question on inequality of incomes over a longer period than the snapshot it took in 1991 which of course does not include the decline in unemployment which there has been since December 1992. But over a longer period such as a year, incomes will look less unequal. A year or two later some of those who have been in the poorest 10 per cent. may have escaped from it and others may have joined it. Taking the two years together, income is more likely to be more equally distributed than in either year looked at separately. The new British Household Panel Survey confirms that people move around the distribution. About one-quarter of those re-interviewed in 1992 had moved more than one place up or down the income distribution (and that is divided into deciles) since 1990 including 29 per cent. originally in the poorest decile. So a combined distribution for the two years would look less unequal than for a single year. As regards lifetime incomes, the survey goes on to say that they are much more equally distributed than annual incomes. Depending on the measure the inequality observed on an annual basis is reduced by between one-third and one-half.
Lord Peston: My Lords, why did the noble Lord leave out the second part of the sentence?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am coming back to that.
Lord Peston: My Lords, that is the central issue.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I wondered whether the noble Lord had reached that page and was reading it with me. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was paying sufficient attention.
Some groups which traditionally have been looked at as poor have significantly moved out of the bottom decile. For the very simple reason that the decile is always there, some groups move out of it and some move in. That is the point I wish to address in a second or two.
I now want to look at one of the groups which has moved out. I refer to pensioners. Fewer pensioners are dependent on benefit; but those who are have seen their benefit income rise. The number of pensioners for whom benefit is their only source of income has dropped from 21 per cent. to 17 per cent. Almost nine out of 10 pensioners now have an income on top of social security benefits; namely, 88 per cent. of those recently retired and 85 per cent. of all pensioners. Almost eight out of 10 have income from investment and savings, which is up from six out of 10 in 1979; and that is worth on average £43 a week. Six out of 10–65 per cent. of those recently retired and 60 per cent. of all pensioners—have an income from an
1550
occupational pension which is up from five out of 10 in 1979 and is worth on average £70 a week. Nearly half of all pensioners own their own homes, and a very great majority own them outright. Nearly all have access to the majority of common consumer durables such as telephones, central heating and the like. We have actively encouraged people to take responsibility for their own provision, offering flexibility and choice. Harking back to the Pensions Bill debate, Volume 1 of the report says on page 51:
"The system should give clear encouragement to all income groups to accumulate private or occupational pension rights".
We have also protected poorer pensioners by providing extra help since 1988 worth over £1.2 billion a year.
Just in case noble Lords opposite do not believe me, I should like to quote my friend—I call him "my friend" because he is my friend although he is on the other side of the House in the other place—and that is Mr. Donald Dewar, the honourable Member for Garscaddon. He said:
"There is undoubtedly evidence, which I welcome, that retired people are on average now enjoying many more resources and a higher quality of life. That is largely because of the maturing of state earnings-related pension schemes and occupational schemes and … approved [personal] schemes".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/7/94; col. 606.]
I return to the point which I believe I have made twice that the bottom decile is always going to be with us, that the pensioners have moved out and some other people have moved in. By and large, the people who have moved in are the unemployed. That is obviously something which we have to look at very seriously. Before I turn to that, we have to look—and my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding drew this matter to the attention of the House—at all the indications of living standards before we come to the sort of pessimistic conclusions that the party opposite would like to draw. Living standards are in fact higher than the position of the unemployed in the bottom decile would suggest and certainly better than the position as described during most of this debate.
If we look at the expenditure of the group in the bottom decile as a whole, we find that they spend more than the group immediately above them. Consumer goods which were a luxury only a few years ago, are widely held. Half of the group in the bottom 10 per cent. now have cars. The number of those having central heating has almost doubled since 1979. Three-quarters have a telephone compared to fewer than half in 1979; and well over half have video recorders; and a fifth have home computers.
I am not complaining about that because I welcome it. But that is a little at variance with the picture which some noble Lords opposite wish to paint. It is interesting to note that of the 750,000 of the 5.7 million who reported nil or negative incomes, half of them spent more than the average for the population as a whole. That illustrates that the statistics on which this debate and a great deal of this report are based are not as straightforward as perhaps noble Lords opposite and the authors would like to pretend.
I return to a point made in the intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston; namely, that changes in the labour market have had a major influence on the

1551
distribution of incomes. Therefore, we have taken measures—which I shall come to—to address the adverse effect of those changes. There is one issue which I believe we should all applaud. I was interested to note that not much was made of it. I refer to the increase in women's employment. It is clear from Figure 28 in Volume 2 that women's participation in the labour market has increased strongly for each decile except for the bottom decile where the increase has been much less marked. That has shown through to the increased role the woman's wage has played in the family income.
Page 50 of Volume 2 of the report points out that for couples aged between 24 and 55 years, the 1979–81 male earnings were nearly 75 per cent. of the gross family income. By 1991 that was under 60 per cent. while the average female share rose to one-fifth. Women working full time in 1991 brought in an average of 42 per cent. of the family income. Increased female labour force participation tended to widen the overall distribution. Again, as regards that increase, the rise also contributed to the way in which the incomes of couples of working age, particularly those without children, moved ahead of other groups like single pensioners or lone parents. That is an example of the growth in inequality between different groups. There is a problem buried here—
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment. As an old woman in my 80th year, I ask the Minister to look at the reality. He has talked about a sixth of a number of people getting more of this or that. Will he tell me what I am getting a sixth of in my 80th year? Are women, especially widows, any better off than they were 100 years ago?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not going down that road. The idea that people are not better off than they were 100 years ago is not plausible. Indeed, the idea that they are not better off than they were 30 years to 50 years ago is not plausible, either.
I was coming to the main problem. I was surprised that not much was made of it. I refer to the rise of two-income families which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, mentioned in his speech. I refer to the difference between the work-rich and work-poor households. The report itself says that in 1990 the same number of individuals of working age did not work as in 1975, but twice the number of households had no income from work. Over the same period the proportion of two-adult households where both worked rose from 51 per cent. to 60 per cent., but the proportion with no earners increased from 3 per cent. to 11 per cent. That is a very serious part of the problem identified by the Rowntree Report.
So clearly, that group in particular is affected and clearly it is unemployment and changes in the labour market which are key factors. Surely we all agree that the most effective way of raising living standards and the prospects for unemployed people of working age is by helping them to return to work. In Chapter 3, Volume 1, the report makes a number of policy suggestions. Noble Lords will not be surprised that some of them, but not all, accord with the Government's own policy initiatives. Indeed, there are some on which we have
1552
been working for a number of years. For example, in 1992 we reduced the number of hours required to qualify for family credit from 24 hours a week to 16 hours a week. Now we have 200,000 families receiving family credit in that band of hours. Many of them had previously received income support.
In 1993 we introduced the Family Credit Helpline so that people could have easy access to information about how family credit and other benefits could help them to be better off in work. Last year we removed one of the major stumbling blocks preventing families returning to work through our help with childcare costs in the in-work benefits, and I am grateful to the report for welcoming this decision.
We also announced at the tail-end of last year a further raft of reforms in the Budget. From July 1995 the £10 premium in family credit will make full-time work more attractive for those working 30 hours or more a week. We are at one with the report when it highlights in volume 1, page 48, the transitional period between benefit and work as a source of risk for the claimant. It says:
"Those moving off income support into work may be entitled to in-work benefits like family credit or continued help from housing benefit. The calculation and payment of all in-work benefits should be speeded up as much as possible to reduce the potential gap in time in payments from the two systems."
