Sitting of 8 March 1995

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

Prince's Youth Business Trust
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
10.4 am
Mr. David Shaw: I am grateful to the procedures of the House of Commons for Adjournment debates and for enabling me to obtain this first debate of the morning on the work of the Prince's Youth Business Trust. The trust particularly interests me because I am chairman of the Conservative party's Back-Bench smaller businesses committee, although the comments that I shall make today are not designed to be of a partisan or political nature.
I have also started a small business, and have helped others to start small businesses. For many years, I have passionately believed that this country will succeed not only as a result of large businesses but of enhancing opportunities for people to develop small businesses, which are increasingly being shown to be the future for many people and are, indeed, providing many opportunities for them.
As Members of Parliament, we are privileged to see and learn about many projects designed to help to improve the lives of people in our nation. Some of those projects are not always successful. Indeed, some do not even get off the drawing hoard. Some projects do not always help the people that they are intended to help, and some projects produce short-term benefits and have no lasting long-term impact.
None of those problems applies to the Prince's Youth Business Trust, which has now helped some 25,000 young people to start their own businesses. It has demonstrated success, it has gone from the ideas stage to the achievement stage, and it has shown that its benefits are long-term.
The purpose of my debate is to draw attention to the achievements and success of the Prince's Youth Business Trust, which was started by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales just over 10 years ago as a youth business initiative. It was his Royal Highness's idea, and he has been a very active president who is frequently seen at meetings and exhibitions associated with the trust.
Some may ask why the Prince's Youth Business Trust is necessary. Youth unemployment in this country exists under all Governments, and no Government have succeeded in avoiding the problem. Although the United Kingdom has one of the lowest levels of youth unemployment in Europe, it is still significant, and I hope that all hon. Members will always consider good, new ideas to deal with the problem. There is also an increasing recognition that young people need help to take their first
250
step up the ladder. They need some form of assistance to show them the difference between a life of education or a life, perhaps, of unemployment, and what work entails. The Prince's Youth Business Trust fulfils that role.
One other significant problem of the 1980s and 1990s is that, with more and more global competition and greater demands on British business to be more efficient and effective in its operations, larger companies are growing in size—not by increasing their staff numbers, but by reducing them to become more efficient. Consequently, the growth of companies today often occurs in the capital of the business and not necessarily in staff.
That is not always bad for Britain. Indeed, it is often good for Britain, because it means that our best companies are internationally efficient and competitive. It also means, however, that more and more young people will not necessarily get work in large companies, they will get work in smaller businesses and even start their own small business. Self-employment, which is some 3 million strong in this country, now offers hope of a good future in employment for many young people.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has given way on that very point. Coming from an area where the bulk of people are employed in small businesses, I support him. I pay my own tribute to the Prince's Youth Business Trust, for one of my constituents was one of the national winners this year. I pay tribute to its work in stimulating young people to go forward, when other aids are no longer able to help them.
Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point so well. I know that many hon. Members will be able to say the same sort of thing about the way in which their constituents have won awards. That is a feature of the scheme that encourages more young people to come on, creating the friendly competitive atmosphere in which the businesses develop.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend's important speech on such an important and interesting subject, but will he emphasise the after-care by the Prince's Trust once a business is established, and its unwillingness to prepare a business plan for a young person, so that nobody gets the wrong idea? I believe that that is the point.
Mr. Shaw: As always, my hon. Friend is slightly ahead of the game, and he has raised the very point that I intended to stress. However, it is worth emphasising at every stage in my speech that the after-care and advisory work is a most important feature of the way in which the Prince's Youth Business Trust operates.
I admire tremendously the work of the trust in helping young people to set up their own businesses. The skills that need to be developed to start a business are substantial. Young people also have to face the risks that that involves. Starting a business is not risk-free, and the trust emphasises the risks involved before allowing a young person to proceed with his or her scheme. The entrepreneurial spirit of the country and of those young people who take part is greatly encouraged. The young people also need hard work and dedication, or they will not succeed. At every stage, the trust encourages those qualities to develop.

251
When one goes round the exhibitions and sees many of the young people involved in the trust, one realises that, in a different environment and without the opportunities provided by the trust, those people might not have been able to develop those abilities. I am convinced that some of them have developed a hard-working and dedicated attitude and an entrepreneurial spirit that they did not realise were there within them, which have been released by the work of the trust.
The Prince's Youth Business Trust helps 18 to 29-year-olds who are out of work and disadvantaged—people who, for one of a number of reasons, are finding life tough. Some are living in deprived areas, and in areas where the Government or the European Union provide support in one way or another. Many lack formal education at advanced level, some live in had housing conditions, some come from single-parent families, many have unemployed parents, and others have no family support. The trust makes a special effort to encourage applications from disabled people, from members of ethnic minority communities and from former offenders. The age limit for disabled applicants is 30.
Young people who are to join the trust scheme must all have a viable idea for starting their own business. That is the key—a viable idea. They then have to prepare an acceptable and well worked-through business plan, and must prove that they have the necessary initiative and commitment to make a go of it. As a general rule, they cannot obtain money from other sources, because money is often not available to people in their circumstances—and that is where the trust fills a gap in the financing market.
I shall now go into a little detail for the House, and place on record some of the methods by which the trust operates. First, it operates on sound business principles. There is a tremendous emphasis on sound business practice, and that is a critical aspect of the approach of the trust and its advisers to helping young people.
The trust gives loans of up to about —5,000—although the average loan is as low as £2,000—to people who are setting up or expanding a business, and the money may he used for stock, equipment or working capital. The loans are repayable; money is not written off. For the business, repayment is as follows: for the first six months neither interest nor capital is repaid; in the second six months, there are capital repayments but no interest; in the second year, capital is repaid and interest is charged at 3 per cent; in the third year, full capital and interest at 8 per cent. are paid.
Although most applicants receive loans, the trust sometimes offers grants of up to £1,500 to individuals and up to £3,000 to groups of people who want to start a business. Grants may be used for tools, equipment, transport, fees, insurance or training, but not as working capital or for rent, rates, raw materials or stock.
Since 1991, the trust has been able to give second loans of not more than £5,000 to people under 30 who have already had one loan or grant. Second loans are purely for expansion; they cannot be used to rescue failing operations, for which different help and advice are available.
The fact that second-loan finance is available is an important factor worth bearing in mind, because in my experience of small businesses, all too often those that can
252
fail are the successful ones, because they get carried away with their own success, extend their debtors and end up in serious financial difficulties. All too often in this country, it is the business that has done reasonably well as a start-up business that over-extends itself and may get into serious difficulties, so it is especially interesting that the trust has now recognised the problem, and can now give second-tier finance for expanding businesses.
Another key feature is the fact that test marketing grants are often given to young people who have a good idea but need to do more market research before the idea can he put into practice, or even before it can he determined whether it is viable. Such market research often results in the trust's giving further support for more work even before the business starts.
Much pre-planning is involved, which is especially good and helpful for young people. Careful planning is an essential ingredient. No loan is given without a business plan, which is checked by the trust's pool of experienced business men and women. Market research is encouraged, required, and tested, if possible.
By now, the House will appreciate that the trust needs both staff and finance to do its work. Its operations now extend to the whole of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and north of the border there is a separate Prince's Scottish Youth Business Trust. The trust's work is carried on through 38 area boards, to which young people apply for financial support. I hope that many hon. Members are either in contact with or have spoken to their area boards—I am sure that that is true of most Members who are here today.
Most area managers are either seconded or are trust employees whose costs are funded in whole or in part by donations. Local business people, too, are involved in each area hoard, and there is at least one area manager and sometimes more than one. Invaluable support, either voluntary or donated, comes from companies, training and enterprise councils, local authorities, Government Departments and European funds. I am pleased to say that there is even an area office in my constituency, at Whitfield just outside Dover.
If I may be forgiven for doing so, I shall refer briefly to the problems in my area and to the relevance of the trust in my constituency and in east Kent as a whole.
The area that I represent is suffering from a serious change because of the channel tunnel. Obviously, the ferry industry has become more efficient and effective, but it is expecting considerable competition. There has been a change in the labour market. The larger companies in the area have been shedding labour, and in many cases, for reasons that I have already explained, they have passed their peak in their use of labour.
Many young people who had expected to follow careers similar to those of their parents will not be able to do so. People have been slow to realise that small businesses might fill that gap. That is not surprising, as much of the area has not been used to running small businesses in the past. Therefore, there is an opportunity for something like the Prince's Youth Business Trust to help develop the skills of young people.
Some young people in east Kent have developed skills and taken up loans and grants from the trust, and I pay tribute both to the trust and to those young people for showing entrepreneurial and risk-taking skills.

253
I hosted an exhibition for the trust in the House of Commons some four years ago, and it is with slight sadness that I report that one of the businesses at that exhibition which was founded by someone from my constituency is no longer working and employing in my constituency. The business became so successful that it moved closer to its market in London, and it has set up a successful operation in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner).
My hon. Friend is not here today, but she sends her apologies as she is away on House of Commons business in Europe. The trust has been successful in helping young people in my area, and I look forward to more help in the future for the young people who need the benefits which the trust can bring.
The success rate of the trust in helping businesses is considerable. An independent survey of the trust carried out recently on behalf of the Department of Employment showed that two thirds of businesses were still trading after two to three years. That is an incredible achievement, because it is the reverse of what normally happens.
Normally, two thirds of businesses fail within two to three years of their start-up date. It is quite an achievement for many of the young people who have taken advantage of the trust that their businesses have a greater likelihood of success than the national average for small businesses. Starting a business is risky, and it is good to see that level of success.
The trust's strong performance is particularly interesting when one takes into account the age and background of those it has helped. Many of the young people would not normally have been associated with running a successful business, nor would their background have been the sort from which one would have expected success in business to come. The trust has managed to generate within the United Kingdom the skill and ability which, while clearly present, might not have had an opportunity to grow if the trust had not been in existence.
It is not all had news for those businesses which are no longer trading. Half the people involved in such businesses decided that self-employment was not for them and are now working for other people. The skills and the discipline which those people learned from their work were useful for them in getting work elsewhere.
I am not one for political correctness hut, with a lady Minister on the Front Bench, I should refer to International Women's Day. My wife has taken International Women's Day literally, and she is in America on business at the moment. She is celebrating that day by battling for her bit of business, which I hope will bring benefits to Britain as a result.
One interesting feature to mention on International Women's Day is that the trust has discovered that the women it helps into business have been shown to have a slightly better rate of survival in business than men. Women in businesses helped by the trust seem to be more able to face competition than is often imagined. That shows that what helps women is not so much giving them positive discrimination as making sure that the opportunity is there for them.
The report sponsored by the Department of Employment also shows that the trust is cost-effective and very efficient in terms of the way in which helps businesses and helps people to avoid becoming unemployed and claiming benefit.
254
Businesses do not survive without a solid form of successful experience, which the trust ensures they have. The trust helps young people whether they remain in business or go to work for somebody else's business.
Many people may well ask why the trust's success rate is so good. What is it that especially helps the young people to develop their businesses? What is the trust doing for women in business that they perhaps might not get elsewhere? What is it that helps young people to develop their skills and to take on the risks involved in starting a business?
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) referred to the careful preparations which a young person must make, and to the advice that is available. That is the key to the whole system. A business plan must he prepared in a disciplined manner. Market research must he carried out carefully by a young person into whether his business will be able to sell its products or services. But the one magic and essential ingredient which we have mentioned is the advisers, and it is worth paying tribute to the advisers who help the trust.
The advisers are business men themselves, and they give ongoing help and advice to every trust-supported business. Each person who starts up a business has his own adviser. That adviser is a volunteer who ideally has started his own business, and he will keep a friendly eye on the entrepreneur for a couple years or more. The adviser can call in other expert help if it is necessary. If an adviser does not have the skills which are relevant to a problem, another adviser can be called on.
The trust has about 5,400 advisers, but the current rate of expansion of the businesses which the trust is helping is such that about 2,000 new volunteers are needed every year. One of the big problems is that marketing experts are greatly in demand and, having a father who has been involved in marketing, I am not surprised. One of the UK's weaknesses has been that we have not done enough marketing in the past, and I am delighted that the trust puts an emphasis on encouraging young people to take marketing advice and tries to provide marketing advisers.
The trust is more than just a business trust. It has become the largest business consultancy in the world, but it pays its consultants absolutely nothing. it has been estimated that the trust gives £5 million cf advice free every year to the supported businesses and to the people who created the businesses.
I shall briefly mention some examples of the types of businesses created under the trust. I have visited a number of the regular exhibitions at St James's palace, which the Prince has hosted, at which I have seen a wide variety of businesses. There are often 25 businesses run by young people represented at a typical exhibition, and they cover a wide range of products and services. One common factor which one cannot fail to notice is the tremendous enthusiasm of the young people for businesses which they have created.
The businesses range from fashion concerns to swing-boat operations in fairgrounds, and from those involved in the world of electronics to those who make hand-made pottery. There are a whole host of mobile businesses, including farriers and hairdressers. There have been drystone wall builders and repair firms. There have been businesses dealing with golf clubs, musical instruments, ceramics and gilding. One firm even offers alternative wedding arrangements. There are cake makers and pet food delivery services.

255
The trust proudly claims that it has some unusual businesses, although one wonders what an unusual business is today, which include charcoal burners, sheep pregnancy testing and a firm that tracks underground pipes and cables. There are falconers, a team of high-wire motorcycling experts, and fire-eating jousters. The trust has also supported businesses that teach chess or rock guitar.
The 20,000th young person supported by the Prince's Youth Business Trust was a lady from Sheffield who set up a shiatsu practice. I am looking forward to someone explaining all the details of shiatsu to me. The trust is looking forward to celebrating the 25,000th young recipient of its work, and is well on the way to the 30,000th during the next year or so.
A young man who uses a wheelchair could not find a lightweight and inexpensive model, so he designed his own and started a business. He now has a turnover of £200,000 from selling lightweight, inexpensive wheelchairs.
The businesses have also reached great heights of success and the PYBT has created some millionaires. The first is a Kenyan-born Asian, who is running a garage in Peterborough. His recent turnover approached £750,000 and he has been appointed a member of his area Prince's Youth Business Trust board. His case interests me in particular, because it shows that the trust now has people coming on to its advisory board who have gone through the process and been helped themselves, which means that success is starting to build success. That is one of the key features of getting successful businesses going–one needs the advice and contact with someone who has done it before.
There are numerous award schemes, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said in an intervention, which often have prizes and other methods of encouraging young people to develop businesses. They operate in a friendly and competitive way, which encourages young people to build something really worthwhile and to achieve recognition as a result of the award.
The Reader's Digest recently sponsored the award scheme. One of the more successful businesses is Caring Force, which is run by two ladies in Merseyside, provides a professional mobile care assistant service to the community and employs 35 people. Another award winner is a young man in Lancashire who has developed a universal hand control for disabled drivers. Another is a Nottingham metal-cutting business called Esprit Automation, which has just exported 22 cutting machines to the far east. They are very worthy of an award and of the recognition of hon. Members.
One company peels and packs vegetables for restaurants and hotels. Another person runs a surfing business in Cornwall, and another uses recycled materials to make jewellery and bags and employs 33 people. So there are environmentally friendly businesses, too.
Various businesses and inventions have been well marketed and given considerable support. Apparently, one even sells a particularly ingenious type of cuff link known as Cuffas, and another makes solid fuel briquettes from wood shavings—Dobviously another environmentally friendly business.
256
The markets of the various businesses cover the social spectrum. I gather that one makes hats for society weddings and its hats, and accessories have featured in Vogue and Harpers & Queen magazines. The goods sold by PYBT businesses are on sale around the world and its events department is hard at work organising many exhibitions to promote the products and services. One young engineer—it is nice to hear that manufacturing businesses are being helped as well—has developed a gear invention that is helping to break national and international speed records, although I hope not on our motorways.
The trust has been involved in a successful pilot scheme to help young offenders in custody to prepare and set up businesses when they are released. The first young offenders involved in the scheme are in business–one as a welder and one as a dog groomer–and two ladies who met in prison are running a greetings card business.
The House will by now realise that both conventional and non-conventional businesses are supported. It is also worth noting that minority businesses, people from ethnic minority groups and disabled persons are also given full support. Leaflets for young people wanting to set up businesses have been printed in Urdu, Bengali, Hindi, Punjabi and Gujerati. Considerable emphasis is placed on trying to ensure full equality of opportunity under the PYBT scheme.
About 340 disabled people have been helped to start up in business, which is a substantial percentage compared with those in the economy as a whole. Clearly, that is something that needs support. They have set up a wide variety of businesses and range from landscape gardeners, photographers, remedial therapists, clowns and disability awareness trainers to jewellery designers.
About 95 full and part-time members of staff are paid by the trust. We should pay tribute to their hard work and skills and the effort that they have put in. There are also 49 secondees and 89 funded employees from Government, industry and many large companies. In many instances, the latter have taken a break from their career to support something that they, and the boards of directors of those companies, believe is worth while.
The trust needs to attract at least 40 new secondees a year. I hope that anyone listening to this debate or reading Hansard who is interested will apply to help the trust in its work. It operates under a 95-member advisory council—there is plenty of advice and support.
The PYBT obtains grants and assistance. The Government have given considerable support and the Prince of Wales set up an appeal for about £28 million on his 40th birthday in 1988, which the Government, with all-party support, agreed to match pound for pound. The appeal has depended on donations from the private sector and, despite the problems of the recession, there has been considerable support from that sector because it recognises that the work is worth while.
I understand that the Department of Employment has given about £21 million to the PYBT, which is extremely cost-effective because the Department is paying about £2,500 per person helped. That money is forthcoming only if the young entrepreneur is still trading 15 months after being given the original PYBT loan or grant. A second condition is that the trust must raise funds from other sources. The demands put on the trust by the