From April 1996, to remove uncertainty at the point of moving into work, people who take a job after six months' unemployment will be able to keep their housing benefit at their existing full rate for an extra four weeks. Also, local authorities will be encouraged to arrange any continuing in-work housing benefit award within this period. We also aim to speed up the payment of family credit so that people in work will get this extra help more quickly. We are starting this process from April 1995, and from April 1996 we expect almost all new claims for family credit to be arranged within five working days. From October 1996 the tax-free back-to-work bonus of up to £1,000 will be a considerable help in smoothing a family's income flow on taking up work.
The report speaks of encouragement to employers to take on more unemployed people and we have announced ways to help in that direction. From April 1996 employers will have a one-year holiday from the employer's national insurance contribution for every person they take on who has been out of work for the previous two years. This April, employers' contributions will be cut by 0.6 per cent. for all employees earning under £205 a week.
The report acknowledges the importance of family credit in Volume 1, page 44(b) and we are indeed introducing this radical innovation in social policy. It begins by approving family credit for families with children and says that these could be extended, for instance, with the equivalent of family credit for childless couples and single people without children. Indeed, we know that family credit has been successful in helping families with children return to work and stay in work. Now we are going to test whether the same principle will work for couples and single people without children who constitute the majority of the

1553
long-term unemployed. From October next year we shall be setting up a substantial pilot study in eight locations of an in-work benefit for this group, which will run for three years. We shall be publishing a consultation document in the spring of this year about how that pilot scheme is going to proceed.
All the initiatives I have mentioned do not come cost free. My right honourable friend the Chancellor and my right honourable friend Peter Lilley have announced these incentives and they have also announced that they will cost together some £700 million, which because of the other prudent housekeeping we have undertaken in the social security budget we are able to fund. We believe that will help and when it all comes on-stream something like 750,000 people will benefit in the course of a year.
Turning from these measures concerning employment and unemployment to one of the very closely related aspects also drawn, quite rightly, to our attention in the report, I shall speak now about training and education. I found the analysis of the importance of education and training very interesting, and in particular its role in improving employment opportunities and increasing income dispersal. The report itself says in volume 2, page 44:
"Between a third and half of the growth in earnings dispersion over the 1980s can be explained by higher wage premiums commanded for greater levels of experience and/or educational qualifications …
Qualification premiums increased particularly for young (16–30) workers.
The widening in qualification differentials came despite a substantial increase in the supply of qualified workers, suggesting that demand for them was increasing even faster."
Those findings led directly to the recommendations in Volume 1, chapter 3, best expressed by the phrase:
"it is imperative that we upgrade our skills as a nation and take maximum advantage of new technology".
We have introduced policies which will ensure that people are able to take advantage of opportunities available to them through education and training. The reform in education through the national curriculum and an emphasis on vocational skills offers greater choice to parents and better education for children. There are more young people than ever staying on in education and training—about 90 per cent. of 16 year-olds and three-quarters of 17 year-olds. One in three people are now benefiting from higher education, compared to one in eight when the party opposite left Office. Support for training measures has been doubled, even after inflation is taken into account, since 1979. This is precisely what the Rowntree Report recommends. It particularly directs our attention at the groups of youngsters giving most concern when they enter—or perhaps do not enter, which is the worrying point—the labour market. We have taken account of the research by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research quoted at page 40 of Volume 1:
"that the quality of much of our non-élite education also lags behind our competitor countries."
Tackling that comes from increasing standards through the national curriculum, monitoring these standards through sensible testing, especially in the
1554
earlier years of school, of the basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic and, later in school, providing a framework of educational training and qualifications, designed to help this group in particular to acquire practical and marketable skills that they will need if they are going to enter this new labour market. GCSEs and GCEs deal with general education, NVQs provide job-related training and GNVQs provide broad vocational training. All these things are absolutely essential if we are going to see the workforce in our country gain the skills and the training to face up to the challenges of a new world—the challenges of new technology and the challenges of the Pacific Rim and places like that.
I have covered in the main many of the points raised, although perhaps not all. I want now to turn—
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord, with an apology, because he is being immensely constructive, particularly about vocational training. Is he going to deal with the point made by my noble friend Lady David about the 21-hour rule, where the Government are very much at odds with the report, and not in a way which makes any sense? Is the noble Lord going to say anything about that?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I had not intended to say anything about that because I suspect we shall come to it at other times in the future. The fact is that the 21-hour rule has been changed to take account of quite considerable changes in further education, where the same methods of devising courses are no longer used. The rule, as I recall, is now going to be 16 hours of guided learning. That is still a very significant amount of part-time education. I come back to a point I have made previously from the Dispatch Box: when we come to the jobseeker's allowance or to some unemployed person looking to find work, we have to be clear in our own minds about the difference between being available for work, looking for work and receiving as much education as possible at the same time, and being involved in full-time education, when the other parts of the system ought to come in.
However, if I may now turn quickly to housing, which has been raised by several of your Lordships, can I say that as one goes around the United Kingdom one sees that a great deal of money has been spent on attempting to improve the housing conditions which people now find themselves in, often as a result of houses built a bit like the building in Marsham Street, as we discussed earlier today, in the 1960s and 1970s. I blame nobody for that. People wanted to do it and they thought that was the quickest way to do it. But it has proved, in rather too short a time, to be flawed. A lot of public resources are going into public housing operations towards the provision of better houses through the housing associations, for example. Here we have made available to them £1.5 billion this year, which will make something like 60,000 extra homes available. Indeed, in real terms the Housing Corporation has had nearly 40 per cent. more to spend over the past five years.

1555
Of course, we shall not be able to do any of the things that we want to do if our economy does not grow and if we do not answer the questions and the challenges that come from elsewhere in the world. However, if we do do that, we can provide greater wealth through the tax system but without distorting the tax system. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, it is interesting that the report states that the tax system had much the same impact on reducing inequality in 1992 as it had in 1977, so the income tax changes, whereby the punitive top rates of taxation have been removed —the noble Lord clearly does not approve of that—have not, in the words of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, had any impact on reducing inequality. Indeed, the top 10 per cent. of taxpayers now pay more into the Government's coffers than they did in 1979 when their tax rates were much more punitive.
I shall conclude by looking at the economy as a whole. The productivity of our economy has been markedly better in this decade than in the previous two decades. In the decades 1960–70 and 1970–80 we were at the bottom of the G7 league in terms of manufacturing productivity; in the decade 1980–90 we are at the top. We need to continue that and to ensure that our output continues to rise by an average of nearly 30 per cent., with productivity increasing and exports doubling.
We need also to continue to attract inward investment, such as that given to the NEC project which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister visited in Livingston in Scotland last Friday. We have received £0.5 billion in inward investment. Thanks to our membership of the Common Market and to the improvements that this Government have made, we are bringing into this country people who invest and who manufacture. I am not a huge expert on motor cars, but I gather that we may shortly be a net exporter of motor cars. Surely that is something that we can all applaud. We are also hugely involved in the electronics business and export all around the world.
Those are things that we should cheer about, and if we can improve on them, build on what we have already done, educate the workforce better and make sure that people can take the opportunities that are presented to them, we shall see all of our people enjoy increasing prosperity in the next decade.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I am grateful for the great care with which all have approached this important topic. However, in expressing those thanks, I should say that I was a little saddened that the debate was somewhat disfigured by the rather unpleasant attack on the academic integrity of John Hills by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. Indeed, the emptiness of the noble Lord's position was illustrated regularly by noble Lords on all sides of the House who, when trying to find appropriate qualifications as to the substance of the report, found them by quoting arguments and qualifications that were presented in the appendix to volume 2 of the report which was written by John Hills.