257
Employment Department are therefore reasonable and effective, and encourage success. They also encourage the trust to demonstrate that it is succeeding.
There are many people to be helped out there, and, as limits on resources enable the trust to help only about 5,000 a year, there is probably a need for additional finance, but I stress to my hon. Friend the Minister that the purpose of my debate was not to press for more funds. We did not feel that that was appropriate today, although I am sure that my hon. Friend will have inferred from what I have said that I would certainly not be unhappy if the Ministry delivered more funds or resources in this instance. As a chartered accountant and member of the Conservative finance committee, I do not like to see money wasted in the public sector.
Without making a strong demand for more funds from the Government, one can say that considerable evidence shows that the trust is an effective way of helping young people. It is effective in terms of both cost and quality of output.
By emphasising the value for money that the trust is producing, the large number of young people who are helped, the many benefits to members in a wide variety of constituencies, and the future opportunities for young people, I hope that I have given the House a flavour of the real benefits which the scheme brings to the country. Many young people will be better off as a result of the trust, and many other people will benefit as a result of the solid business base that is being developed from work that it carries out.
10.40 am
Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) for raising this subject. My researcher tells me that we have never had a debate on the Prince's Youth Business Trust and that it has been mentioned only once in a written question. That is odd and sad, but I hope that we shall correct it today.
May I say at the outset that hon. Members are united by the fact that your immediate predecessor, Madam Speaker, since stepping down from his job as Speaker of this House, has become involved in the trust. The House, and especially hon. Members in the Chamber today, therefore can all feel associated with the initiative.
The hon. Member for Dover raised this topic not to ask for something but to tell the House how extremely good the scheme is. I want to share that main message with him, although at the end of my brief speech I shall express my real concern about the trust's ability to do as it wants in south London, given the circumstances in that area.
I am glad to have an opportunity to speak for two reasons: first, because in my parliamentary party's team I am responsible for looking after the interests of young people, urban and looking after urban issues; and, secondly, because my constituency has one of the highest unemployment rates in the United Kingdom.
It is no pleasure to have a constituency with the fourth highest rate of unemployment in Great Britain and the fifth highest in the UK—west Belfast has a higher unemployment rate—with 7,500 people unemployed. According to the latest figures, male unemployment is 28.5 per cent.; female unemployment is 12.8 per cent.; and the average rate is 28.1 per cent.
258
So anyone who gives unemployed people, particularly the young, an opportunity to be employed, engaged, resourceful and independent is extremely welcome and hugely necessary. About 1 million young people in the age group which we are discussing are currently registered unemployed, so the potential for helping people who need such initiatives is huge.
The hon. Member for Dover gave some figures, and I shall try not to repeat much of what he said. But the figures he gave are extraordinary: the trust has helped some 23,000 people in 18,000 newly formed businesses, two thirds of which are still trading. Compared with the normal fall-out rate among small businesses, that figure is exceptional, if not unique.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the fact that the money is given in loans or grants, and that advice is given free of charge by experienced business people—advice is given at the beginning and advisers remain available to the young people—appears to make the trust the biggest business consultancy of its type in the world. The fact that the aid and assistance is free is extraordinary.
I am sure that the trust would not mind if the debate served to tell a few people out there who might he interested in being advisors to come and join it, so I am happy to plug for more advisers: please contact the main office. In a second, I shall be as crude about telling people how to contact the trust, because we are here to promote a good thing.
I am much more "wised up" on the trust than I was a year ago, not because I was not aware of the trust before, but because the trust has recently made a particular effort to communicate to hon. Members. Initiatives have been made here and in another place.
I was among hon. Members from both sides of the House invited to Buckingham Palace in December by the Prince of Wales to be briefed on his trusts' work. That briefing helped to explain the complication that there is a family of prince's trusts, of which the youth business trust is only one. It is important to clarify that point. The trust that we are discussing, which is for business start-up, covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and a similar trust exists for Scotland.
I pay tribute to the fact that the Prince of Wales has taken initiatives to set up organisations that reach out to and work with those in the community for whom extra help, support, advice and finance can make all the difference. May I list the whole family of prince's trusts so that it is clearly on the record? It comprises the Prince's Trust and Royal Jubilee Trusts; the Prince of Wales's Advisory Group on Disability; the Prince's Trust Volunteers; the Prince's Scottish Youth Business Trust, which is the sister organisation to the Prince's Youth Business Trust; the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum; Business in the Community; Scottish Business in the Community; and the Prince of Wales's Committee.
I shall now make a crude plug for the Prince's Youth Business Trust. People can express their interest to area boards, but the trust's address is 5, Cleveland place, London SW1. The telephone and minicom number is 0171 925 2900, and the fax number is 071 839 6494. Cleveland place is at the back of St. James's square. If anyone thinks that that is a posh address, as it is, the area board addresses are often much less posh. In any case, people have only to telephone.

259
Another interesting statistic is that the third of businesses which are not still trading have not necessarily failed. Half of those involved in them have decided to opt for self-employment, and the trust has therefore acted as a stepping stone. Another good aspect is that the trust operates as a last resort. That may not happen in every case, as it is not perfect, but it seeks to help when people have been turned down by banks and cannot get going with help from elsewhere.
It is a bit like going to the European Court, in that one must exhaust the domestic remedies first. People must have exhausted their normal financial possibilities first. The trust also sets the precondition that beneficiaries are not from well-off backgrounds, and that resources, buildings and training schemes would not normally be available to potential beneficiaries.
The figures relating to beneficiaries are telling. A pie chart in the last report shows that 9 per cent. of those helped were young offenders; 10 per cent. were from ethnic minority backgrounds; and 5 per cent. were young disabled people. Those are all above-average percentages.
The chart also shows that 41 per cent. of those helped were female. Although not half, that figure is good, given how often such schemes are skewed in favour of males. Moreover, no area of the country gets much less than 5 per cent. of the money—Northern Ireland gets 4.8 per cent. The area that received most was the north-west, so funds are not metropolis-centred either.
Interestingly, in passing, we are talking about what the hon. Member for Dover rightly says is the main area of business in our society. I gather that 90 per cent. of businesses in our country–as the Minister must know better than I–employ fewer than 10 people, and 70 per cent. employ fewer than five people. Small businesses are what Britain is about. For whatever reason, the age of coal mines and docks is past.
It is good that we produce vibrant earners and vibrant survivors. It is important to ensure that young men and women–I pay particular tribute to the latter on International Women's Day–have the skills to be part of the work force, to earn for themselves and to earn for Britain.
The Government have been helpful. They have, I think, said that they are paying £2,500 a person, up to a total of £10 million, for three years, starting this year, but only if the person continues to trade after 15 months, and there must be matching funds. I hope that that will be sustained and never reduced. As the hon. Member for Dover said, more money would be welcome.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Dover mentioned that another good deal was recently secured with the clearing banks—the "Banks Directory". They will match other funds for the hest businesses, on preferential interest rates. That means that those businesses may be moved to the support of the banks, releasing Prince's Youth Business trust moneys to work with other people. That is very good news.
I have witnessed the work on the ground, as others have. I visited, like Jeremy White, chief executive of the trust, the firm that features pictorially in the most recent annual report. That firm is imaginatively called Michenuels, named after the three lads who are the partners—Miguel, Henroy and Michael, whom we met.
260
They are furniture makers and restorers. They had done some work; they were unemployed; they had come together and were now restoring furniture.
They were in a little estate business start-up unit on the borders of my constituency, on the Deptford-Bermondsey border. They seek more premises. They want to obtain premises on the main road, so that they can sell their wares. They are enthusiastic, vibrant, go-ahead and ready to storm the world. If anyone has any furniture that they need restoring, they should go to Michenuels, because they will do a good job. That is exactly the type of business that we should be interested in.
I shall now mention local circumstances and make my specific request to the Minister. In south London, 40 per cent. of new businesses are started by members of the ethnic minority community, and I am told that 33 new businesses have been set up in or near my constituency by the Prince's Youth Business trust. I am told that south London will receive £62,000 from the trust this year in grants and £250,000 in loans. Good money is entering an area with one of the highest unemployment rates in Britain.
Madam Speaker, you know as well as anyone that one should never write off a district simply because it has traditionally suffered from high unemployment. People living in such districts are not less skilled or less talented. By contrast, one probably needs to be more streetwise, bright, sharp-eyed and bushy-tailed if one lives in a grotty estate in the middle of south London, or Liverpool, Leeds or Bradford, than if one lives on the white cliffs of Dover, looking out over lovely views. If the success rate in south London is that more than 80 per cent. of PYBT businesses continue to trade after three months, and more than 60 per cent. are still going after three years, that is good news indeed.
The Prince's Youth Business trust relies heavily on business start-up schemes, and business start-up courses run by the local enterprise agencies are the precondition to that working. Young people, when they are in the scheme, also need the enterprise allowance money—that is the way in which they fund themselves, so that they are supported for what is now six months and was 12 months.
There is a significant worry that enterprise allowance might be removed—I flag that up. If it is, it will pull the rug from under the scheme altogether. I say to the Minister: please may we have a guarantee today, or will she speak to her colleagues and give a guarantee later, that, as long as the present Government are in office, the enterprise allowance will not be removed?
The immediate additional problem is that, since the South Thames training and enterprise council went into liquidation at the end of December 1994, no one can claim enterprise allowance in the South Thames TEC area, and there are no business start-up courses. Suddenly, because the TEC was the servicing agency, there is a closed door. There is no way in, and that is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that the Prince's Youth Business trust, the door to opportunity for many people, is closed as a result of the way in which Government and the TEC have been sorting out their business.
I initiated, and we have had, an Adjournment debate, thanks to you, Madam Speaker, about the South Thames TEC, but that matter must be sorted out soon. The people knocking at the PYBT door in south London are now not receiving an answer, because the TEC is not there.

261
My last general request to the Minister is, will she please not only sort that out so that we may get into the slipstream again, but also put money back into TECs? Cutting TEC funding–—137 million was cut last year—is bad news, because it reduces enterprise allowance and reduces business start-up schemes. I repeat my specific request to the Minister; will she please not leave south London as the one area of the country that, because our TEC has folded, is unable to benefit?
I end with a quote from the boss, which he wrote in the forward to this year's annual report. The Prince of Wales said:
"Helping just one person to start their own business, thus taking them off unemployment benefit, saves the country thousands of pounds each year. But the benefits of our work go far beyond the merely financial. As I often see, starting a business not only restores the self-confidence of the individual, but can also play a part in helping to shore up the fabric of the community in which they live and work."
I hope that we can all say amen to that.
I say to the hon. Member for Dover, the debate is welcome. I hope that the whole country gets the message, and that many more young people hear about the scheme as a result of his initiative and, Madam Speaker, your choice today.
10.55 am
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: It is a pleasure to he able to contribute to the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on securing a debate on such an important and interesting subject.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover takes a keen interest in small businesses, and especially venture capital activities. As has been mentioned, he will be well aware that few venture capital businesses in the traditional sense can boast a success rate approaching that of the Prince's Youth Business trust. Of course, traditional venture capitalists charge enormously high rates of return on their investments, and the charity that we are talking about does it for nothing. There is a tremendous lesson to be learned from that alone.
We have in the Prince's Youth Business trust an excellent example of what can be done to stimulate economic activity, to create jobs and to give people a sense of purpose. I know that all Members who will contribute to the debate will echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Dover said.
It is not simply an economic benefit, although the economic benefit is important, that the trust helps to achieve. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover has said–this was echoed by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)–that small businesses are the backbone of economic activity in the country. Anything we can do to stimulate the creation and development of smaller businesses must be good news for the economy and for jobs.
We have a lower rate of unemployment for people between the ages of 18 and 25
in this country than is the case in many other countries in the European Community, but at 14 per cent. it is still too high. I have no doubt that one of the reasons why we have a lower rate than, for example, Spain, where the rate is 38 per cent., is the existence of schemes such as the one that we are discussing—imaginative schemes, designed to tackle the problem specifically and creatively.
262
This excellent trust does a huge amount of work to bring hope and purpose and to offer opportunity to those whose talents would frequently otherwise be wasted. I notice also that it is an efficient organisation, and that the Department for Employment last year gave the trust the accolade of saying that it was the most cost-effective job creation programme in the country. The trust can he proud of that.
The trust is also an excellent example of partnership in action. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover mentioned the various agencies—the local authorities, the training and enterprise councils, Government Departments of course, and the the European Union—which co-operate with the private sector to make it all happen. Obviously, central Government funding has been vital and welcome. I think I am right in saying that £20 million of central Government funding has been applied to the trust since its inception, and, as we know, a new arrangement has been put in place for the next three years, which will add another £10 million to what has been spent.
The success of the scheme depends crucially on the commitment of people and companies in the private sector, who are prepared to lend their time and expertise and give willingly to help young people to set up in business. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover pointed out that it is estimated that that assistance alone is worth about £5 million per year.
Three years ago, Robert Darrell started a business under the scheme with a £5,000 loan. His business now turns over £2.4 million per year and he believes:
"The advisers provided by the Trust are as valuable as the loan".
I think that that is absolutely correct.
The scheme has caught the imagination of businesses in Surrey to such an extent that the clarion call by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey to the private sector to become involved in the scheme is somewhat otiose. Until recently, a superfluity of business people wished to offer their help for free, but unfortunately their number was not matched by people wishing to participate in the scheme.
The hon. Gentleman, who spoke eloquently about the problems in his constituency, smiles wryly. It is true that, thankfully, Surrey does not suffer the same sorts of problems as his constituency. However, that is not to say that individuals do not need help. I hope that they will come forward and take advantage of the scheme.
It is in keeping with the spirit of the trust that, faced with the situation chat I have described in Surrey, instead of sitting around and doing nothing, advisers have gone into the community to encourage people to come forward with ideas for developing their businesses. To that end, a roadshow will be held in Caterham in my constituency this Friday. I look forward to attending it, and I hope that it is enormously successful.
Mr. Simon Hughes: If there are spare advisers in Surrey, they could travel to areas where there are not enough advisers to talk to the people there. They will be more than welcome in south London.
Mr. Ainsworth: I will certainly convey the hon. Gentleman's message to the advisers in Surrey. Bermondsey is not that far away, and I hope that something will come of his suggestion.

263
Every hon. Member has his or her favourite scheme, and a few from the Surrey area have caught my imagination. One involves a young man with cerebral palsy, who, with the help of the trust, has established a business duplicating musical cassettes. I am assured that that is not a breach of copyright, and that it is perfectly legal. That business is extremely successful, and it has given that young man access to a whole new field of activity, which would otherwise have remained closed to him.
Perhaps a more spectacular example is that of the young man from Kingston who, four years ago, visited his mother in hospital. He found that, like many people who are in hospital for any length of time, she was becoming very bored, and he brought a television to the hospital for her to use. That gave him an idea, and, with the help of the trust, he set up a company called Hospital Entertainment, which rents televisions to hospitals. The company has done extremely well, and it now turns over £750,000 per year. It recently acquired a subsidiary of Thorn EMI, which specialises in similar activities.
Less well known is the growing success of the trust abroad. Through Youth Enterprise Service International, the Prince's Youth Business Trust is exporting its expertise and its ideas to several countries, notably India and Hungary. I am happy to say that that enterprise is backed by the Foreign Office with money from the Overseas Development Administration programme.
The trust's activities are not only good news economically and socially—they fulfil an important social function which was perhaps the original idea behind the trust—but also an example of a great British idea which is being applied successfully overseas. I think that we should all be proud of that.
It is hard to think of a better idea. The trust is not the biggest charity in Britain, but it is targeted very carefully. It is difficult to think of any charity—particularly one associated with the unemployed—which has such a rewarding and beneficial effect on those who become involved with it. The trust's advantages are summed up by a member of the Surrey Prince's Youth Business Trust board, who said:
"The Trust does so much to get young people doing things for themselves; and even if their businesses just potter along and they don't do much with them and eventually move on, they have so much more to offer prospective employers as a result of their experience".
The beneficiaries of the trust, the people they employ subsequently and every hon. Member have cause to be grateful to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales for having the idea in the first place, and to all those who give of their time, energy and effort to ensure that the scheme is a success. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover for giving the House the opportunity to put on record its appreciation for the tremendous work of the Prince's Youth Business Trust. I wish the trust every success in the future.
11.5 am
Mr. Kevin Barron: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on his success in the ballot, and on introducing this morning's debate on the Prince's Youth Business Trust. I think that everyone agrees that the trust has done very valuable work over the
264
years in helping young unemployed people into self-employment. Most of the people the trust supports are in their twenties and have been unemployed for a considerable time.
The hon. Member for Dover referred to a survey conducted by the Department of Employment to gauge the trust's success rate. It found that more than two thirds of businesses created under the scheme are still operating three years later. That is a better success rate than that of most of the high street banks, which in most cases turned down those ideas in the first place. It makes one wonder about the ability of those who are running our banking system to gauge individuals' potential to contribute to economic growth.
Some 3,000 young people have benefited from the scheme in the last 12 months. As it is International Women's Day, I point out that 40 per cent. of that number were women, and I am pleased to say that that includes some of my constituents. About 24,000 people have taken advantage of the trust since its inception. That figure relates roughly to the number of long-term young unemployed people in Yorkshire, Humberside and the east Midlands. That gives us some idea of how much assistance the trust has provided.
The average cost to the Prince's Youth Business Trust of creating a job is £2,500, which is less than a third of the cost of keeping one unemployed person for a year. Clearly, in that context the trust is a major success. That cost pales into insignificance when compared with the cost of inward investment through regional selective assistance, and it shows how the country has benefited from that type of scheme.
I visited the Prince's Youth Business Trust exhibition marquee at the Rotherham show last year as a guest of the South Yorkshire region, and I was greatly impressed by the types of products on display.
I spoke to a man named Frank White, who started a business called Busy Bees in May 1991 after having been unemployed for 10 years. The business, which is run from the Westfield road craft park in Rotherham, makes garden ornaments. What I found most amazing about the company is that between 60 and 80 per cent. of its output, depending on the season, is exported to the United States of America.
Mr. White exports garden ornaments in the guise of alligators to America. They are constructed in three sections and are most impressive, although I would not want to have one in my garden. Mr. White is a success not only for himself, but also for the country and the local economy, because he employs two people in his business.
Since its inception in South Yorkshire, more than 700 people have benefited from the trust's work. In 1994, the trust helped 16 young people to start up 13 businesses in my constituency. Those businesses range from a mobile beauty therapist to tachograph services, and from a manufacturer of jewellery to a delicatessen in the village of Thurcroft. In the latter two cases, the individuals concerned had been out of work for 18 months, so that shows how successful the trust has been in combatting long-term youth unemployment in the area.
I welcome the fact that the Department of Employment now matches the donations that the trust receives from private sources. It is my understanding that, if private funding is raised, the money from the Government now represents about 20 per cent. of the trust's total funding.

265
Echoing what has been said by all hon. Members this morning, I very much hope that the Government's commitment will continue after the current end date of 1996.
I should also mention that the Government are a taker as well as a giver, for they have removed an important method of potential support for participants in the Prince's Youth Business Trust in recent months. I refer to the business start-up allowance that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. That problem has not arisen in his constituency, simply because the South London TEC has gone into liquidation. The Government have moved money away from supporting self-employment for the previously unemployed by that method.
When the business start-up allowance replaced the enterprise allowance scheme, a large number of unemployed people were dropped from the system, despite the fact that the "£1,000 of own capital" rule was removed.
In 1984, more than a quarter of those receiving the enterprise allowance had been out of work for a year or more and all were unemployed. By the first year of business start-up, just one in 10 of those receiving the allowance had been long-term unemployed, and a quarter of the people on the scheme were not classified as unemployed.
The withdrawal of the business start-up scheme as a nationally available measure is a distinct threat to the ability of the Prince's Youth Business Trust to perform effectively. That is not an idle remark. In South Yorkshire, for example, the effects of losing the business start-up allowance are already being felt.
In the past, applicants had been able to claim a business start-up allowance of £35 a week for the first year of trading. The South Yorkshire area manager, Mr. David Houghton, wrote to me recently:
"We have been informed by the TECs in south Yorkshire that"
the allowance
"is now being withdrawn this month and not being replaced. Our information is that enterprise allowance is disappearing nationally except for a couple of areas in the North East.".
He continued:
"In my view I believe that the removal of the … allowance will dramatically affect the number of people we help and we are already seeing signs of this in South Yorkshire. Throughout the last year the South Yorkshire Board have considered between 12 and 16 businesses each month, but in February 1995 only eight businesses were helped and this month possibly only five or six are being put forward.".
The impact of the Government's ending of the start-up allowance is giving some early warning signs to the South Yorkshire manager of the Prince's Youth Business Trust. If that is a reflection of the future, we shall have to reconsider the position.
A great percentage of the people the trust helps have been unemployed for six months or more, and have no collateral, so the guaranteed business start-up allowance of £35 a week was vital to them. It made the difference between taking the risk of trying to improve their standard of living and continuing to live on state benefits.
I know that there is common agreement about state benefits. Certainly, people with young children find it difficult to get into any work, let alone self-employment. The experience of the Prince's Youth Business Trust is
266
that, in the first few months of trading, the businesses rely on the £35 a week while they build up sales and a customer base.
My local area manager continued in his letter:
"If these unemployed young people lose their initiative due to the curtailment of the allowance they will miss the opportunity the Trust gives them at a relatively low cost to become self-employed and will possibly remain unemployed at a yearly cost of thousands of pounds to the state.".
That cannot be right. The Government must put in place some alternative business encouragement measures to replace what we are about to lose or are losing.
The bottom line is that there is there is no real money on the table to encourage young unemployed people to start their own businesses. There is plenty of advice and training, but no hard cash. The cushion provided by the business start-up allowance has gone and the allowance itself has been subsumed into the general funds of the single regeneration budget.
My own borough, Rotherham, was successful in its bid for the single regeneration budget. I was looking at the submission and the outcome only yesterday. However, the only thing on offer under the single regeneration budget in Rotherham is advice to people who are already getting that advice through the Prince's Youth Business Trust. Under the circumstances, it seems that the allowance is being withdrawn without being replaced.
We have to ensure that such a cavalier attitude does not damage the operation of the Prince's Youth Business Trust. It is vital for the growth of local economies, and I hope that the Government will look hard at the possible consequences of the withdrawal of the business start-up allowance.
My own borough has only half the national average for self-employed people—the figure is only 4 per cent. I am clear in my mind that there is a great deal of scope for the growth of self-employment as a means of getting rid of long-term unemployed in my constituency, but it will not happen if people cannot get the assistance they have had in the past.
In the next few weeks, I hope that the Government will look hard at the results from the Prince's Youth Business Trust about how many start-ups are occurring, and if the withdrawal of business start-up allowance from long-term unemployed people has created a problem for the trust, I hope that the Government take measures to remedy it. Like everybody else, I am sure that they would like the trust to go from strength to strength in its work for our young people in the economy.
11.17 am
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on obtaining the debate, and on raising the important matters that we have been discussing. He was quite right to draw attention to his own track record of support for small businesses which is well recognised in the House, and on which he also deserves to be congratulated.
I was interested to hear from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that today is an unique occasion, and that we have not discussed the Prince's Youth Business Trust before. I hope that we will not leave it quite so long in future before we return to such an important subject.

267
I think that the interest caused by the business trust was exemplified by the number of hon. Members who have been present in the Chamber during the debate. I mention in particular the hon. Member for Belfast South (Rev. Martin Smyth), my hon. Friends the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), and the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon). I now see my hon. Friends the Members for Finchley (Mr. Booth) and for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). It is a tribute to the Prince's Youth Business Trust that so many hon. Members are present this morning to hear about its excellent work and to pay their own tributes to it.
Certainly, the PYBT carries out excellent work in helping disadvantaged young people to enter self-employment and set up their own businesses. Today's debate provides us all with a welcome opportunity to publicise that work.
The trust was founded in 1986. Since then, it has helped some 25,000 young people to set up or expand more than 19.000 businesses. It does that, as we have heard during the debate, through providing grants or loans and in particular through its volunteer network of business advisers. Those advisers are assigned to particular young people and act as mentors, giving help or advice for a couple of years or so.
I find it very heartening that there are currently some 4,500 volunteers, most of whom have themselves started businesses. They therefore know exactly what is involved, and are prepared to give young people the benefit of their time and expertise. More than 2,000 volunteers are needed each year to keep up the momentum, and I understand that the Prince of Wales recently wrote to every existing adviser asking him or her to recruit another volunteer. I wish the trust every success in that campaign.
As has been acknowledged today, we in the Government are extremely supportive of the trust's work. Indeed, we have provided substantial financial help over the years. In November 1988, on his 40th birthday, the Prince of Wales launched an appeal to raise £40 million from the private sector, and the then Secretary of State for Employment, Lord Young, promised to match that pound for pound. So far, we have given some £21 million in accordance with that promise, and our total maximum commitment currently stands at £31 million.
More recently, in March last year, we agreed to provide further funds focused on the more disadvantaged, especially the long-term unemployed and the disabled. Our maximum commitment over the next three years is £10 million, as has already been pointed out. That includes welcome contributions from the Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices.
Our contributions are designed to help the PYBT to maximise the funds it receives front the private sector. Both the schemes, which run alongside each other, are paid only on a matched-fund basis, pound for pound. At the trust's suggestion, the new scheme is also output-related: we pay £2,500 for each young person who is recruited and who survives for 15 months in business, which demonstrates the confidence that both the trust and the Government have in those young people. All that helps the trust to raise substantial private sector contributions to the cost of its work.
Mr. Hartley Booth: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the interaction between the House of Commons and the trust. Is she aware that, last year, the Prince and his trust helped an all-party project known as "Return Ticket"? Long-term unemployed people were sent 30,000 hooks to give them hope, which has been afforded not least by the success stories emanating from the trust.
Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful both for my hon. Friend's interest in the trust and for his reminder of that important initiative.
The free advice that the trust gives each year is estimated to be worth about £30 million. Because of the leverage that our funds ensure, it hopes to double the number of young people that it supports as a result of the new scheme.
I am delighted to say that our research suggests that the young people who start businesses generally go on to set up thriving concerns: two thirds are still in business after two to three years, and a high proportion of those who sadly cease trading say that their experience with the PYBT has helped significantly to make it easier for them to find employment—or, indeed, to continue in some other form of self-employment.
I pay particular tribute to the work that the trust does in Kent, not least because I was recently privileged to go to a reception for young people who had set up businesses. I particularly remember a young man called Andrew Harsley, who had founded a very successful business making cable ties—perhaps because he was kind enough to give me a bunch of flowers tied up with one of his cable ties. I thought that that was a very nice gesture, and I wanted to put it on record and thank Mr. Harsley today.
The sheer diversity of the trust's businesses is amazing. They include both the more obvious concerns such as fashion, hairdressing and manufacturing, and unusual businesses such as sheep pregnancy testing, pet food delivery services and surfing. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have given many examples of specific initiatives, and paid tribute to them.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made an important contribution to the debate. He mentioned the fall-out from the circumstances of the South Thames training and enterprise council. As he will know, we are arranging for the TEC's functions to be taken over, but as a result of what he has said today I shall find out what specific arrangements have been made in relation to the PYBT and write to him as soon as I can.
I hope that the hon. Member will take that as an indication of the seriousness with which the Government view the trust, and our awareness of the importance of maintaining continuity. I take the hon. Gentleman's point: continuity is all, especially in the early stages.
The speech of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) was unusually emollient, which is in itself a tribute to the trust. It clearly has considerable appeal for all parties in the House. I do not think, however, that the hon. Gentleman's portrayal of our treatment of the business start-up scheme was altogether fair. He implied that it had been withdrawn. Our evaluation in 1991 suggested that some 80 per cent. of PYBT-supported businesses were in receipt of business start-up allowances, which did of course tend to increase unit costs from the Government's perspective.

269
The funds from the business start-up scheme have been transferred to the single regeneration budget, but that does not mean that they have been withdrawn. The budget will directly support some 18,000 new businesses in 1995-96; moreover, all projects supported by it will tend to help new businesses.
Mr. Barron: Is the Minister saying that the transfer of the money to the single regeneration budget will give those who benefit from the trust's work a weekly allowance for the first 12 months of the existence of their businesses?
Miss Widdecombe: I am saying that it is wrong to suggest that the fact that the business start-up scheme now functions as part of the single regeneration budgets means that it has ceased to function at all.
Some £40 million will be available in 1996–97 for the second round of bidding. That will build up to £200 million in the following year. Provision for the single regeneration budget over the next three years accounts for a substantial sum, of which more than £800 million will be provided for new projects.
It is for local partnerships to decide what priority to give to small business support. There is plenty of scope for the PYBT, and for other concerns, to work with local partners, as it is already doing in many parts of the country. I do not share the rather gloomy view of the hon. Member for Rother Valley: The change in procedures does not mean that we are any less committed to looking after small businesses.
Let me again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, and also congratulate the trust on the diversity of its work. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey pointed out, many women, disabled people and ethnic minorities have benefited from that work. The trust's scope is wide, encompassing both rural and urban areas, and the contribution that it makes, not only to the well-being and the economic prosperity of young people but to the well-being and the economic prosperity of the country is well worthy of the recognition that it has received today.