1556
I must confess that I was also a little saddened by the fact that the party opposite seemed to be almost entirely consumed by a desire to obscure, ignore, or otherwise deny the conclusions of the report. In an otherwise very constructive contribution, the Minister continued that trend. I commented 6346in my introduction on a number of the errors that were made by Mr. Lilley in the debate two weeks ago in another place. We have now heard the Minister give us a little lecture on deciles without pointing out that the measure of inequality in the report is not based on deciles —another smokescreen. The Minister referred to the fact that some people with zero income were reported as having a high level of expenditure, but he left out the fact that the report discusses the impact of the growth in inequality while leaving out the self-employed, exactly the group with that peculiar income and expenditure combination.
The Minister also quoted a statement on tax which he did not seem to understand. As the report points out, if the tax system had been left as it was to do the job of redistribution, the level of inequality today would not be the same. The point is that discretionary changes in the tax system have weakened the ability of the tax system to perform a redistributive role as real incomes rise. Therefore, it performs the same role at high levels of average income now as it did at lower levels of income 20 years ago.
The Minister also made a great to-do about the issue of lifetime earnings. He quoted one of John Hill's sentences which begins:
"A combined distribution for the two years would look less unequal than that for a single year",
but he did not quote the rest of the sentence, which continues:
"but none the less nearly three-quarters of those in the poorest tenth were still there two years later: for them, poverty is not transitory".
If the Government feel that the report is wrong, misguided or limited, why will they not produce a report of their own? Why will they not produce a report which deals with the problems of what are called "transition matrices in lifetime earnings"? Why will the Government not deal with the issue of benefits in kind? Where is the Government's report which we can study, criticise and analyse to the same level and standard as that which has been applied to the Rowntree Report?
Finally, I was saddened that the Minister in his 28-minute speech did not turn once to the topic of the debate, which was the relationship between equity and efficiency. He chose not to confront that question at all—nor did he answer the considerable arguments that have been advanced by your Lordships this afternoon that inequality is inefficient.
Despite being a little terse and critical at the end of this long debate, I thank again all noble Lords who have taken part in it and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
8.17 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. We are now in the fifth year of the operation of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and in a few days' time I shall have completed 46 years in both Houses of Parliament. To my mind no stain is so deep on the statute book as the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991.
When I go into the history of the matter, I realise that it was nothing short of a parliamentary frame-up which led to the 1991 Act being passed in another place in eight hours flat under a guillotine Motion which required all stages of the Bill to be completed in one day.
We lack information about the working of the Act because for some extraordinary reason the lines of communication and of information between the courts, the police and the Home Office are very fragmentary. What particulars we get of the operation of the 1991 Act relate to events up to the end of 1993. We have no information yet about what happened in 1994. We shall have to wait until the end of this year to get it and only then shall we be able to see any statistical rise or change in the number of proceedings in the courts and under what headings they occurred. However, we have to put up with that kind of inefficiency occasionally in our departmental administration.
The Bill deals with one part of the Act—and only one. Last year and the year before, I introduced more comprehensive Bills into your Lordships' House to reform the 1991 Act. For reasons which I need not go into but which have to do with our relations with Members of another place, this time attention is concentrated on the biggest evil of that disreputable piece of legislation, the mandatory death sentence in Sections 1 and 3 of the principal Act.
There are mandatory sentences in Britain today for treason, murder and dangerous dogs—that is all. Fancy having such a collection of mandatory death sentences on our statute book. Your Lordships have gone on record as opposing the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder, but for philosophical and deeply psychological reasons the Government have felt unable to accept the advice of your Lordships' House.
The Bill removes from the 1991 Act the mandatory destruction order of dogs convicted under Section 1—the pit bull terrier and pit bull terrier-type dog—and dogs of any kind which are guilty under Section 3 of an aggravated offence; that of being out of control and injuring any person.
I have corresponded with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The outcome is a very long letter from her to me, for which I am very grateful. It represents probably the deepest and most thoughtful letter received from the Home Office on this subject. I shall, however, await her speech at the conclusion of the debate to see what I have to reply to on the Floor of the House tonight.
1558
It would be inconvenient if I were to pick out points from her letter and attempt to answer them now because not all noble Lords are familiar with the contents of the letter. I shall confine my remarks to explaining how we—"we" being the reform group—think. The group is of a very representative character and is advising me on the course of action to take in relation to the 1991 Act.
The case for removing the death sentence from the Act is that the sentence deprives the accused citizen of the right to justice. It interferes with our system of jurisprudence; it takes away from magistrates, and sheriffs in Scotland, the right to judge the accused before them by reference to considerations related to the decision that may be reached in his or her case. I therefore raise the Bill to the highest level of constitutional importance—the practice of our system of jurisprudence.
The biggest insult of all to the magistracy of Britain is to told, "You are not fit or will not be allowed, fit or otherwise, to pronounce your view on the nature of the offence committed by this accused person. You will not be able to take anything into account relating to his or her circumstances. If there is a conviction of a pit bull terrier-type dog, then you reach that conviction knowing, as the accused person knows, that a death sentence follows automatically." That is an outrage on our system of jurisprudence, but it looks as if it will go on for some time.
We were told in 1991 by the Home Secretary of the day, "This is an emergency." It was not. But the lie in the supposition of it being an emergency lives on; we are in the fifth year of it. As things are going, there is no end in sight. The emergency, such as it is, will continue indefinitely. When will it end? Will it continue until the last pit bull terrier has died? Or will we have to go on waiting in case another one appears? We are drifting towards a regime of oppression, suppression, injustice and cruelty which we should not tolerate in our society.
In matters of this kind we have to consider whose interests must be served. We have to balance interests; we have to balance rights. We cannot let one consideration take precedence over another without careful examination of what it is we are up to. The first duty of the state is the safety of the realm and within that to dispense justice and fairness to its citizens as best it can. If considerations have to be balanced as between the protection of the public and the sanctity of the system of justice in the country, then one has to see which is the most important and how each can be best served, at least up to a point.
I am not looking at the Bill wholly in terms of dangerous dogs; something far more serious has been imported into our judicial and social life. It is most undesirable that it should continue any longer.
Clause 1 relates to the pit bull terrier. A number of convictions have had nothing to do with the behaviour of the dog but solely with the identification of the breed of dog. There can be many difficulties. The Bill deals with such a case—or could deal with such a case—as was reported in the Glasgow Herald early in February. It was a case that came before the sheriff's court in Peebles. It was a case of identification. Expert evidence was given on both sides and, after hearing the evidence, the sheriff found in favour of the dog—that it was not a pit bull terrier—and it has since been released. He had

1559
to balance two sets of conflicting so-called expert evidence. The case lasted five days. In delivering his judgment, the sheriff said:
"The whole Act is designed to promote death. It is clear that there is a presumption of guilt".
That was his verdict on the 1991 Act, having regard to the case of which he had just disposed. Such a comment from such a source is a reflection on our system of justice.