Women's Wages
11.29 am
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Today is International Women's Day and it is right to celebrate that with a debate about an issue that is dear to the hearts of many women, who comprise 51 per cent. of the people of this country. It is worth saying at the outset that there arc at least 4 million low-paid women in this country. We define low pay as being below two thirds of the male median earnings.
That is not an insignificant number. Divided equally, on a geographical basis, it would mean that there are 6,000 low-paid women in every constituency in the United Kingdom. However, the geographical distribution of low pay is not completely even. In inner London, only 18 per cent. of women are low-paid, while in west Yorkshire the figure is 58 per cent.—a much higher figure. East Anglia, the part of the world that I represent, is often seen as more prosperous, but in fact 54 per cent. of women in East Anglia are low paid. That is perhaps a surprising figure, but East Anglia has low-paid employment in agriculture, hotel and catering, cleaning, the health service, social services, and many other jobs traditionally done by women.
Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Lady is saying that women earn less in certain parts of the country than in others. She is also a well-known supporter of the national minimum wage. If the national minimum wage were introduced, would there be a regional differences in the minimum wage?
Mrs. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point that I was making. I said that the distribution of low pay was different in different regions. I will come to the minimum wage later. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait until I reach that point.
One of the rather surprising things—or perhaps it is not so surprising, given the national situation—is that in Cambridge and the surrounding areas there is a great deal of high-tech industry, but although people working in those industries are often highly paid, on the whole women are not benefiting from that high-tech industry which has grown so successfully in and around Cambridge over the past 15 years. I am pleased to say, however, that Doctor Elizabeth Garnsey of the Judge Institute in Cambridge is embarking on a study to determine why so few women are employed in the high-tech industries in the Cambridge region. It will be interesting to see the results of that study.
Much of the ground was covered in yesterday's debate, when Ministers and Conservative Members spent a great deal of time telling us of the tremendous improvements that had been made, and it is true that for some women life has got better over the past few years. There are more women in professional jobs, there are more women at the top of their professions and there are more women Members of Parliament, but that has not been achieved as a result of Government policies; it has been achieved despite the Conservative Government.
A good way of illustrating that is to look at how the number of women Members of Parliament has increased. It has increased because the Labour party has taken positive steps to improve the chances for women in our

271
party, and we are continuing to take those steps, which bring nothing but criticism and carping from Conservative Members.
Ms Angela Eagle: We all welcome the increase in the numbers of women who manage to rise to the top of their professions, but does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that just 5 per cent. of professors in higher education and 6 per cent. of QCs and High Court judges are women is not exactly a startling achievement as we approach the end of the 20th century?
Mrs. Campbell: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Although some progress has been made, the situation is far from satisfactory and certainly does not merit the kind of complacency that we have seen from Front-Bench Conservative Members.
Ms Jean Corston: My hon. Friend referred to the Labour party's determined efforts to ensure that our electoral representation in the House reflects Great Britain, where half the population is female. Does she not find the schizophrenia of Conservative Members
on this issue fascinating when they attack—[Interruption.]—and laugh at the fact that the Labour party has quotas for women but fail to acknowledge that the deputy chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold), is frequently given permission to be away from the House to try to persuade constituency associations to comply with the Conservative party's target of 50 per cent for women candidates? Is not the only difference the fact that the Labour party is serious about it and the Conservatives are willing, the means?
Mrs. Campbell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Conservatives are trying to improve on their 63 women candidates in the past election compared with Labour's 138.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Even hon. Ladies must take their scats. The debate is about wage levels for women. It is not really about party politics and which party has which candidates.
Mrs. Campbell: As women Members of Parliament are perhaps more highly paid than other women, an increase in their numbers will help in a small way to raise wage levels for women.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hor. Lady give way?
Mrs. Campbell: Perhaps the hon. Lady will wait until I have made a further point.
If we define low pay as less than two thirds of a full-time median wage—not just men's wages, but taking men and women's wages together—we can compare ourselves with our European partners.
Mr. Richard Spring: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Campbell: Not at the moment.
In Belgium, for example, which has clear minimum wage legislation, less than 5 per cent. of women come into the category of low-paid. In the Netherlands, which
272
also has minimum wage legislation, although perhaps not quite so good, only I I per cent. of women come within the definition of low-paid. In Ireland, however, the figure rises dramatically to 18 per cent., in Spain it is 19 per cent. and the UK tops the European Union tree with 20 per cent. That says something important about the effect of a minimum wage on low pay for women.
Mr. Spring: Will the hon. Lady specify what she is saying in quantitative terms? She has defined low pay as being two thirds of male median earnings. What are male median earnings in quantitative terms? Unless we know that figure, talking about low pay and linking it with some kind of poverty makes no sense whatever.
Mrs. Campbell: I have the figures and I can inform the hon. Gentleman that, according to the 1994 wages survey, male median earnings were around £300 per week, so two thirds of male median earnings is a little over £200 a week. The hon. Gentleman can find those figures quite easily if he would like to look them up. In the last case, I was talking about two thirds of the full-time median wage, taking both men's and women's pay together.
Yesterday the Trades Union Congress launched a new document, "The New Divide". It is a study of the pay of part-time workers. The TUC says something that is important for us all to take on hoard, and we should celebrate the contribution that part-time workers make to the economy. Many men and women want to work part time because of family responsibilities, others perhaps want to study at the same time or they may be caring for elderly parents. There are all sorts of reasons why people want to work part time. We should encourage that if it is what people want to do. But why should part-time work mean low pay and worse conditions than those of people in full-time employment?
It is shocking that half a million part-time workers, mainly women, earn less than £2.49 an hour. That is disgraceful, and it is an indictment of the Government's complete lack of policy on ea nings and incomes. Many workers earn less than the national insurance threshold, which is currently £57 per week. Those workers not only take home low pay but lose a number of contributory benefits, especially pensions, so those who are poor at work tend to be poor in old age as well.
In the context of social justice, it is obviously important for part-time workers to be treated in the same way as full-time workers. With more people choosing to work part time, it is becoming more essential to treat people equally. The Government have an appalling record and have continually tried to block part-time workers' rights. Following the House of Lords ruling in March 1994 that the Government were acting illegally in denying employment rights to part-time workers, in December last year the Government were forced to give equal rights to part-timers.
The Secretary of State for Employment last year blocked European directives on parental leave which would have been of enormous help to men and women in employment. That now has to be introduced under the social protocol, which excludes the UK and means that our workers are not able to benefit from it.
The Equal Opportunities Commission has produced a good report on low pay and women. The report identifies that low pay is associated with having children and/or caring responsibilities and having a part-time job. I can

273
illustrate how that affects ordinary people from the letters of one of my constituents. She is a highly qualified woman with a degree in microbiology. In her letter to me she describes how she had worked while living with the father of her two children. He became violent and threw her out. As a single parent she was able to draw £600 a month in benefit.
However, when she tried to go back to her job, which was quite well paid compared with most of the jobs that women are able to get, the loss of benefit and the cost of child care reduced her income from £600 to £450 a month. Not surprisingly, with two children, that woman found that quite impossible to live on. She wrote to me pointing out how ridiculous it was that the Government were paying her £600 a month to stay on benefit rather than £150 a month to be in work. That is the amount that she would have needed to bring her income up to what she had while on benefit. That is absurd.
It is essential to increase opportunities for women by increasing the provision of low-cost publicly funded child care and abolishing the anomaly by which people can reclaim tax on their secretary's wages but not on child-minding costs. It is no coincidence that, on the whole, men employ secretaries and women employ child minders, and it is clear discrimination that the one is allowable against tax while the other is not.
Mr. Peter Butler: It would be discourteous to allow the debate to go much further without congratulating the hon. Lady and her lady colleagues on having overcome the ingrained male chauvinism within her party to which she referred earlier. Not one male Labour Member is in the Chamber or has been here since the start of the debate. Does the hon. Lady feel that that is a symptom of the fact that perhaps there is still a long way to go? There is an empty space where one male Labour Member was sitting, so I apologise for being incorrect in that, but certainly no one has bothered to stay. The one who was here left as soon as the hon. Lady started to speak, which was grossly discourteous.
Mrs. Campbell: I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) has slipped out for a few moments and will be hack. He was here at the beginning of the debate. The Opposition can celebrate the fact that we have enough women to keep the debate going without falling back on our male colleagues. The Conservative party would dearly love to solve the problem of having too few women hon. Members, but it has no idea how to go about it.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Campbell: I have given way a number of times and I will give way to the hon. Lady later. At the moment I should like to make some further progress.
It is important to look at ways of increasing access to existing child care, and we also need to increase the amount of it. I am pleased that in my constituency we have been able to put together a project involving the city and county councils, the local employment agency office, the training and enterprise councils from Cambridge and Greater Peterborough, the Cambridge Training and Development Organisation, which is a private training body, and the Benefits Agency.
We have formed a working party to look at ways to make child care and work more accessible to those who wish to return to work after a period of being at home and
274
looking after children. We have decided to have points around the city to give information through the form of a one-stop shop so that people can find out where child care and training opportunities are to he found, where they are likely to find a job and what difference that will make to their benefits. That is to say, they can discover what their income will be at the end of the day.
We plan to make that service accessible through a computer-based system which will, of course, be linked to the information super-highway. I am pleased that the project has attracted all-party support in Cambridge. Of course, we cannot pursue it without money, and I am pleased that all the major banks, plus Philips Telecom, some of the Cambridge colleges and two training and enterprise councils, have contributed substantial sums to get the scheme off the ground. That shows how important people think it is to have good quality child care and to give people proper access to it to enable them to get hack to work.
Labour party policy on the minimum wage has been mentioned. The statistics show that it is essential to have a minimum wage to help the 3 million British workers who earn less than £3.50 an hour. Four out of five low-paid people are women. We have only to look at the stories of people on very high salaries to realise that there are not many women among them. Mr. Cedric Brown springs to mind immediately, and the National Grid chairman recently managed to effect a pay deal worth £2 million. There is no chance of that person being a woman. A 28-year-old man on £200,000 a year managed to break a hank but did not contribute much to the economy in the process.
The Low Pay Unit has come up with examples of people being offered extremely low pay, not in a covert way but by advertisement in Government job centres. There are examples of shop workers being offered £1.66 an hour and hairdressers being offered £1.43 an hour. How could anyone survive on such wages? They are totally disgraceful.
Despite the rhetoric of Conservative Members, economists in Britain and America who have studied low pay have concluded that a statutory minimum wage does not cost jobs and may even increase employment. That is what the research is showing. Time and again, we hear Conservative Members say that we must not let workers price themselves out of jobs. Let us consider, however, what happened in 1990 when the United States Government raised the national minimum wage to the equivalent of approximately £2.70 an hour. Despite everyone's efforts, study after study found that that was effective in raising the income of some of the poorest people in America, and that it had done so without jobs being lost.
A further example is the east coast state of New Jersey, where local legislators raised the minimum wage to $5.05 an hour, compared with the state of Pennsylvania where the minimum wage was only $4.25 an hour. If what the Conservative party is saying is correct, one would have expected jobs to increase in Pennsylvania and to decrease in New Jersey, but that did not happen. Economists examined one sector of the industry—fast food restaurants, where wages are traditionally low—in both states. They found that employment had fallen in cheap—rate Pennsylvania but risen in higher-rate New

275
Jersey—the reverse of what the Conservatives claim would happen. The research simply does not bear out the points that they make.
Mr. Spring: Is the hon. Lady aware that in the United States the rate of female participation in the labour market is significantly lower than in the United Kingdom and that the percentage of earnings gained by females in the United States does not compare favourably with that in the UK?
Mrs. Campbell: I do not see how the hon. Gentleman's point refers to the minimum wage, but it is true that there are far more fragmented part-time jobs in the United States than in the UK.
Ms Clare Short: Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members are not interested in the research, that they do not consider it and that they do not care? They believe ideologically in low pay. They cannot stand the idea of a minimum wage. They attack it constantly because they crudely and ideologically believe in market forces. They cannot believe that paying people a decent rate is a proper social policy, and therefore they are not listening to the research that my hon. Friend has outlined.
Mrs. Campbell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. She is right. If Conservative Members are not interested in the facts, they should stop making comments which are not true.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Campbell: I am not giving way again as I wish to make some progress.
Low pay tends to increase staff turnover and to make it much more difficult to recruit staff, so firms often lose business because they are unable to meet orders. They also face much higher training costs, because a constant turnover of staff means that they will have to train people more frequently. Firms which pay low wages do not do well. Some of the squeals that we have heard from employers in the past few weeks should be taken with a pinch of salt, because the evidence does not bear out what they are saying.
Since the Government abolished wages councils, which set minimum rates for workers in the retail, hotel, hairdressing and other trades, hourly wage rates have decreased. According to Government theories, when wage rates go down we should naturally expect an increase in vacancies, but that has not happened. The Low Pay Unit found that, after wages councils were abolished, employment in the hotel trade decreased. [Interruption.]
Ms Eagle: Did my hon. Friend pick up the little sedentary comment from the Conservative Benches—that jobs fell in the hotel trade because of the recession? Conservative Members seem to think that it is acceptable to have lower wages and fewer jobs.
Mrs. Campbell: For the past two years, the Government have been telling us that we are coming out of recession, that we are in a boom period, that we should all expect to be feeling much better and that there should be a feel-good factor, but if they are now saying teat we are in recession, that directly contradicts what they said previously.
276
No other country is considering abandoning the minimum wage and the constraints that we had under the wages councils. Not even Newt Gingrich is proposing the abolition of the minimum wage in the United States. We should recognise that minimum wages encourage people to work instead of staying at home on benefit. We want to encourage that, and we thought that the Conservative party was in favour of it.
We have one of the worst records in Europe on women's wage levels, and poverty at work leads to poverty in old age. We need to improve conditions and pay for part-timers, and we should not block European directives intended to help them. We desperately need to ensure access to good quality publicly funded child care, so that women can work without worrying about their children. Because the Government have so resolutely turned their face against a minimum wage, which has been widely adopted in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, we need to ensure electoral victory for a Labour Government, who will introduce a minimum wage and increase opportunities for all women.
11.56 am
Mr. Richard Spring: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to say a few words. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), my near neighbour, on securing an Adjournment debate on this important subject.
I remember the hon. Lady's maiden speech some three years ago, as I was in the Chamber at the time. Although it was a good maiden speech, I recall her painting a gloomy picture of life in her constituency. I hope that she will acknowledge that all over East Anglia, and most notably in Cambridge, dramatic falls in unemployment have begun to take place. That is to be welcomed. Male and female workers alike have benefited from that. East Anglia is enjoying the fastest rate of economic recovery of any region in the United Kingdom. I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise that, in the past three years, job opportunities for females and female participation in the labour market have expanded markedly, both in her constituency and in East Anglia.
The hon. Lady is right to refer to the gap between male and female earnings. In many respects, that is not acceptable. Members of Parliament are paid the same amount, whether they are male or female, and it would be preposterous if it were otherwise. That principle should be extended across many other spheres of employment. The Labour party's policies, however, are destined to destroy the very job opportunities which have caused so many women to make such tremendous and remarkable strides in employment since 1979.
Of all the European Union countries, only the UK has a lower unemployment rate for women—currently 4.6 per cent.—than for men. Compared with the larger countries in the European Union, the participation rate by women in the UK labour market is at the highest level.
Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that the number of hours that women work in Britain is the lowest in the European Union? That means that many women are working fewer hours than they would prefer because of the constraints of lack of child care and non-availability of decently paid employment.
Mr. Spring: The hon. Lady misses the point entirely. The purpose of a dynamic and flexible economy is to create job opportunities. The policies that she espouses would destroy job opportunities and the enormous progress that women have made in the labour market in the past 15 years. It cannot be denied that there is a gap, but it has been closing partly because of legislation and partly because cultural attitudes to female employment have rightly moved on. I welcome that, but what is needed is a competitive, efficient and flexible labour market and a Government committed to widening choice and opportunity for everyone. The surge in flexible working has been greatly welcomed by women employees and we are seeing the fruits of that flexibility.
Let us examine whether that supposition is backed by the facts. In 1970, average gross weekly earnings for women were 54.3 per cent. of men's earnings. By 1994, the figure had risen to 72.2 per cent., and the figure for full-time hourly earnings is now 79 per cent. That is due to an expansion—both relative and absolute—of female earnings.
Ms Corston: The hon. Gentleman talks about the desirability of flexibility in the labour market. Will he explain the desirability of zero-hours employment contracts, which are increasing especially in the shop and hotel sector, whereby employers do not contract to provide any hours of work for employees but employees have to be available for work at all times? Whose opportunities are increased by such contracts?
Mr. Spring: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. In my constituency, where employment has increased substantially and where the tourism and hotel sectors arc expanding, unemployment has dropped to 4.6 per cent. precisely because of such flexibility. If we had the regulated labour market and total lack of flexibility advocated by the Labour party, there would be no such employment opportunities and unemployment in my constituency would double.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Spring: I will deal with the increase in female earnings and then give way to the hon. Lady.
In the four or five years since 1990, female earnings have risen by 30 per cent., compared with a rise of 23 per cent. in men's earnings. Again, Labour's policies would destroy that growth because of the ossification of opportunities that would certainly arise. The female activity rate continues to rise while the male activity rate continues to fall.
An article in The Guardian—so it must be true—written by Edward Balls in September last year stated:
"Since the early seventies female employment has risen by a fifth, while male employment has fallen by the same percentage."
He is the same Mr. Edward Balls who, significantly, contributed to the intellectual thrust of the Labour party's economic policy—namely, the introduction of a neo-classical endogenous growth theory and symbiotic relationships—so what he says must he of great interest to the Labour party.
Ms Eagle: It was not a neo-classical endogenous growth theory, but a post-neo-classical endogenous growth theory
278
which recognises that labour markets and the supply and demand curve which so obsesses free-market Conservatives simply do not represent the real world.
Mr. Spring: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's attempt to clarify Labour's economic policy. During the years that I spent at university learning about economics and hearing a catholic spread of ideas, at no time did I hear a theory along those lines. It has nothing to do with the real world and made the Labour party a laughing stock.
It is most impressive that female self-employment has risen by 80 per cent. since 1981. The hon. Member for Cambridge will know that the small business sector in East Anglia is one of the most important elements of growth in our part of Britain. Our economy is very much based on small business. In the late 1980s, a considerable part of the expansion in employment during the boom period was in the small business sector. The fact that so many more women are deciding to become self-employed in that sector is greatly to be welcomed.
Lady Olga Maitland: Is my hon. Friend aware that one in four small businesses are now started by women, who are making a considerable success of them? Indeed, banks tell me that they would rather give a loan to a woman because they know that she will be successful.
Mr. Spring: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. I am sure that she is correct. I hope that in future there will be many more women entrepreneurs who will start and build seedcorn businesses like the Body Shop and many others that have been so commercially successful.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridge agrees that the key to employment success and higher wages for women lies in education. There is a clear relationship between professional success and education. When the Labour party was in office, one in eight young people went on to higher education, a figure that was regarded as a scandal in the 1970s. It is now one in three, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridge welcomes that.
Below university level, we find that, in 1979, under a Labour Government, 44 per cent. of A-level entrants were female, but the figure has risen to 52 per cent. under the Conservatives. In 1979, 40 per cent. of full-time students in higher education were female; today, 48 per cent. are female and their number is growing. If one adds the figure for those in further education, more than half the students are female. In the same period, three fifths of those involved in further education are female compared to two fifths when Labour were in power.
I am sure that the hon. Lady welcomes the tremendous progress that has been made and is anxious to share the following information. At Cambridge university in the 1970s, one in four undergraduates were female, but the figure is now 43 per cent. and rising. All this shows what a dynamic, open and growing economy is doing to create opportunities for women.

279
There is clear evidence of increasing and very welcome professional success among women. An article in the Financial Times of 22 August 1994 carried the headline "Women 'beating men for top jobs'". It stated:
"Women prove more successful than men when they are competing for senior management positions, statistics released by an executive recruitment consultancy show.
The survey, which focused on 85 posts in the £30,000 to £75,000 salary range handled by the London office of NB Selection, found that from the shortlisted candidates for the posts one in four women, compared with one in six men, secured management positions.
The company also examined the sample of 31 vacancies covering 3,000 applicants and found that, proportionately, women again fared better. Some 22 per cent. of women applicants secured interviews compared with 10 per cent. of male applicants."
I am sure that everyone welcomes the considerable professional success at management level that is now manifesting itself and which will certainly continue to boost female earnings.
Ms Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is painting an extremely rosy picture, but is he aware that the recent trend towards more women in management has gone into reverse? A recent survey shows that 9.5 per cent. of managers in 1993 were women, compared with 10.3 per cent. in 1992. Only 2.8 per cent. of directors were women. Those figures are taken from the Institute of Management survey of 1994. The hon. Gentleman must admit that there are large problems.
Mr. Spring>: From the figures that I have given, the hon. Lady will accept that progress for women in professional life is strong. I entirely welcome that, and I hope that it will go further. However, I do not especially want to bandy around endless surveys.
I come next to the employment forecast for women to the year 2000, put out by no less an organisation than the Equal Opportunities Commission, working together with the Institute for Employment Research. The report shows that the proportion of women in the labour force has increased steadily despite the last recession. Using a forecasting model which relates activity rates to various socio-economic variables, the author of the report finds that
"women are likely to increase their share in almost all occupations, particularly in the managerial, professional and associated professional areas where they are currently under-represented.
For example, the proportion of female corporate managers is predicted to grow from 30.5 per cent. in 1991 to 39.6 per cent. by 2000. Over the same period the female proportion of science- and engineering-associated professionals is expected to increase from 22.5 per cent. to 29.9 per cent. and in other associated professional occupations from 38.9 per cent. to 44 per cent."
I hope that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) agrees that such a report, produced by an impartial body, is especially welcome.
Ms Glenda Jackson: What was markedly lacking in the list of figures that the hon. Gentleman shared with the House was any mention of wages. Can he furnish us with those figures and perhaps with details of the differentials between men's and women's wages which still exist in every area of working life?
Mr. Spring: The hon. Lady makes a fair point. There is a gap, but it is closing. There is a direct correlation
280
between education, professional accomplishment and wage levels. The point that I am trying to make is that, as more women rightly occupy senior positions, the gap will close. It is now closing rapidly as a result of a mixture of legislation and a dynamic economy which produces growth opportunities for everyone in the labour market.
Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman agrees, I presume, with his Government's view that low wages create more jobs. On the point to which he has devoted so many figures, does he therefore believe that the way to close the gap between male and female employment in managerial positions is to lower wages in those positions'?
Mr. Spring: I believe that, in a growing and dynamic economy which provides job opportunities, we shall see general standards of living rising. Those living standards will be based on an increase in average earnings in a non-inflationary economy. That is to be wholly welcomed.
Since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched in 1991 his well-known initiative to increase the proportion of women appointed by Government to public bodies, the proportion of women holding public appointments has risen from 5 per cent. to 28 per cent. The Government are committed to equality and to a comprehensive legal framework. We have a legislative foundation. We have seen clear evidence that women are advancing, rightly, at all levels. We have seen clear evidence that the gap in earnings is closing and will continue to close, and I wholly welcome that.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Spring: I must conclude.
At the heart of this remains one point that is crystal clear. All that I have described can happen only if we have an open, free and dynamic marketplace economy providing the opportunity. What we do not need is the imposition of a social chapter, which will destroy jobs, and a minimum wage which has had catastrophic employment consequences for both men and women across the European Union. The way that I have described is the way in which women can advance, and that is the way in which, under a Conservative Government, that is now happening.
12.14 pm
Mr. David Chidgey: I am conscious that there is limited time in the debate so I shall be brief, if hon. Members will allow me.
There are some areas in which there is a common awareness of the difficulties women face. We all recognise that women have made great strides over the past 20 years and that more women are now in paid employment than at any other time. The gap between male and female wages has narrowed. As the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) said, women now take up more than half of all further and higher education places. We can say that for some women, especially young, childless women from white, well-educated middle-income backgrounds, equality of opportunity has become a reality, but for many others, the old injustices and inequalities remain and new problems limiting their choice have arisen.

281
On average, women who work full time are still paid only 79 per cent. of the pay of their male counterparts. A large majority of those who earn less than half the national average wage are women. The large majority of pensioners on income support are women. Some 90 per cent. of all lone parents are women. The vast majority of employees with the primary responsibility for caring for children, caring for the elderly and caring for the sick are women. Women make up 44 per cent. of the United Kingdom work force, but only 20 per cent. of our managers and a mere 2 per cent. of senior executives.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman share my disappointment that there are no women chief police constables?
Mr. Chidgey: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Indeed, I share her disappointment. That point illustrates the problem of discrimination to which I shall come later.
The Low Pay Unit recently reported that half of all full-time women workers and three quarters of all part-time women workers earned less than 68 per cent. of the average wage. We heard earlier that some 4 million women earn low wages. The latest figures from the Low Pay Unit tell us that 6.5 million women are earning low wages. Two thirds of low-paid workers are women. More than 70 per cent. of those earning less than £3 an hour are women. Women are the primary victims of low-wage exploitation. I am sorry about the continual recounting of figures, but I believe that they illustrate the fact that women are the victims in this respect.
Lady Olga Maitland: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that women would far rather have a job than not? Does he also accept that Britain has the second-highest proportion of working women in Europe? We are second only to Denmark. Does he agree that a woman with a job, even a part-time job, is better off than a woman who has no money at all?
Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Lady repeats points made earlier, which is a waste of the time of the House. I do not believe that we should expect anybody, woman or man, to work for wages that are akin to slavery. I do not believe that this country should move towards a third-world economy. It is women who are exploited, because they have fewer choices.
We need to have a flexible, but firm, approach to low wages. We need to establish a regionally based minimum hourly rate in determining wages. We need a minimum hourly rate which is agreed by employers and by representatives of trade and commerce, working closely with a low pay commission. We need to protect the vulnerable from the unscrupulous; women are usually at the sharp end of that.
Low wages are not the only problem. Our tax and benefits system discriminates against women. We need reforms to present going to work as a genuine option. We need to remove the mechanisms in the tax and benefits systems that reduce economic independence for women and stifle opportunity. We should remove the lower rate of national insurance contribution on earnings of less than £3,445. We could take 50,000 low-paid workers out of the tax system altogether by that simple move. That would help mainly women.
Ms Short: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's proposal is well meant, but has he looked at the lower
282
threshold? Something like 3 million people, mostly women, are trapped beneath it with no entitlement to pensions or anything else. It becomes an incentive to employers to pay their workers wages that are just below that threshold and to keep them low so that those workers never receive any national insurance benefits or other entitlements, which is a real problem.
Mr. Chidgey: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. That is one of the basic reasons why we need to look closely at our tax and benefits systems to try to avoid such exploitation.
On that very point, many women's employment is severely disrupted, usually because they have taken on the responsibility of bringing up children at some stage during their lives. They therefore have incomplete contributory records, which, of course, lead to all the disadvantages of the future loss of entitlements. We need to move towards phasing in a system of benefits and pensions which are paid on the basis of residence and to merge the national insurance contributions into the same tax base as income tax. That may begin to overcome some of the problems mentioned.
We need to examine how carers are treated. Changes in the contributory principle would help to remove some of the benefit system's built-in disadvantages to carers. We also need to consider training provision. Training for work and increasing employability are vital, and improvements in education, training and skill levels would bring the greatest benefit to the low-paid, who, again, are mainly women.
I shall sum up briefly, because I know that there is little time.
Ms Eagle: The hon. Gentleman mentioned training. Does he agree that the representation of women on training and enterprise council boards is lamentable and that there are very few women throughout the entire TEC system? Does he agree that it would be much better to have better representation of women on TEC boards?
Mr. Chidgey: TEC boards need to be reviewed because there is widespread under-representation, not only of women. I am particularly concerned that small firms are inadequately represented on TEC boards, yet they often need the most help, liaison and dialogue about training needs. Many small firms have never engaged in training, and their under-representation is a great flaw in the system.
Most importantly, we need to improve anti-discrimination policies. Better child care provision, improvements to the tax and benefits system, minimum hourly rates, improvements in training, and so on are all peripheral if the central issue of discrimination is not tackled. Replacement of the Sex Discrimination Acts and the Equal Pay Act 1970 by an equal treatment Act would help to counter all discrimination, unintentional as well as intentional. Employers should take responsibility for ensuring that the inequalities in pay and conditions are not the result of discrimination.
The approach to policies that I have tried to outline in my short speech would ensure that, in future, all employees were paid according to the quality of their work, not according to their gender. We need to help ensure that the structural imbalances which prevent women from getting and retaining the sort of work that they want are removed. Women should have the same