The reason I say the matter could be covered by the Bill is that in removing the compulsory death sentence in such cases we do not propose to return the dog to the owner as if nothing had happened. It is not a dismissal of cases; there is an option which the court alone can offer to an offender. Before convicting, the court could say, "We should like to give you the opportunity of considering whether you want to have your dog registered under the exemption system. If so, we will grant you a period of time during which you can obtain the necessary treatment for the dog. After that, come back to us and the dog can be classified as exempt and rejoin you in your home". That gives an opportunity to register a dog exempt in cases the courts think appropriate. The old register closed at the end of November 1991; since then not one dog has been registered as exempt. There are cases where a doubt about what a dog is could be resolved by saying, "If you claim exemption and the dog goes through the necessary treatment we can leave aside that argument and you can have back your dog."
With regard to Section 4 cases, there are already two Acts. One is the Dogs Act 1871 and the other the Dogs Amendment Act 1938. Those Acts were not repealed when the 1991 Act provided a tougher regime for dogs which become out of control and possibly injure a person. Under the Bill, a court in such a case is given power to issue control orders and other non-fatal options which enable the dog to be released and kept under proper control.
I emphasise that the option is the court's option and not that of the accused person. If the court is of the opinion, in both Section 1 and Section 4 cases, that the case is so bad that the dog's destruction is justified, it will be entitled to retain the destruction order. The option is one to be offered by the court to a person charged with an offence, having regard to all the circumstances the court has heard in connection with the dog, such as those I read out in relation to the recent case in Peebles.
That is a reasonable proposition. It puts an element of discretion into the magistrates' hands. It does not give them absolute discretion. If they come to the conclusion that the dog should be acquitted, they must acquit it. There may be a case in which the arguments flow to and fro, and the magistrates think it much better to reach a settlement by having an exemption claimed. In all the circumstances, that is a step that can be taken without, in my judgment—it is a matter of judgment—weakening the existing legislation. I warmly commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
8.35 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in his attempt to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. His tenacity in persisting with in this issue from 1991 to the present is well known. I must declare an interest as a member of the Dangerous Dogs Act Reform Group of which the noble Lord is the convenor. There can be no question but that in 1991 the majority of public opinion had little doubt of the need for the strict control of dangerous dogs, and, in particular, a ban on those dogs bred specifically for fighting with, eventually, their elimination in the United Kingdom.
The horrendous incidents affecting small children who were savaged, sometimes to death, by such dogs, out of the control of their owners, demanded a response from the Government. I do not wish to persuade my noble friend the Minister that the introduction of legislation to deal with that problem was wrong in principle. On the contrary, it was right. I shall attempt to persuade her that the problems lie in the operation of the details of the legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, detailed several of them.
It was said last month by the president of the British Veterinary Association that while 85 per cent. or more of the population was in favour of the Act in 1991, in 1995 85 per cent. is convinced of the need to amend or repeal the Act. I do not agree with a proposal to repeal it. The problems lie in the operation of the present legislation, which have been rehearsed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. They centre around the problems of identification—what is or what is not a pit bull terrier or a pit bull terrier type —and the prolonged detention of dogs while determining that. In some cases, the dogs have committed no offence other than to have been a look-alike of a criminal, even though neither of the dog's parents has been of pit bull terrier ancestry. Should they be determined to be of pit bull terrier type, a mandatory death sentence is imposed upon them, as the noble Lord said.
Other problems lie in the long-term detention of dogs, its cost, and the effect of such detention on the dogs and their owners. One needs only to read the press to learn of the problems in that area.
What is being asked for in the amended Bill is a change from mandatory destruction to allow for discretion on the part of the courts. I do not believe that these amendments will weaken the intent of the Act, which is to protect the public from dangerous dogs and the irresponsible actions of those in possession of such animals, and eventually to eliminate such dogs from the United Kingdom. All of the aims and principles of the original Act can be retained with these amendments. The clear messages that are conveyed by the 1991 Act will still be there and will be even more appreciated, understood and complied with than hitherto. The Bill will also encourage much more responsible dog ownership. Despite the very good intentions of the Act, it has fallen into disrepute for a variety of reasons.

1561
If one looks at the proposed amendments, the major issue is the replacement of Section 4 with several alternates to the mandatory destruction of dogs. The first is that where an offence under Section 1 or 2 is committed destruction may well be ordered. The principle of the Act is being upheld by the first subsection. Clause 1(1) (b) of the Bill allows for an offender to be disqualified from having custody of a dog. I have long argued in various places in the wider context of dog ownership and control that a system to license owners as custodians of dogs is an effective way to control many aspects of dog nuisance. The licence can be withdrawn should the person not live up to the licensing details. That proposal was published in 1988 by a working party, which I had the honour to chair, under the Council on Companion Animals in Society. But the suggestion that owners should be debarred from keeping dogs in this way is, I believe, highly commendable. The rest of the subsection allows courts discretion in a range of circumstances.
I do not believe that these amendments in any way weaken the original principle of the Dangerous Dogs Act. On the contrary, I believe that they strengthen it and allow for the dispensation of justice with wisdom and compassion.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for introducing the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill. I have gone through all of the previous debates in which I have taken part and have nothing new to add. My view remains unchanged. The 1991 Act is the only one that puts the onus on the defence to prove its case. In the case of Section 3, which involves dogs of other breeds, i.e. not pit bulls, extenuating circumstances are hardly if ever taken into account.
I give an illustration. I wonder what would have happened to my dog, a mild-mannered Labrador who went for an intruder. I am grateful that the incident in question did not occur after the passing of the 1991 Act. I answered my front door to an extremely unsavoury character who promptly put his foot inside the door and started to push it open. My dog was lying on the floor behind me. On impulse, I pulled the door wide open and shouted to my dog, "Get him!" That docile Labrador leapt up, chased the man down the drive, caught his leg and tore his trousers. My dog was protecting me. I believed that I was in danger. Dogs are very sensitive to human behaviour. I suspect that if that happened today, I would be in court having been charged under Section 3. To date I have not seen a clear definition of "aggravated offence". What do owners and their dogs do when there is clear provocation, or when animals react in self-defence when under attack as a result of human cruelty? Dogs are companion animals and continue to remain loyal in spite of being subjected to repeated assaults. When such incidents come to court they are "extenuating circumstances", are they not? However, under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 it is difficult to take that into account.
1562
I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically upon the Bill which goes a long way to try to address some of the wrongs of hasty legislation. We on the Dangerous Dogs Reform Group have never at any stage tried to dilute the inherent strengths of the Act. We accept that the public must be protected from dangerous dogs; but humans must play a part, too. Common sense should prevail. To ease the burden of having to impose a mandatory death sentence in some cases and to allow courts discretion will go some way to restore the balance.
Failing a shift in government policy, can there not be a concerted effort by Her Majesty's Government to persuade courts to charge offenders under a different Act, for example the Dogs Act 1871? Under Section 2 of that Act the court may, upon the complaint of any person that a dog is dangerous and not kept under control, order the owner to keep it under proper control or order its destruction, provided there is sufficient evidence. Under the 1991 Act, the prosecution does not have to prove anything. I believe that that brings British justice into disrepute.
I have no doubt that the Act will have to be amended eventually to correct the inherent injustices in it. I just hope that it happens sooner rather than later.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Rennell: My Lords, it is an honour to speak in any debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. As my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior has already said, his staying power and compassion is truly phenomenal. He has all the qualities of the great British bulldog. Thank goodness that neither he nor it has been branded a dangerous dog.
When the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was passed, my first thought was that it was somewhat panicky and a political sop to public opinion. Today, I know far more about the pit bull terrier than I did four years ago. I am glad that the Government took the firm measures that they then did. The number of severe injuries from dog aggression may not have fallen by very much, but the Act has achieved its aims: first, it acts towards removing pit bull terriers from this country; and, secondly, it creates a meaningful deterrent to ensure that dog owners keep their dogs of all types under control. At the time of the Act, critics said that it did not go far enough. I disagree. I thought that it did what it set out to do, and quickly. But, having had a four-year run, the Act needs amending.
The problems and wrongs of the Act have been highlighted very well by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, by my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior and the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton. Those problems must be addressed. We should amend the mandatory destruction order. As it is, the law is far more likely to punish the good rather than the bad owners. As we have heard, there are too many unhappy but good owners who are not receiving justice from the Government.
Let us face it, in all probability bad owners would shed few tears at the prospect of having their dog destroyed; but they may not wish to pay for the

1563
neutering, tagging and registering of the dogs. Let us allow a further short amnesty time for registration and all that goes with that. It would do everyone a favour: guilty owners would come out of hiding; dangerous dogs would be neutered, tagged and registered; and the public would be safer. The Bill would surely be enhanced in that way. The argument that either of those measures show weakness in the legislation or that they might encourage bad owners to somehow import new pit bull terriers into this country will not wash.
My children ask me why a dog is man's best friend. I say to them, "Have you ever come home and not been greeted by our two dogs, Bennie and Charlie, with their tails wagging? They always love you". The British are a country of animal lovers. As a result of this Bill, pit bull terriers will continue to be eliminated from the country; dog owners will continue to have to keep their dogs of all kinds under control; the public will continue to feel safer; but, in addition, it will be fairer to owners and to dogs. I ask the Minister not to ignore the unfair areas of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as it stands, which have been highlighted so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I support the Bill.
8.52 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I apologise to the House and to my noble friend for not having put my name down to speak in the debate. But over the past few years, I have listened to most of the debates which have taken place in your Lordships' House on this subject, nearly all of which have been introduced in one form or another by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
I speak from the point of view of one who, for a few years, was a Minister at the Home Office. Therefore, to some extent, I understand the difficulties of legislating and, indeed, going back on legislation which the Home Office has put forward. But I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said when he introduced the Bill and with what has been said by all noble Lords who have spoken. In principle, the Bill was right. I do not believe that anybody would argue about that. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said, the detail at least was a knee-jerk reaction to an understandable but very emotional issue which provoked lurid photographs on the front pages of the newspapers. We remember it all too well. Therefore, it was quite understandable that publics anxiety was expressed in the way that it was.
There is no doubt that insufficient time and research were devoted to how the legislation should be brought forward. It may be that all the aspects and factors were not examined properly. Four years later, we have a much better picture of how the benefits of the Bill can be taken forward but also, how the real holes in it have become fully exposed. They are not merely weaknesses. As has been illustrated this evening, they are plain nonsenses. I hope that those mistakes will be put right. Without them being put right, Parliament is at best made to look fairly stupid; and, indeed, it reflects badly upon the Government and upon the Home Office.
1564
I agree with my noble friend Lord Soulsby that amendment is necessary but that that will not weaken the principle of the Bill. Indeed, it will strengthen it. The 85 per cent. who now believe that the tide should be turned the other way will feel that there is a much more balanced and representative view countrywide. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will accept from somebody who spent some time in her shoes in the Home Office that there is a clear need to change and that she will certainly find some reluctance. But at least on the question affecting both dogs and humans, I hope that she will find it possible to agree to the changes.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, whose powerful speech exemplifies that combination of courage, compassion, common sense and an abiding sense of justice to which several noble Lords have referred. Every noble Lord who has spoken has expressed gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for introducing the Bill. Every noble Lord has recognised the need for dangerous dogs legislation but has recognised also the need to ensure that the legislation operates fairly, rationally and in accordance with the rule of law. The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, was particularly important because of the ministerial experience and detachment which he was able to bring to the subject.
I am glad to have an opportunity to participate in this well-informed and conspicuously moderate debate and to reinforce the support for this fresh attempt to ameliorate some of the unfair effects on responsible dog owners and their dogs of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
I should declare an interest. I act in proceedings in Strasbourg under the European Convention on Human Rights as counsel for the owner of a dog, Otis, whose destruction has been ordered by a magistrate under a mandatory destruction order. Of course, I shall not describe the legal issues arising under the convention; but your Lordships may find it useful to know the background facts of the case as an example of the real need for the enactment of this very modest but important amending Bill. What I say represents my personal beliefs and not submissions made in any way as a professional advocate.
Before I turn to those facts, I should like to remind the House briefly that in the authoritative report of the Hansard Society Commission on The Legislative Process, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, the passage of the 1991 Act was treated as a case study of defects in the parliamentary processes of law making.
The Bill was guillotined in another place before any debate but was considered more fully in this House. There were only four working days between the publication of the Bill and its debate in another place. That gave very little time for Members, interest groups and the public to respond. There were a further 11 working days before Second Reading in this House; 10 more days before Committee; a further six days before

1565
Report stage; and there were another four working days before another place considered the amendments made by this House.
That well-intentioned but, in some respects, unfair, costly and unworkable measure received Royal Assent just over two months after the Government announced their intention to legislate. I agree respectfully with the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, that there can be no objection to fair, workable legislation to deal with the real problems created by dangerous dogs. But fair and proportionate means should, I suggest, be used to achieve the Government's and Parliament's wholly legitimate aims. In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, accurately referred to the 1991 Act as a knee-jerk reaction. I agree with the noble Lord.
I should also emphasise, as all speakers have, the fact that I strongly support fair, rational and effective legislation to protect the public against dangerous dogs and to require the owners of all dogs, including myself, as the owner of a rather elderly golden retriever, to be responsible for their health and welfare and for their not being allowed to be dangerously out of control.
I turn briefly to the facts of the Otis case. I do so, simply because it always seems to me that the facts of one case may be illustrative of a general problem. Henry Bates owns a dog named Otis. It is not suggested that his dog ever attacked, injured or endangered anyone. In December 1991, Mr. Bates was driving his car through Blackwall Tunnel late at night. Otis was in the car, unmuzzled and not held on a lead. Mr. Bates was stopped by two police officers, and was charged with having a dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier in a public place unmuzzled. Otis was seized by the police and remained in police custody until the trial seven months later. The only issue explored at his trial before the Thames stipendiary magistrate was whether the back of a motor car travelling along a public highway was "a public place" for those purposes.
Mr. Bates called no evidence and was convicted because of the reversal of the burden of proof. The magistrate imposed a fine of £100 and ordered, as he was compelled to, that Otis should be destroyed. That is because Section 4(1) (a) leaves no discretion to the courts in such a case, but makes the dog's destruction mandatory. Mr. Bates then sought unsuccessfully to persuade the higher courts that the inside of a car is not a public place for the purposes of the Act.
At the time of the offence, Mr. Bates believed, on the basis of what he had earlier been told by the police, that Otis was a pit bull terrier type. However, in August 1993, Mr. Bates was informed by the police that, despite their exclusive control over Otis since December 1991, neither the police nor the prosecution had at any time between the time of the dog's seizure and Mr. Bates' conviction caused Otis to be viewed, even cursorily, by any person competent to pronounce on the question of whether he was,
"a dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier".