283
opportunities as men. The aim of the Liberal Democrats is not equality of outcome, but equality of opportunity. We do not propose special treatment for women, but equal treatment.
12.22 pm
Lady Olga Maitland: I particularly warmly welcome the fact that this debate is taking place at all. I say that because I have worked all my adult life and I have never felt in any way discriminated against by wage levels because of my sex. I have worked as a secretary and I have never felt discriminated against. The Labour party asks why there are not more male secretaries. I have not had a single male apply to be my secretary.
Ms Eagle: I am sure that the hon. Lady would like to know that I have a male secretary and he is extremely good.
Lady Olga Maitland: I am delighted for the hon. Lady and I am sure that lie gives her excellent service.
Ms Glenda Jackson: Discrimination is not left to the individual to feel or to recognise. We are arguing that the discrimination from which millions of women suffer is set in place by an employer who makes a distinction between a male and a female employee. Women are discriminated against quite deliberately. They earn less money. It is not a feeling or a sense; it is a fact.
Lady Olga Maitland: Women earn less money partly because of the kind of job that they do. From my experience in whatever area I worked, whether in Fleet street as a junior reporter or as a head of a department, I know that I always had the same salary as everybody else. The Government are concerned about the iniquities which may arise, which is why they set up the Equal Opportunities Commission and, indeed, pour £5 million
Ms Short: It was set up by a Labour Government.
Lady Olga Maitland: Oh, well, I withdraw that remark. None the less, this Government pour £5 million a year into the commission to ensure that women get a fair deal.
This is a very artificial debate. It is the result of the spin doctors in the Labour party trying hard to get the women's vote. They say to themselves, "Ah, the women's issue." It is all meticulously planned, the ball is set rolling down the road and the Labour women, if I may say so, just do as they are bid.
More than that, the Labour party is saying, "Let's attract the women's vote by offering baubles." It is looking, for instance, at different forms of tax relief. Indeed, I read with the greatest interest an article in She magazine, which featured the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who said that he would look at tax relief for child care—in other words, a nannies charter. I am sure that the poor working woman would not be very happy to find that her increased taxes are paying for nannies for wealthy women.
I regard this debate as the product of a rather cynical ploy that will not work. The Labour party totally underestimates the intelligence of the British woman. We are not that easily fooled. The women who come to see
284
me in my surgery do not talk about the issues that the women in the Labour party raise or about sexist issues. They say that they want a stable, sustainable economy, which is dynamic and which will give them jobs for themselves and their husbands, which we all want.
They welcome the fact that unemployment has fallen by 500,000 over the past two years and they welcome the fact that in Sutton the number of unemployed people is barely 300 above the peak unemployment level of 1986. We should be looking at the real issues of how we are helping women.
Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Lady Olga Maitland: Very well, for a moment.
Dr. Jones: What does the hon. Lady say to the 80 per cent. of women who earn less than half the median rate paid to male workers about her Government's policies of removing the protection which was provided by wages councils, which has led to those low levels of pay being further reduced? Is she not concerned about the low levels of pay that so many women have to put up with?
Lady Olga Maitland: I am always concerned about wage levels for all people. This cant of positive discrimination totally overlooks the main issue, which is ensuring that our economy is dynamic and determined to help all women.
Mr. John Gunnellrose—
Lady Olga Maitland: I shall not give way any more. The hon. Gentleman has only just arrived, and tokenism is not acceptable today. Time is tight and precious and I want to address a very important issue which was raised by the Labour party yesterday and has been raised again today, about the lack of a national child care strategy.
If the House wants a national care strategy, it should look to the Conservative Government, because we are doing just that. They have an excellent record on child care. Does anybody give us any praise? No. Why does not the Labour party acknowledge that 90 per cent. of all three to four-year-old children are in some form of education or organised day care? Why does the Labour party not thank us for that? Why does it not accept it? It certainly takes advantage of it. Why does the Labour party not praise our Prime Minister, who has set the target that over time he will provide a pre-school place for every four-year-old whose parents wish to take it up.
Why does the Labour party not welcome the fact that in 1992 there were 133,600 places in registered day nurseries and nursery placcs—more than double the number in 1983? Why do Labour Members stay silent on that? In 1993, there were 296,000 places with registered childminders, and childminding increased by 40 per cent. between 1988 and 1991. What a fantastic track record.
We know that we have a record of helping women—a record of which we are proud. The Conservative party will carry far more credibility in the cause of women than the Labour party will.
12.30 pm
Ms Angela Eagle: It is a great pleasure to take part in the debate, especially as I was involved in Committees yesterday and could not attend yesterday's Supply day debate on women. I note that, for two years

285
running, we have had debates in Opposition time on the extremely important subject of the position of women in society, and what kind of progress is being made.
Today's debate has been won by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), and I congratulate her on having secured it—but we still await a debate in Government time. If the Conservative party is really so interested in the progress of women and wishes to spend time demonstrating to us how central the issue is, the Government might at least condescend to give the House time to discuss it at length. I certainly hope that they will, but in 16 years of Conservative rule we have yet to see it happen.
Women constitute the majority of those in low-paid and insecure employment, and in the deregulated labour market insecurity is growing and wages have been falling, ably aided and abetted by the Government's abolition of the wages councils two years ago. As a result of that, in the affected sectors 42 per cent. of the part-time vacancies overall—and 75 per cent. in some sectors—are for jobs that still pay less than the low wage rates stipulated by the wages councils when they were abolished two years ago.
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) said that almost 75,000 people, most of whom are women, now earn less than £1.50 an hour. How on earth can anyone keep his or her life together, try to support someone else or have any kind of dignity in the world earning such a wage? There are 200,000 people who still earn less than £2.70 an hour. Again, most of them are women.
We must abolish such low wages in our economy. Working for such low wages does not aid dignity, and is unlikely to allow for training or to lead to career prospects. It is merely exploitation, and we should see it for what it is.
There is an interesting discussion that always takes place about the minimum wage. Of course, the minimum wage and the arguments about it are at the core of the pretty fundamental disagreements between the main political parties on such issues. We believe that a minimum wage will help to banish exploitative jobs from the economy.
Mr. Spring: The hon. Lady is right to say that that is a fundamental point, and I invite her to examine other European countries in which the minimum wage exists. For example, in Spain 35 per cent. of young people are unemployed, and in France the proportion is 25 per cent. The hon. Lady talks about exploitation, but there is nothing more cruel than the exploitation of having no hope, no job and no prospects. That is the tyranny of the minimum wage, where it exists, right across Europe.
Ms Eagle: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is mixing up different economic effects. I do not think that the existence of the minimum wage has created that high youth unemployment in other countries, or that it would create it here.
In the lower income sectors in this country wages are so low that the Government now subsidise, via top-up benefits to the tune of billions of pounds, the employers who pay those low wages. Some recent parliamentary answers have demonstrated how much taxpayers' money is paid to employers to exploit their work forces, and that is neither economically efficient nor morally acceptable. A Labour Government would certainly get rid of it.
286
The argument that a minimum wage would destroy jobs has been demonstrated to be false this side of the second world war. In the early 1970s, there were discussions about introducing equal pay legislation, and the Conservative party—which, by the way, opposed equal pay legislation all down the line, and also opposed the introduction of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) praised—told us all that millions of women's jobs would be destroyed and that women would be forced back into the home.
Conservatives said that the paradoxical effect of the Labour Government's pushing for equal pay legislation to improve some of the low wages, and of their trying at least to ensure equality between men and women, would be to push women back into the home. But what has happened since the legislation was put on the statute book?
Mr. Gunnell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Ms Eagle: I shall give way in a minute, but I was going to explain what has happened since the legislation was passed.
There has been a massive increase in the number of women entering the work force. Because of the Government's economic incompetence, there has also been a massive decrease in full-time male employment, which has been partly replaced by part-time female employment. It is estimated that nine out of every 10 jobs created between now and the year 2000 will he part-time and will be taken by women. Whatever has happened as a result of equal pay legislation, it has not been the destruction of women's jobs in the economy. The opposite has happened.
I now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell).
Mr. Gunnell: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for not showing the discrimination against males shown by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, who also spoke about equal pay. I do not think that my hon. Friend will recall the time when equal pay for teachers was won, but is she aware of the enormous opposition to that proposition by the male teachers union that was afterwards absorbed into another union? It put up a tremendous fight on the ground that equal pay would depress the wages of males because women teachers' earnings were merely a second wage.
Ms Eagle: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
Now we see the pattern repeating itself. The Labour party puts legislation on the statute book and argues for the further advance of women in our society, against discrimination where it exists and in favour of equal treatment, whereas the Conservative party spends all its time and resources opposing those moves every step of the way. Yet, when the legislation is on the statute book, Conservatives later claim that they supported it all along.
Mr. Spring: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Eagle: I have only three minutes left, so I do not want to give way at this stage.
We must realise that there is always a fight to enable women to take their rightful place in society. Where there are areas in which women have not yet arrived, the Conservatives will always oppose any change. I read

287
yesterday's debate in Hansard, and there was nothing but carping about the quota system and the way in which the Labour party is seeking to integrate women into political life. Of course that is relevant to today's debate, because the more women we have here and in other decision-making areas, the more likely we are to be able to combat the low pay and discrimination that currently exist for women throughout their working lives, and even in the shape of the pensions industry.
The Labour party, by introducing the state earnings-related pensions scheme, gave women equality in pensions provision for the first time, but the Conservative Government have now made two attacks on that, which have reduced the value of SERPS to one quarter of what it would have been had it been left undisturbed.
The Conservatives destroy women's opportunities and oppose any attempt to make progress and to create equality. Because those things are so popular, they realise that they must pretend to he in favour of equality, but they do nothing about it. The first woman Prime Minister did nothing to help women make their way in society, except by the pure example she gave as the first ever woman Prime Minister. That was a powerful example, but she did nothing in legislation to help women. She showed contempt for the idea of allowing women to make progress in society.
Mr. Springrose—
Ms Eagle: I am sorry, but I have little time left and cannot give way.
One final thing which we must get right is affordable child care for women who wish to go to work. I am a member of the Employment Select Committee, which has been looking carefully at child care, and a report is due next week. The Committee has been overwhelmed by the sheer logic of the case to provide decent and affordable child care for women who want to go out to work. We were particularly concerned about the plight of lone parents. Fewer lone parents now work because of unacceptable benefit traps than worked 10 or 20 years ago.
The Opposition are addressing the issues of social policy seriously, and that is shown by the fact that we keep having debates in Opposition time—
Mr. David Sumberg: Endless debates.
Ms Eagle: The hon. Gentleman may say that the debates are endless, but, frankly, the Government provide us with no time to discuss the issues. The hon. Gentleman has just wandered in at the end of the debate, and he has not even deigned to grace us with his presence. At least the Opposition provide time in the House to discuss issues which are important to 51 per cent. of the population.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge on securing the debate. We shall continue to push the issues because we know that justice must be done for women through the political process. We will fight to gain that justice, and we will not stop until we have equal opportunities and a proper place in society—whether the Conservative party likes it or not.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Ms Clare Short.
12.41 pm
Ms Clare Short: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I also spoke in yesterday's debate, when Madam Speaker was in the Chair.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on introducing this debate. The issues which we are debating go to the heart of the difference in values between the Tory party and the British Labour party. We are approaching the end of a failed economic experiment known as Thatcherism. The experiment encouraged a belief that inequality is good for people and for the economy and a belief that one had to remove all protections for low-paid workers and let the market rip. Workers had to find their rate, no matter how low it might be. One had to stop taxing the wealthy, so that they could get rich and not pay taxes.
The moral contradiction at the core of the experiment is that the rich have to get richer to get more efficiency while the poor have to get poorer. Those are the core values of Thatcherism. The Opposition have always said that the Government were demonstrating a morally bankrupt set of values which was causing great pain to the British people. Galbraith said that Britain would do a service to the people of the world by testing those ideas to destruction in a fairly homogeneous and stable society. We have paid the price, and we have proved that those values are economically incompetent. Enormous damage has been done to the British economy by the present Government while they have conducted an experiment which has promoted inequality and inefficiency in the economy.
Conservative Members suggest that women Opposition Members do not realise that women's lives have improved. It is incredible to suggest to my generation that we are not aware of that. I am deeply aware that I am part of the luckiest generation ever to grow up in Britain. I thought that the generations who came after me would do even better, but that has not happened as yet, and it will not happen until we get a Labour Government.
I am a product of the post-war settlement. I am a product of that proud Labour Government who dealt with the previous terrible recession, and who brought in a comprehensive welfare state, full employment and expanding educational opportunities. I had all that. I am part of the first generation of my family to have had a university education. I have always been employed, and I have worked in a whole series of senior positions. I have always had the same pay as men, and I have always been at least equal to my male colleagues. I realise how lucky I am, and I am massively grateful for the opportunities which were given to me by that fine Labour Government.
We now have a Government who have ripped up those opportunities for current generations. I appreciate—unlike the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland)—that not all women in my country are as lucky as me. I see it as a part of my duty in politics to make life more just for everyone, and not just to be happy that I am okay whereas others can go and rot while working in low-paid jobs.
I am aware that there is an ever-growing number of women in Britain working in part-time and very low-paid employment. There is nothing wrong with part-time work. In the future, both men and women will work part time and will have careers in part-time work. They will

289
therefore be able to share the care of their children, and of their parents as they become older. We can then all be civilised, and be all the things we wish to be. We can care for our families, use our brains and abilities, operate in the economy and care for the people we love and are responsible for.
Mr. Nigel Evans rose—
Ms Short: I am sorry, but I am very short of time. If I get on with my speech, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The model to which we should aim will he the model which the next Labour Government will seek to bring about in Britain. We will create a more just, generous and comfortable quality of life for everybody.
The present Government have failed, in that they deliberately and positively encourage low pay. They have absolutely and deliberately stripped away all the protections which exist for low-paid workers, and they have deliberately created a lower national insurance threshold to encourage the trap in which 3 million low-paid workers find themselves. Those workers are not even earning enough for their national insurance entitlements.
Secondly, the Government provide the lowest quantity of publicly funded child care of any European Union country. The consequences of that are that half the women in Britain who care for their children—that has been their traditional role—have to work part time. Their work is therefore extremely badly paid. Part-time work in Britain is so organised at the moment that it goes with poor pay, no training, no access to promotion and no pension rights, and leads to poverty in old age. Half the women in Britain are trapped in such a position.
That is not good for British men, for whom employment has dropped massively during this failed economic experiment. Some 93 per cent. of men were in employment in 1971, while just 75 per cent. of men were in employment in 1992. Men have been squeezed out of the labour market because employers are using the cheapness of women to damage women and to push men out of the labour market.
Mr. Spring: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Short: I am sorry, but I have only three minutes left.
The Government's third failure is that their experiment leads to poor economic performance. Competition by wage-cutting leads to poor investment, poor training, a high labour turnover and, therefore, a poor performance in the British economy.
The Government's fourth failure is the massive benefit bill. There is the high cost of unemployment—by God we are paying a high cost in benefit expenditure—and also the high cost of subsidising the worst employers in the land who pay rotten wages on which people cannot live. Therefore, we have a £1 billion family credit bill, plus an additional £1 billion in housing costs. The Government's economic and labour market strategy is disastrous, and it is a part of the Government's ideological commitment to free market forces and inequality. It is damaging British women, British men and the performance of the British economy. It is a disaster.
290
The Labour Government will soon replace that failed economic experiment, and we will steer forward in the way which I have just described. We will produce a more comfortable society in which to live and a more efficient economy. The issue of where women sit in our society is a core issue. We must decide whether we wish to take our economy forward and modernise it to be successful, or whether we want to be held back—as the Government are doing.
Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Lady may be coming to the national minimum wage. I suspect that she will not give us the rate of that wage, but I would be delighted if she did so. Does the hon. Lady think that the deputy leader of the Labour party was wrong to say that any old fool knows that the national minimum wage would bring with it a "shake-out" in employment?
Ms Short: The national minimum wage, full-time rights for part-time workers, a national child care strategy—all those are part of the new economic settlement that I mentioned. One of the differences of morality, principle and economic understanding between the Opposition and the Government centres on the value of the national minimum wage. It is part of preventing employers from using women as cheap labour to push men out of the labour market, and using cheap labour instead of training and investment and thus holding back the British economy. We proudly put the national minimum wage at the centre of our economic strategy.
The Conservative party attacked us when we introduced the Equal Pay Act 1970, but Conservative Members are now boasting about how women have made some progress in their pay levels as a consequence of our Act. They said that we would put up women's wages and that women would he pushed out of the labour market and would lose jobs—that there would be massive unemployment among women. There was not, so they are wrong, as the international example and the example of our own history prove. They want to attack the minimum wage because they hate the idea that market forces will not be let rip and that lots of British workers will not he used as cheap labour by rotten employers. A Labour Government will not permit that.
12.50 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Today, we witnessed the second wasted opportunity in two days. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on her choice of subject, and that is about as far as my congratulations extend. For the rest, we have seen exactly what we saw yesterday—the massed ranks of the Opposition sisterhood, with a token man from time to time. Women speakers only and tokenism personified—that is what we have witnessed in the past two days.
What do the Opposition do? Do they welcome the great improvements in the way in which women live their lives? Do they welcome the great improvements for women in the labour market and in education? No, they whinge and whine, and moan and groan. Every time that a single good fact for women is produced, they look as glum as owls. The truth is that they want bad statistics, proof of suffering and low pay so that they can say, "Look, it's all the Government's fault." They will not welcome one good fact.