The prosecution sought to justify its general policy and its neglect in the present case by reference to the reversal of the burden of proof and of the presumption of innocence in Section 5(5) of the 1991 Act.
1566
When the dog was examined by an independent and eminent expert, it was apparent to him that Otis is not in fact,
"of the type known as the pit bull terrier",
but appears rather to be a Great Dane cross-breed. Since that examination, three further independent experts have prepared reports on Otis, all of whom have concurred in that view. The prosecution adduced evidence to the contrary from one witness whose competency to pronounce on this question of expert evidence was and is not accepted by Mr. Bates.
Despite the existence of fresh, cogent and compelling evidence that the conviction had been tainted by the failure of the prosecution to take any steps to examine the material facts about an essential element of the offence, Mr. Bates could not apply for leave to appeal out of time to the Crown Court because, for reasons that I need not detain the House with, such a course is statute-barred under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. Therefore, he applied unsuccessfully for judicial review to quash his conviction. When that failed, he brought proceedings under the European Convention on Human Rights which are now pending before the European Commission. By that time, Mr. Bates, who is a mechanic, had incurred legal costs amounting to over £17,500—none of which, I should emphasise, was for myself because I was not involved in any of those proceedings.
The destruction order has yet to be carried into effect. It was stayed initially pending the outcome of the English legal proceedings, and now pending the disposal of Mr. Bates' application complaining of breaches of his rights under the convention.
Since Otis was first seized, more than three years ago in December 1991, Mr. Bates has been allowed to see him twice. Otis is now five years old. For the past seven months, since July 1994, Mr. Bates has been charged £8.81 per day for Otis's upkeep. If the case goes all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, Mr. Bates will have to find some £3,215 a year, at the current rate, to pay to keep his dog alive meanwhile, without having any right to see him or to be with him.
I have taken the time of the House to describe the salient facts of that case to illustrate the pressing need to give the courts some discretion to deal with a dog such as Otis, other than by being compelled to order its destruction regardless of the particular circumstances involved. I respectfully suggest that the facts of the case speak for themselves.
The vice of a mandatory death penalty is, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, indicated, that it is a denial of the due process of law, contrary to ancient common law principle. It deprives the courts of any discretion and does not enable the courts to have regard to the particular circumstances of the individual case. Therefore, it results in cases with profoundly unfair consequences.
The 1991 Act is a classic example of a well-motivated measure which is also a disproportionate and unfair response to a perceived social evil. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, said, the 1991 Act does, I believe, bring British justice into disrepute. The

1567
Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would not undermine the 1991 Act in any essential: it would remove a source of real injustice to some dog owners and to their canine companions. That is why I very much hope that the House will feel able to give the Bill a Second Reading.
9.5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as always, I preface my remarks by saying that anything I say from the Dispatch Box on a Private Member's Bill is my own opinion and not the position of my party, which takes no collective view on such Bills. I should also like to join in the tributes paid by all noble Lords to my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby for his persistence and eloquence in support of a cause which he believes in with such evident passion.
When considering such a matter, we must be open about our emotions and we must try to discount them in order to ensure that we take a rational view of the issues which are before the House and before Parliament. I shall confess straight away what my emotions are on the issue. I do not like dogs; I am frightened of large dogs; and, if there is any balance to be held between the safety of children and what is perceived by my noble friend and others as injustice to dogs, I would give hundreds of times more weight to the safety of children than I would to any perceived injustice to dogs or their owners.
I have said that I do not like dogs, and in particular that I do not like fighting dogs. I do not like the owners of fighting dogs either. They always seem to me to be people with inadequate personalities who compensate for their own inadequacies by having fighting dogs. There are many dangerous fighting dogs on the streets, not only pit bull terriers. They are usually looked after, or towed around, by inadequate young men. I should like to see an end to all of that. That is my emotion out of the way.
Let us look at the issues of fact. I have enormous difficulty with the issues of fact because I am speaking before the Minister and I do not know, and nobody has set out in this debate, what the effect of the 1991 Act has been. Let us all agree that the 1991 Act was arrived at in haste and that the procedures that were adopted, particularly in another place, were inadequate for proper legislative consideration. But that is in the past. The Act is on the statute book. Has it worked or has it not?
With this amendment Bill we are concerned only with the issue of the discretion of magistrates. How have magistrates fulfilled the obligations placed on them by the 1991 Act? In particular, we must recognise two entirely different cases. Section 1 of the 1991 Act refers to pit bull terriers and pit bull-like dogs. Section 3 refers to dogs of any breed which have already attacked and an aggravated offence.
Do we know what has happened to pit bull terriers? Are they dying out? Do the Government know? Can the Government tell us what is happening to pit bull terriers? Is there any resistance to this legislation by the owners or would-be owners of pit bull terriers which means that the legislation is not effective in relation to pit bull terriers?
1568
Are attacks by dogs declining? The emotional impetus behind the 1991 Act was horrific attacks by dogs and the deaths of young children in the most horrible circumstances. Has the Act been successful in reducing the number of such attacks? If it has been successful, the question is whether it has been successful because those attacks were mainly by pit bull terriers and the numbers of pit bull terriers have declined. If that is the case, has it been successful because of the mandatory nature of the Act? If the Government defend the 1991 Act they have to show that the lack of discretion for magistrates' courts is justified by the numbers of offences which are identified and the number of attacks which take place, whether or not they lead to conviction.
If the Act has not been successful, and that again is a matter which the Government have to demonstrate to us, we need to know whether the Act should be amended in the way suggested by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. We also have to ask whether there should be other amendments and whether the Act should be strengthened. Should other fighting breeds be included in the Act in the same way as pit bull terriers? Should there be an extension of neutering, tagging, the requirement for muzzling and controls of that kind? Above all, should there be, as we argued at the time of the 1991 Bill, registration of all dogs? Should registration be used to provide other controls, in particular control of strays and certain fighting breeds of dog? In other words, now that we have had time to consider the operation of the Act, is there any evidence on which we could produce a new dangerous dogs Act that would achieve the objective which the Government rightly sought?
For my part, I do not know. Until the Minister replies I do not know whether the Act is working and, if it is not working, whether that is because of the defects adduced by noble Lords who have spoken in today's debate. If it is working, I do not know whether it is working because of the provisions within the Act which have been so strongly attacked by noble Lords who have spoken. I shall suspend my judgment until I hear what the Minister has to say.
But I must repeat, and perhaps I am in danger of reverting to emotion from an analysis of the legislation, that if there is any risk whatever of increasing the number of victims, in particular child victims, of dangerous dogs, we have to weigh that against the injustices which have been described by noble Lords. I know which side I am on. I am on the side of our species.
9.14 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the whole House acknowledges and respects the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, to the cause of animal welfare. I know, too, that the Dangerous Dogs Act has caused the noble Lord, and indeed all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, much anxiety. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has been consistent in his opposition to the Act from the days of its original passage through your Lordships' House.

1569
Before dealing with the specific proposal in the Bill now before your Lordships, and the specific points that have been made in this debate, I want to remind your Lordships of the purpose of the Dangerous Dogs Act. In bringing forward the Act, the Government were responding to the very real anxiety that there was about the presence of fighting dogs in this country, as well as broader concern about dog attacks generally. There has to be an emphasis on fighting dogs. Those dogs were imported as fighting dogs. Parliament and the media wholeheartedly endorsed the need for firm action. The Act was a responsible recognition that something had to be done to meet the widespread concern and to protect the public. During its passage, the legislation received detailed consideration in your Lordships' House, not least through the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. The Act remains relevant and necessary, as I shall explain when I come to address the detail of the Bill.
I am, of course, only too well aware of the impact of the Dangerous Dogs Act in certain individual cases. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, seeks to address the issues raised by some of these cases through his Bill. I want to assure the House, however, that I do not wish to see the unnecessary destruction of any dog and I do not underestimate the anxieties which some feel about the legislation and the pain that some owners have experienced. Of course, there will be hard cases, when tough legislation of this kind has to be enacted. But the Government could not, and must not, shrink from their primary duty of protecting the public, no matter how difficult the consequences might seem to be in individual cases.
With those preliminary comments, I turn to the Bill now before the House. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has explained, its objective is to lift the mandatory destruction provisions of the Act and to give the courts discretion in sentencing where there is presently none. Additionally, it enables the courts to give convicted owners the opportunity for late registration on the index of exempted dogs.
Under the Dangerous Dogs Act, owners of pit bull terriers and other dogs bred for fighting—that is, the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino and the Filo Brasiliera—were allowed to keep their animals on condition that they complied with the stringent conditions set out in the legislation by 30th November 1991. The mandatory destruction order applies in cases where the owner of a fighting dog has failed to comply with the requirements of the law, and where a dog of any type or breed causes injury to a person. In both cases, magistrates have no option—as has already been said tonight—but to order the destruction of the dog.
The Government have given very careful consideration to the proposals in the Bill. But I have to tell the noble Lord, and other noble Lords, that our view is that the provisions in his Bill would have two undesirable effects: they would undermine the incentives which the Act provides towards responsible dog ownership; and they would risk the perpetuation of fighting dogs in this country.
1570
I said at the beginning that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is consistent in his opposition to this Act. But if consistency is a virtue, as I believe it is, then I hope that the Government will be given some credit for their consistency over this issue. For we have been equally consistent in our view that there is no place in our society for fighting dogs, and that anything which reduces the tough incentives to comply with the Act's provisions would amount to a weakening of the protection which the Act affords.
The decision to deny the courts discretion in sentencing was quite deliberate. Section 1 was designed to face owners of fighting dogs with a clear choice: comply with the registration, neutering and tagging requirements of the Act, by the due date, or, if caught, face the certain destruction of the animal concerned. And thereafter the message was clear: continue to observe the requirements of the Act—that is, maintenance of insurance cover for the dogs, and keeping them muzzled in a public place—or, again, face certain destruction of the animal. Section 3, which applies to dogs of any type, contains an equally clear message. An owner whose dog commits an aggravated offence—that is, being dangerously out of control and attacking someone—will, if proceedings are instituted under this legislation, face the certain destruction of his pet. These are very tough incentives. And the provisions ensure, furthermore, that dog owners who fail to act responsibly do not have any chance of regaining charge of their animals. There would be wide criticism if an owner who had ignored the provisions of the legislation were to regain custody of the dog concerned —especially if that dog were subsequently to injure any person.
The Bill before the House gives the courts a discretion on sentencing in relation to both pit bulls and dogs of any type or breed which are dangerously out of control. And because there is not much point, taking the former category, in sparing the life of an unregistered pit bull terrier which cannot subsequently be registered and returned to its owner, the Bill provides for the courts to direct a convicted person to register his or her dog. That is presumably intended in essence to amount to the reopening of the index of exempted dogs for an indefinite period, albeit only in regard to certain dogs. I also accept that it is intended, under the noble Lord's proposal, that such dogs would continue to have to be neutered and so on. I have to say that to allow those owners who originally failed to register to do so now would suggest that Parliament has no longer a commitment to ensuring that the current generation of pit bull terriers is the last in this country since there would be nothing to prevent other dogs being imported into this country or bred unlawfully here and benefiting from this method of retrospective legislation. It would be a dangerous invitation to some people to risk bringing new dogs into this country, knowing that there was a back door route to registration if they were caught. It would mean, perversely, that to legitimise one's position as an owner of an unregistered dog, one would first have to be prosecuted and convicted of owning it unlawfully.

1571
The Government accept that mandatory destruction is a severe measure but we do not believe that this is any less important now than when the Act was passed. As I indicated at the outset, the provisions of the Act are as relevant now as when it was introduced. Pit bulls or other dogs which were found to be dangerously out of control and injured a person are no less of a threat today than when the 1991 Act was introduced. The case in autumn 1993 of the boy killed by a dog subsequently identified as a pit bull sadly demonstrates this only too well. Just before last Christmas, there was the terrible incident of the fatal attack on a young baby in its own home.
I want to add one further point on the mandatory destruction provisions in Section 3 which apply to dogs of any type. The Government's concern here is that if the Act were to be modified in the way proposed in the Bill there is a very real chance that a dog which had attacked and injured a person could be released and returned to its owner. It is not difficult to imagine what would then happen if the same dog were to attack again. The public would rightly want to know why Parliament had thought it right to weaken the public protection which the Act affords. It would be a very heavy responsibility that we would be taking on ourselves if we were to do anything that threatened public safety.
A number of points were raised in the debate. First, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that not a single dog had been registered since November 1991. That is absolutely right because the register was closed at that point. People were given an opportunity to register; if they had not done so then there is no opportunity to do it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, gave us the story of her own dog and the situation in which she found herself. We are all grateful that her dog did its duty on that occasion. She asked specifically where she would have stood if the Act had been in force at that time. I am not able to give her a totally definitive answer because much would depend on the Crown Prosecution Service who would take the details into account. It would decide whether to prosecute and which Act should be used for that circumstance. Thereafter, it would be a matter for the courts. However, if, after that, it were pursued through the courts under the 1991 Act, then the likelihood is that the dog would be caught by the specific section in the Act.
The noble Baroness also referred to appealing and the possible use of other Acts of Parliament, particularly the 1871 Act. The Crown Prosecution Service has already issued guidance and will re-issue the earlier guidance to prosecutors on the choice between using the 1991 Act and earlier statutes. The Home Office is considering what we might do to underline those points. We have recently written to Mr. Roger Gale who will be watching the progress of the Bill as it proceeds to another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred in some detail to the case of Otis. I am not sure of the propriety, given that the case is perhaps sub judice in that it is awaiting an application to the European Court of Human Rights. I am aware of that and all I can say is that we will have to address any points that arise from a decision made in Strasbourg.
1572
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked about the effect of the Act. Again, my understanding is that the police estimate that there are far fewer pit bull terriers now than before the Act was introduced. Clearly, neutering is having an effect. In terms of numbers, we are doing a trawl at the moment. I shall make sure that the data are made available to the House. I shall place a copy in the Library.
Three police areas, Merseyside, Northumbria and Kent, are showing reductions. In 1989, in Merseyside, there were 347 attacks; in 1993 the figure was 243. In Northumbria, the figure dropped from 246 to 175 in one year. The Kent police report a drop from 1,150 attacks to 853. So in each case the figures show a downward trend. But, as always, I have to say that the figures must be viewed with caution; it would be important to produce some figures to the House to show that the Act was having an effect.
This is the second occasion on which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has presented a Bill to amend—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the Minister leaves the issue of the evidence, perhaps she can tell us about the trend in the number of convictions under the Act and the number of destructions ordered as a result of the Act, and whether they are as a result of Section 1 or Section 3. That, too, is an important issue in considering whether the Act is working properly.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall produce a very comprehensive picture of., the current data, from the beginning of the Act to the present day, or to the most recent statistics on which we can put our hands. I will make sure that that information is available to the noble Lord and to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, and I will place a copy in the Library.