291
I am going to give them some good facts. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) said, "Hear the research." I am going to let the Opposition hear the research as well. First, we will start with the good facts. Since 1979, which, in case the Opposition missed it, was the year we came to power, women's pay—hourly, weekly, full-time and part-time—has increased faster than that of men. There are 1.5 million more women at work than 10 years ago, which is a 16 per cent. increase. That is the product of a Conservative Government.
The Opposition whinge about child care, by which they mean publicly funded child care. They discount all the rest, because if one is not spending public money, one is not doing anything according to their policy. Yet the greatest increase in the work force has been among women with children under five—from 27 per cent. in 1984 to 46 per cent. in 1993. That has been done under a Conservative Government.
There has been a rise of nearly 80 per cent. in the number of self-employed women since the Conservative party came to office. Of course there has been, because we are the party of the self-employed and of the women self-employed. All that has been done under a Conservative Government.
In the decade 1984 to 1994, the proportion of women in management and professional occupations increased from 25 per cent to 30 per cent., but the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), in what was otherwise a fairly thoughtful speech, criticised the lack of women at managerial level. He picked on training and enterprise councils and said—
Mr. Chidgey: That was the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), in an intervention in my speech.
Miss Widdecombe: I am sorry—the Opposition picked on TECs and it was said that there were too few women on their boards. Another fact is that there are 12 women chief executives of TECs, but only four women general secretaries of trade unions.
During the 1980s, women moved into new occupations. The number of women lawyers trebled, and they now account for one third of the profession; the number of women accountants doubled, and they now make up one quarter of chartered accountants; and nearly 30 per cent. of doctors are women. Those are achievements from which our country will receive lasting benefit and of which we can be proud.
In comparison with other European countries, we have done remarkably well. The United Kingdom has the second highest female participation rate in the European Union and that has been achieved by a Conservative Government with a flexible labour market. There are more women in employment in the United Kingdom than in any other EU country, except Germany. Only the UK, among the EU countries, has a lower unemployment rate for women than for men.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Miss Widdecombe: No, I shall do exactly as the hon. Member for Ladywood did and allow the last two minutes for interventions, so that we can get some of these important facts on the record.
292
Those are the facts. Now for the research. According to the hon. Member for Ladywood, we do not hear about that. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development studies acknowledge that statutory minimum wages have an adverse effect on employment prospects, especially among the young and in low-productivity regions. How about the International Monetary Fund's "World Economic Report", which called on the industrial nations, especially those in Europe, to lower their minimum wages and to institute a wide range of other policies to make labour markets more flexible.
We have heard a lot about what is going on in the United States and how the minimum wage there has led to increased employment. Let us have the facts on the minimum wage in the United States—the way in which the hon. Member for Cambridge analysed the workings of the minimum wage there did not do justice to the name of Cambridge.
The federal minimum wage has fallen from more than 50 per cent. of the average wage in the late 1960s to 36 per cent. in the late 1980s. The freezing of the nominal wage in the 1980s led to a dramatic fall in its relative value, so the national minimum wage that the hon. Lady trumpets as an example is now at a 20-year low. We all know that President Clinton came into office promising that he would uprate the national minimum wage, but he found that he could not do so because, as his Labour Secretary said, of its adverse impact on jobs.
May we also have the answer that the hon. Member for Ladywood—the hon. Member for Cambridge can relax on this occasion—did not give, when we asked her about the deputy Leader of the Opposition and his clear admission that a national minimum wage would result in shake-outs? What will be shaken is people and what they will be out of is jobs. Many of them will be women. That is what the Opposition are promising women.
Dr. Lynne Jones rose—
Miss Widdecombe: I shall give way in the last two minutes only.
We have heard much spurious analysis about low pay today. The low pay network's attempts to show that pay has fallen since the final abolition of the wages councils in 1993 are a complete failure and are based on flawed surveys that study unfilled job centre vacancies, not the pay that workers get. It is not surprising that unfilled vacancies offer significantly lower pay than people really earn, because the higher-paying jobs are filled more quickly and are therefore under-represented in such surveys. It would be the economics of the kindergarten not to he able to work that out.
We have also heard the usual adverse comments about part-time workers, but 87 per cent. of those who work part time do not want a full-time job. I have, of all things, the Trades Union Congress on my side—I do not usually quote the TUC, but I am delighted to have this opportunity—which has carried out a survey that says that part-timers are more than twice as happy with their jobs as full-timers. That is not very surprising, is it?
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) and for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on their pertinent interventions. I am delighted that, on the Conservative side, men took part in this debate, because women's rights, and pay and equality for women, concern all society and not just

293
women. That is why the restriction of speeches to women on the Opposition Benches yesterday was one of the most shameful aspects of the debate—as if only women should be concerned about that.
The Labour party boasts that it is the only party concerned to have such debates, but, since 1979, it has initiated only two debates on the subject. Labour Members should not castigate us when, at the last moment and as a token gesture, they have suddenly realised that they can do something by instituting Supply day debates on the subject. Are we to understand that, from 1979 until last year, they did not think that the subject was important because they had no Supply day debates on it?
Dr. Lynne Jones: When the Minister has a chance to look at the Hansard record of yesterday's debate, I hope that she will withdraw those remarks, because a number of men participated early in the debate. What she said was therefore completely untrue and—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. It is now time for the next debate.

Mature A-level Students
1 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I am grateful to have an opportunity to raise a problem that occurs in the funding of higher education. The problem occurs with the system not of mandatory but of discretionary grants. Even with mandatory grants, which are basically those for which people apply when they want to take a degree course, everyone can think of ways in which the system could be improved. I certainly would not come here today to say that the mandatory grant system is perfect, but essentially it works. What has become increasingly obvious in recent years is that the discretionary grant system simply does not work.
For the most part, discretionary grants are given to people for further education but not necessary for a university degree. The effect is that they are given a grant under section 2 of the Education Act 1962, and it is entirely at the discretion of the local education authority whether a person is given a grant. One way or another, that system must be brought to an end.
The problem has become more obvious in recent years, because people now do more than one job in a lifetime and are encouraged to return to education and training. The difficulty is that, when they do that, they cannot demand a grant as of right but must apply for that grant, and whether they get it lies entirely at the whim of the local education authority.
Today I shall mention just two areas where that system can cause real injustice and bring about a state of affairs that nobody on either side of the House would want. Other examples exist, but I shall deal simply with the problems that affect, first, those doing A-levels and, secondly, those doing dance or speech and drama courses.
If someone takes A-levels at a time when most people do—at school—the system works, and no great problem arises. Students are at home being looked after by their parents, so their subsistence is taken care of and the school pays the fees.
The problem arises for people who do not take A-levels in that way. They may have failed them at school and then gone out to work; perhaps they did not go to a good school, or left school early with no intention of taking A-levels. Subsequently, however, a variety of people without A-levels decide, for whatever reason, that they want to go to university. At that stage, they realise that they must get some A-levels in order to do so.
I have now discovered, through numerous cases that have been drawn to my attention at my constituency surgeries, that people then follow a well-worn course of action. Such people are usually quite committed, have identified the university that they wish to attend and know which course they want to do. Having established that, they want to take their A-levels.
People with that amount of get up and go will usually have gone to a local college and satisfied themselves that it can take them on and provide the A-level courses they want. Then the problems start, because, when they apply to the local education authority, they invariably find—it happens increasingly in Devon—that they will not get the support they need.
Obviously, it would be easier to give a knee-jerk reaction and say that people should work their way through college, as that is how it used to be done. That is

295
easy to say, but it does not answer the case. Usually, people who do A-levels in that way do them intensively—perhaps three A-levels in one year.
The idea that one should be able to do such a concentrated course and work sufficiently to provide accommodation, food and sustenance and pay for college fees is too much to expect. There may be one or two exceptionally brave individuals out there, but I did not have to get my education in that way, and I doubt whether many other hon. Members did. I pay credit to those who can cope, but many cannot. Why should we expect more of our constituents than was demanded of us?
The problem for many people at that stage is that, although they have shown commitment by working out what they want to do, which university they wish to attend and which college can take them on, they are suddenly hard up against the problem of receiving no grant. If all else fails, they must simply drop out if they cannot raise the money for their fees or maintenance, and their hopes are blighted.
In practice, it means at the very least that people will not fulfil their potential. In reality, it means that people who could have passed A-levels and gone on to get a degree, which does not guarantee them a job but gives them a better chance of a getting a fulfilling job and contributing back into the tax system, have to drop out. Everybody then loses.
Alternatively, some people live dangerously within the "21-hour rule", as it was until recently. There is no doubt that some local DSS officials take a relatively broad and academic view of those matters, but we cannot base a further education system on local officials turning a blind eye. If a full-time A-level student maintains himself on social security benefits, ultimately he is skirting close to breaking the criminal law, and we do not want that to happen.
The third option is that potential students—in a sense, this is how i come into the debate—may take the matter to their local Member of Parliament
Over the years, I have developed a format for dealing with the problem. I have identified 10 or 12 charities that are prepared to consider a case put up by an A-level student. I provide a list of those charities and tell people, based on experience, which charities are more likely to offer a grant. It is a sticking plaster operation, and I hesitate to mention it on the Floor of the House lest I suddenly receive applications from not one constituency but 650. I am not in a position to give that list to anyone but my constituents. In any case, it is not a satisfactory way to deal with the problem.
I make no apology for dealing with the problem as a constituency Member of Parliament, but the problem goes far wider than my constituency. It is well summed up by the principal of the excellent South Devon college, Dr. Keen. I shall quote just one paragraph from his long letter, which sets out far better than I can the essence of the dilemma:
"I am pleased to be able to provide some of the information which came to light in our discussion earlier today … The following information is drawn from Devon County Council's Citizens Charter indicators for 1993/94, and you will be interested to note that they issued 1,075 discretionary awards, representing 65.02 per cent. of applicants. What was not mentioned in that report is that discretionary awards were provided for subsistence only, no fees
296
were met. We have evidence at South Devon of over 400 adult applicants for mainstream full-time further education courses, including A-levels, where the failure on the part of the local authority to provide a discretionary award has prevented the individuals concerned from attending. As a College we have reacted to this concern by waiving 100 per cent. of the fee element of such courses for all applicants who are eligible for a discretionary award but for whom no award has been given."
Dr. Keen goes on to explain:
"This contribution on our part has had adverse effects on cash flow, as we have had to survive on the units of funding derived from the Further Education Funding Council which, without a fee element, are below cost levels. Nevertheless, of 400+ applicants only 203 were able to accept under these terms. The other group (in excess of 200) had received neither discretionary award for fees or subsistence and remained unable to follow any study at the College at all."
That shows, in a crisp way, the dilemma that faces students of that sort.
I said a few moments ago that it is not only those who are studying for A-levels in their maturer years who fall into that category. What about those people who want to do speech and drama? Anyone who has any personal acquaintance of the dedication of a student who expects to be able to make a living in fields such as that will realise that they do not offer themselves lightly for such an award.
I quote from a letter that I received from the Royal Academy of Dancing, south-west region, on February 23 1995. A Miss Walker writes:
"As I am sure you are aware discretionary grants for dance and drama students have been abolished by Devon County Council.
This will obviously mean that our most talented youngsters in the region will he unable to take up their places at Vocational colleges, from where many of them would go on to perform in the West End or in ballet companies world-wide. Eventually, it could lead"—
I would say, would lead—
"to the smaller local dance schools in the South West closing if there is nothing for our students to work towards …
We must not let our talented dance students lose out".
Those people show a high degree of commitment and dedication even to have got themselves that far, and everything collapses when they cannot obtain funding.
What is the answer? My hon. Friend the Minister, with his usual generosity, will admit that I have not tried to take him unaware. I have pestered him with specific constituency problems during his entire time as Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education. I guarantee to continue to pester him and any successors, and I have also supplied the notes for my speech today and the material on which I draw.
I hope that my hon. Friend finds that helpful, because otherwise he will he reduced to saying, "What the hon. Gentleman says is very interesting; I shall pause and reflect on it." I hope that my hon. Friend feels that I have been extremely helpful in providing him with the information in advance, so that he can say something to us about it.
Obviously, it would not be the answer—I do not think that my hon. Friend the Minister would even try to do it—to say, "The answer is that we have already done a great deal." Indeed we have. An all-time record number of people attends further education, and we can derive satisfaction from that, but it does not solve the specific problem. It is only a temporary answer to say that the social security system should be altered so that people can live on social security while undertaking education

297
courses. In all conscience, the social security mechanism does not exist to underpin the education system; it is there for an entirely different reason.
In no sense is the position the Government's fault, but in a sense it is the Government's problem, because ultimately only the Government can solve it. What is the answer?
I have always held the opinion, on the Back Benches and at the Dispatch Box, that it is a Back-Bencher's job to come up with problems, not solutions. It would be unfair if my hon. Friend the Minister, with his considerable expertise and the serried ranks of experts behind him, were to pick off any solution that I might offer and say, "That one will not work." The problem needs to be brought to the House, so that my hon. Friend can respond to it. Having said that, I acknowledge that old habits die hard. Perhaps I may suggest two ideas that occur to me that would solve the problem.
The first way in which the problem might be solved would be to make, in addition to a mandatory grant for a degree course, a mandatory grant for a course immediately preparatory to a degree course. That would mean that, if one took a bona fide A-level course—safeguards might be built in to ensure that it was bona fide—one could obtain a compulsory grant for so doing. That is one possibility. However, it would not encompass speech and drama students.
Therefore, a second solution might commend itself to my hon. Friend—to take away that part of the rate support grant that goes to a local education authority and give it to the Further Education Funding Council, so that the funding council can disperse it, and do so 100 per cent.
Dr. Keen draws attention to the reason why that would be a good idea. Dr. Keen sounds a caveat, and I have not been able to check that it is correct, but I guess that it is. He says:
"Although I am unable to provide specific sources at the moment, I am led to believe that that element of the Rate Support Grant which should reasonably be expected to be spent on discretionary awards in Devon is in the order of £7M, and yet I am told that in the present year the actual expenditure is likely to be in the order of £3M".
It would appear, therefore, that, at the very least, the moneys that might be said to be available are not being spent 100 per cent.
It is obvious—and obvious if one considers the antics of the Devon local education authority in recent days—that decisions of that type are too crucial to be left to the whims of local education authorities. If we are to respond to changes in educational patterns and life patterns; if we are to accept and adjust to the fact that people live longer, stay younger longer, stay healthier longer and move from job to job in a way in which in our parents' and grandparents' generation would have thought impossible, we must say that the group of students that I have mentioned can no longer depend on the whims of a—perhaps even maverick—local authority.
The number of potential students affected may not be great. I do not have the resources to ascertain the number, but I do know that, even in one rural constituency, a steady trickle of people find themselves in that position. Ultimately, if I cannot help, or others cannot help, there will be blighted expectations and blighted lives.
298
I should like to think that my hon. Friend the Minister will at least be able to say, even if he cannot approve any solution and even if he does not know the answer off the top of his head, that nevertheless there is a problem. If we establish that, we shall be halfway to solving it.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on his success in obtaining this Adjournment debate, and for using it to bring the important issue of education for mature advanced level students to the attention of the House. He has done that clearly and eloquently.
He has, as he has said himself, done it on the back of a continuing correspondence, and having expressed concern to me repeatedly. I hope that, in turn, he will understand that I cannot give him any instant solutions today, but I have listened carefully, especially to the specific arguments that he has articulated as part of a more general picture. I shall return to those later.
I emphasise that the general system of adult student support that we have stands comparison with that in any other major comparable industrialised country. On the mandatory award side, when student loans were introduced five years ago, the total resources available to students in grants and loans were increased by 25 per cent., and they have increased each year since then, in line with forecast inflation. Those current arrangements in higher education are most generous, and, unlike the situation in many of our competitor countries, the great majority of our students pay nothing towards their fees.
I shall return to the subject of discretionary award provision later, but first I should like to say something about the increasing importance of learning throughout life, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and what the Government are doing to encourage it.
We are committed to encouraging all types of adult learning to increase participation in education by adults, and to improve levels of attainment. The evidence is that increasing numbers of people are returning to education. In the past 10 years, there has been an increase of about a quarter further education enrolments by adults in England and Wales.
More recently, the rapid expansion of the further education sector, since its establishment in 1993, has enabled more adults to undertake the type of formal qualification-bearing courses for which the further education funding councils are now responsible. Indeed, adults now make up the majority of those in the further education sector, and we have witnessed a rapid increase in the number of mature entrants in higher education.
The national targets for education and training provide a commitment and a focus for all of us—employers, unions, educationists, trainers and Government—by highlighting what we need to do to compete with our international rivals. The targets envisage our becoming a skilled nation, and that requires raising the levels of attainment of young people and adults alike.
The lifetime learning targets set challenging goals for individuals and employers to improve skill levels to world class standards. That requires fostering a culture of lifetime learning, and that is reflected in those national