I offer the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, my apologies that he was kept waiting so long for a reply. I am grateful that he thought the reply comprehensive when I did in fact make it. It was because a great deal of agonising took place in the backroom while we considered the impact of the noble Lord's Bill. With his permission, if he thinks it would be helpful, I shall make both his letter and my reply available to all those who have spoken in the debate and place copies in the Library. I shall wait for him to give me permission to do that.
This time, the Bill is shorter in order to concentrate on the two areas that caused the noble Lord the most concern. As I have made clear, the Government considered the mandatory destruction order and the one on the nature of the registration scheme. We consider that they are matters that are integral to the provisions of the Act and to the objective that Parliament agreed. I recognise and understand the noble Lord's motives for the provisions in his Bill. I am sorry to have to tell him that the Government cannot support the Bill. This is of course a Private Member's Bill and, as such, I do not propose to vote against it.
9.27 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed for noble Lords' contributions to this

1573
debate. In the remarks that have been made, coming as they do from a collection of Peers of great wisdom and experience, there should be some message to the Government tonight. The time will have to come soon when there is a stock-taking of how far we have come and where we think we are going in this very troublesome area.
My noble friend Lord McIntosh asked a great number of questions. The truth is that the Government know the answers to hardly any of them. They are so lacking in statistical evidence, and what we have is a year in arrear. Therefore there is no basis whatever on which to examine trends. There is no basis whatever for forming an estimate of what effect on the pit bull population the Act has had up to now. One might begin to ask: where have all the pit bull terriers gone? We know broadly speaking how many there were to begin with. We know that about 8,000 were registered under the opportunity that was given in 1991. The number on the original register has since been halved. The additions that would be made to the register under concessions which are contained in this Bill would be very small indeed. In fact, I do not know what the prospects are of further discoveries of pit bull terriers. We have no basis whatever for reaching a judgment on the retention of the extremely irksome and undesirable regime that we have in our social, police and judicial systems at the moment in that regard.
Are we justified in carrying a regime which gives more power to the state, a great deal more power to the police and rides roughshod over the normal rights of citizens? It can adopt methods which are deeply wounding and keep animals in conditions which are extremely cruel. It is a most undesirable area in which much that we value in our society in freedom and consideration are set aside. But for what? What danger is there? How can the state put to the public that a danger exists in the two or so cases a year which arise while at the same time suppressing so much else in our liberties?
The state is inflicting indignities upon many people which are scarcely bearable. Under the present regime a person can be walking down the street with a dog on a lead. A policeman can approach and say, "What sort of dog is that?" The owner may say, "It is a Staffordshire bull terrier". The policeman says "It looks very much to me like a pit bull terrier". The owner says, "I can assure you that it is not". The policeman replies, "We had better take it away and get the experts to examine it. We shall let you know in due course whether or not we intend to make any charge against you for being in possession of a prohibited animal. I will now phone for a van. Your dog will be arrested. It will be taken away. You will not be told where it is. You will not be given access to it. You will have to wait for weeks and months to hear from us and there is nothing you can do in the meantime". That is outrageous.
I doubt whether the Minister realises what is happening in relation to the impositions being made on the public. Powers of entry, search and arrest exist in connection with the risk of a dog being dangerous. It is a protection of the public against dangerous dogs that
1574
the Government cannot provide for the citizen against dangerous people. If the regime that we are employing for the control and elimination of dangerous dogs were to be applied to human beings, there would be demonstrations of protest, as there were in relation to the Criminal Justice Bill.
Somewhere, some time soon, there must be an examination of the situation, and facts which are not available today must be obtained. The police are a law unto themselves. A person who asks to see a dog that he has not seen for nine months and does not know where it is will receive a letter from the chief constable which says, "It will be tiresome for us to allow you to visit your dog. We will have to transport it under secure conditions for you to see it, and if you will send us a cheque for £120 to cover the expenses, we will arrange for you to see your dog". When one asks what authority there is for that, one is told, "It is part of the police administration". The waste of money which is taking place in this area is quite astonishing. I know that one does not have to economise on justice, but one should economise on injustice. There is no economy on the injustices which are going on at the present time.
While this spirit exists in a considerable section of the community, there can be no health in society. There is a rift in society at the present time between those who have dogs, love them and want them and who believe that they add to the quality of their lives, and those who believe that all dogs should be on a lead and muzzled if taken into a public place.
The Home Office is saddled with the full responsibility for this great amount of trouble. It cannot stand it because it is not equipped to look after it. Who are these people in the Home Office who can provide the experience and the basis of assessment of public rights and police duties and all the rest of it? I should like to know what goes on in the Home Office in these matters. I suggest to the noble Baroness that very soon this Government or any other will have to appoint a committee of inquiry into the workings of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and related matters. I have been trying for years to get the Government interested in a dog control and welfare council.
Let us get to grips with the problem of the canine population and the place of dogs in our society. The Government do not want to touch it. It is another quango. The Minister of State—the predecessor to the noble Baroness—said, "You can have what you like so long as you find the money". How long does one expect a section of the public to stand for this isolation from everybody else? They are undergoing in the name of security and safety of the public treatment at the hands of the state which is quite intolerable.
Balances have to be struck. One cannot protect all the people all the time. Some people are so foolish about children and dogs. The only statistic which I have as regards serious incidents of bites from dogs is that children suffer 50 per cent. of those serious bites. For example, far too much licence is taken with dogs in homes where parents should exercise a great deal more care.

1575
However, I shall have to consult with my friends and see what we do next. We have had a solid brick wall erected tonight against all the representations which we have been making to the noble Baroness. We cannot let things go on as they are. Some time soon we shall have to have the judgment of an independent body which can tell us more than we know and find out more information than the Home Office at the present time is in a position to obtain. The police must come clean. As regards the vital statistics, no central records are kept at all. In some police areas no records are kept of the number or the identity of the dogs they destroy.
All this leaves the end of the debate in a very unsatisfactory state. The noble Baroness must await the judgment of my responsible friends to see where we go from here. In the meantime, I am greatly obliged to the
1576
noble Baroness for the help and trouble that she has been taking lately to get the facts and the Government's viewpoint together. We are nearing the point where a decision of some kind has to be made. I am suggesting that we have not long to go before we must act and get more information in order to look at this matter more realistically and dispassionately.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Bill
Order of commitment discharged.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before ten o'clock.

  Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands: Right of Individual Petition
  Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands: Right of Individual Petition
  Iraq
  Iraq
  Spratly Islands
  Spratly Islands
  M.5 and M.6 Traffic Delays: Costs
  M.5 and M.6 Traffic Delays: Costs
  M.6, Junctions 9 and 10: Traffic Flows
  M.6, Junctions 9 and 10: Traffic Flows
  Birmingham Northern Relief Road and The Western Orbital Route
  Birmingham Northern Relief Road and The Western Orbital Route
  Ponds: Wildlife Protection
  Ponds: Wildlife Protection
  Official Report: Production Costs
  Official Report: Production Costs
  Foods made from Genetically Modified Plants
  Foods made from Genetically Modified Plants
  Non-Human Primates: Use in Scientific Procedures
  Non-Human Primates: Use in Scientific Procedures