299
targets. We all need to work together to achieve the better educated, more highly skilled, nation that we all require in future.
The Government will continue to play their proper part, principally by funding the further education sector. The plans announced in the most recent Budget will support a 25 per cent. increase in FE student numbers in the period 1993–94 to 1996–97. A further 3 per cent. increase in student numbers is planned for 1997–98.
The increase in funding in 1995–96 will be 4 per cent, and adult students will be among those to benefit. The system that we have established, with colleges having control over their own affairs, enables colleges to respond to the needs of their own local communities in the best way possible. The funding council has assisted that process by introducing a funding system that looks at the guidance students get and the outcomes they achieve, not just at student enrolments. Colleges have the incentive to give students the qualifications that suit them best.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge referred to the difficulties that students in Devon and in his constituency are experiencing in obtaining discretionary awards to finance their studies. As my hon. Friend is aware, discretionary awards are, by definition, an area where individual local education authorities may exercise their discretion. It is for them to decide how many awards to make, to which students and at what rates, depending on their view of local needs and priorities. Under the present arrangements, the Secretary of State has no power to intervene unless there is evidence that an authority is acting unlawfully—for example, by operating a policy of "no awards, come what may".
The evidence suggests that, overall, the number of awards made to further education students is holding up. In 1992–93—the latest year for which figures are available—there was an increase of 12 per cent. in the number of FE awards made by local authorities in England and Wales. In the same year, those authorities spent almost £170 million on such awards.
Enrolments in further education sector colleges rose by 5 per cent. between 1992–93 and 1993–94. The strategic plans of colleges indicate that the number of full-time enrolments are expected to rise by 23 per cent. between 1993–94 and 1996–97; and part-time enrolments are expected to rise by 20 per cent in that period.
I am aware, however, that there are wide differences between LEA policies and practices in this area. Where the differences reflect more than the normal variations resulting from decisions about local needs and priorities, and where they amount to some authorities effectively throwing in the towel on discretionary awards, that is of course a matter for concern, locally and nationally. I know that the local authority associations—I met them again last week—are drawing up some voluntary guidelines which should help to address the situation as to both process and substance. That is a very welcome development. The Government are also keeping the situation under review.
My hon. Friend suggested that Devon county was spending only £3 million a year on discretionary awards, against an "expected" total of £7 million. We need to be clear that Devon county council, like every other local authority, is responsible for setting its own budget and
300
deciding its priorities between and within services. The council has the final say on how much it spends on education and how much is spent on other services.
The role of central Government is to set the overall framework for the funding of local authority services nationally and to determine the way in which national "standard spending" totals are distributed between local authorities through the standard spending assessment system, with which my hon. Friend will be familiar.
The 1995–96 local authority grant settlement is a tough one, but it allows LEAs in England to spend £17.204 billion on education—an increase of 1.1 per cent. over the comparable figure for 1994–95, which reflects the priority that we have given to education, among other local services, in the settlement.
Having received its individual education SSA, it is for Devon to set its own budget and to decide what to spend on particular areas of the service, including discretionary awards. The SSAs are not prescriptive, and decisions about how much to spend on education and where to spend it are matters of local discretion. The county council is responsible to its electors. It will assess its own priorities in the light of local circumstances, and take the appropriate action.
After adjustment for recoupment—which covers the net costs of 'imported' or 'exported' pupils—Devon's SSA for 1995–96 was almost £7 million greater than that for 1994–95. That represents an increase of 2.1 per cent. However, it is entirely for the authority to decide what level of budget to set, and how to spend it.
My hon. Friend also suggested a possible general solution to the problems that he identified: that discretionary award funding should be transferred to the FEFC and then passed to colleges which would make their own awards. That is an interesting suggestion, and I certainly do not wish to discourage a debate of its merits, but I should perhaps point out that it would not be as straightforward as my hon. Friend suggests.
For example, how would one deal with those colleges which are not supported by the funding council—including many of the dance and drama colleges which my hon. Friend mentioned and to which I shall return in a moment? Would it make sense for local authorities to retain responsibility for higher education but not for further education awards? On what basis would the funding council decide how to distribute the available money between colleges? Are all colleges well placed to take on the role of making grants to students, and would they wish to do so?
Of course, a transfer of funds of that sort would not of itself increase the overall amount of money available, and there would be losers as well as winners if funds were reallocated. I should also point out that primary legislation would be needed if we were not to leave local authorities with a legal obligation to consider all applications for awards, but no provision with which actually to make them.
Returning briefly to the subject of dance and drama students which my hon. Friend mentioned, I am aware that in many areas of the country that group faces particular difficulties in obtaining discretionary awards. Their courses, which are largely provided in the private sector, are relatively expensive to support and many LEAs are becoming increasingly unwilling to do that. My hon. Friend is correct to say that. I assure my hon. Friend that

301
the Government are concerned about the implications of that situation, both for individual students and for the future of the dance and drama industries.
My right hon. Friend had a very useful meeting with the chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain last autumn to discuss the matter. Since then, our officials have been discussing the issues with officials of the Department of National Heritage and the Arts Council. However, I make it clear that, in the current public expenditure climate, there is no prospect of any significant extension of eligibility for mandatory awards to cover students on those courses.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the so-called 21-hour rule. The Government wish to continue to encourage people of all ages to improve their qualifications for productive employment. They have given intensive consideration to how that aim may be supported in setting out the new arrangements under the job seeker's allowance. Our aim was to establish clear and objective new rules which could be easily administered and understood.
From April 1996, the new arrangements will allow people to study for up to 16 guided learning hours. They do not cut eligibility to study from 21 hours; the basis for calculation is different. The new threshold will maintain broadly the same numbers of people who are able to study at present while in receipt of benefit, and it broadly equates to part-time study under the present rules. Individuals can—and should—study privately in addition for as long as they like and still remain eligible for benefit so long as they are available for work. I think that the new arrangements will be clearer, more consistent and more certain for student applicants.
The benefit of Adjournment debates is that it enables hon. Members to offer local perspectives on issues, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for doing that today. There are many educational opportunities in the south Devon area. I know that many people who are involved in education and training in Devon will want to play their part in increasing participation and attainment in adult education. I am grateful for the figures that my hon. Friend supplied about the number of applicants.
There are a number of excellent colleges in south Devon, and if their growth rates are anything to go by—I know that anything up to 14 per cent. a year has been planned—they serve the local population well. I know that the achievement of one of the colleges in a nearby constituency has been recognised by the award of a charter mark. I take this opportunity to congratulate South Devon college and Dr. Keen on that award. It serves as an example of what can be, and is being, achieved.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for expressing his concerns so eloquently. I share his hope that, in the years to come, as a result of our provisions, the educational institutions in Devon—schools, colleges and universities—will continue to go from strength to strength, and to merit many more accolades.

Heavy Goods Vehicles (Safety)
1.29 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The loss of a dear one in the family or a very good friend is a trauma from which people seldom recover. When that real sense of grief is overlain with deep anger at the feeling that the death may have been avoidable, the pressure is so great that it needs to be expressed, and in this case it is being expressed in the House of Commons.
In the past several years, there has been clear evidence that, because of defects in the way in which they are run, HGVs and large vehicles are increasingly contributing to terrible deaths and even worse injuries. In the frightful case at Sowerby Bridge, where six people lost their lives, not only did it take a considerable time for the case to be considered by the relevant authorities but the maximum fine for the death of six people was £5,000. The effect was to bring together a small group of relatives who have suffered that frightful trauma to alert the House of Commons to a serious and current problem.
The Government rely heavily on the fact that accident statistics are decreasing, but within those numbers it is clear that the problems involving HGVs are not only real but need to be addressed urgently. The Government have behaved with enormous and frightening complacency, despite various campaigns. I make an honourable mention of the one run by the Yorkshire Post, which highlighted some of the terrible things that have happened. The present Minister has told us that we should put pressure on the Home Office and the other agencies concerned to understand the problems.
Let us examine what the Government have done. They have announced a 20 per cent. cut across the board in the Vehicle Inspectorate. It has already been reduced by 15 per cent. since 1991. There has been pressure on the traffic police, who have responsibility for multi-agency stops and are directly responsible for many of the statistics that are of such great importance. For example, the West Mercia police gave me statistics for the total number of checks that they have carried out in a six-month period. There were 473 checks and 365 document requests, but the average mean defect rate was 91.18 per cent.
The police say, sensibly, that those statistics can vary in the type of defect that they reveal. However, vehicles that are capable of inflicting death and injury are travelling our roads. Hauliers are not just cutting costs; some are cutting corners. As one of the relatives told the Minister this week, when he was good enough to see a delegation, we should put life before livelihood.
In 1994, the Vehicle Inspectorate had 1,780 staff; by 1996 that number will be down to 1,268. The front-line enforcement staff will be reduced from 419 to 370. Therefore, we need the Government to produce a policy which is both urgent and immediate.
We must give the traffic commissioners stronger powers. They must have the right to deal with those unlicensed operators who are not part of the licensing system and who are not, therefore, subject to periodical checks. There is already a review of the traffic commissioners' work. I hope that, far from looking at a cost-cutting programme, they will be given increased powers and the ability to initiate work.

303
The Minister said, however, that he is satisfied that the Government do not necessarily seek undemanding roles in these matters. A recent memo to all traffic examiners highlighted the problem:
"As you are aware we are falling behind on some key targets in our activity budgets at this time, with your co-operation we should be able to meet them by changing our methods … Due partly to unrealistic targets using present methods partly to unreliable weighbridges, lack of police support and road works we are well behind on both weighing and vehicle inspections … It will be helpful if … you could approach private weighbridge operators such as those at Quarries, Factories Stock Holders and Agricultural Product Stores, and ask if you may observe weighing in and out. It is realised that no prosecutions will be generated … but prevention is supposed to be better than cure."
That is absolutely right, and it is time that the Government started to put that idea into operation with some vigour and commitment.
We must have more, not fewer, roadside checks; we must ask the police not to do away with their traffic divisions, but if necessary to increase the number of those who are capable of carrying out that detailed and highly specialised work. We must not use the report of KPMG Peat Marwick, which apparently will recommend that there should not be long and costly investigations, with major tachograph inquiries, without pointing out that, as a result of some of those inquiries, the directors of two companies have been gaoled and the transport manager of a third company has been given a suspended prison sentence. Those exemplary damages are not handed out without evidence that there is a need for them.
The Government should be seeking a way of developing corporate manslaughter charges. Where there is evidence of consistent neglect or the abuse of drivers' hours, we should know that someone will be prosecuted for that irresponsibility. The Government should introduce consigner liability so that companies that use transport firms have to take responsibility for ensuring that they are employing only reputable contractors.
The fines must be increased. It is bizarre that a £5,000 fine was considered adequate for Sowerby Bridge, yet a company director who was involved in hygiene problems in the catering industry could face a larger fine. The fine for illegal operation is £450, whereas an overload could attract a fine of £750. It is worth while to some cowboys to take a risk that leads to death and injury.
We must seriously consider abandoning the deregulation of the goods vehicle licensing system. Licences are renewed at five-yearly intervals, and I do not believe that the public will continue to accept a system of renewing licences which means that, unless there is a real body of evidence, neither local authorities nor individuals have the opportunity to object to a road haulier having his licence renewed. We must do something to increase enforcement at every level.
We should stop artificial targets for the Vehicle Inspectorate and ensure there is far better training. We should certainly ensure that computer links exist between the courts and the enforcement agencies. There is no reason why those who contravene the law of the land should be able to escape. Some cases avoid proper detection for many months because the statistics have been lost between the courts and traffic enforcement agencies, even if they eventually arrive on the right desk at the right time.
304
Company directors who know that they are running sub-standard vehicles and pushing their drivers well beyond the hours they should work should be punished. They will not be punished adequately by the courts unless the Government make clear their anger and their commitment to changing the way in which they are operating. The Magistrates Association will respond only if it is made clear that the House of Commons does not accept what is happening.
On several occasions, the Minister has asked my little voluntary organisation—consisting only of relatives of those who have been killed or injured in accidents involving heavy goods vehicles—to put enormous pressure on the Home Office. On Monday, he said that he would act when he saw evidence of illegal operations. Let me remind the Minister that, two years ago, his own Department set up an illegal operation working party under the traffic area co-ordinating division, which recommended the introduction of power to impound vehicles. The Government should be considering that now.
I feel so indignant about the matter that I could easily speak for longer than my allotted time. We are talking about people's lives, and the destruction of families and homes. The Minister will not be able to wave that aside with bland assurances; we want him to paint a clear picture of the measures that he personally intends to introduce.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Do I understand it that those who wish to speak have the agreement of both the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and the Minister?
Mrs. Dunwoody: Certainly.
Mr. Deputy Speakerr: Have they the agreement of the Minister?
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): Yes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, I call Mr. Tyler.
1.40 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I did not expect to be able to speak. No doubt the Minister will be glad to learn that I shall do so very briefly.
Let me emphasise two aspects of the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). First, she expressed an all-party concern. She generously allowed me to join a deputation to the Minister earlier this week; we are grateful to him for meeting members of the campaign for safer lorries, also known by the shorter name of Brake.
Secondly, there is a feeling throughout the House that we should emphasise prevention rather than penalty. As the hon. Lady pointed out, effective penalties are an important deterrent, but prevention is more important. It is in that context that hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed anxiety about the apparent reduction in the manpower strength of those who are responsible for inspecting, monitoring and policing the current regulations.

305
When our deputation met the Minister on Monday, he ruled out the possibility of corporate manslaughter charges. That stance has never been explained to my satisfaction—or, I believe, to the satisfaction of other hon. Members—given that it was considered appropriate to bring such a charge against the owners and operators of the Herald of Free Enterprise. The two instances are exactly comparable: both involve loss of life, disaster and damage on a very large scale, as will be clear to those who add together all the human tragedies that have occurred as a result of heavy lorry operators' going well outside the law.
I am delighted to have been able to speak, albeit briefly. I am also delighted that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich was able to raise the issue, and I hope for a positive and forward-looking response from the Minister.
1.42 pm
Sir Donald Thompson: I thank the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and my hon. Friend the Minister for allowing me to speak briefly. Without this opportunity, my comments would have been made in an intervention—for I know that, with their usual courtesy, the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend would have given way.
Sowerby Bridge is not in my constituency, but I represented Sowerby for a long time. It is a stone's throw from my present constituency—just a step over the border. The shock generated by the tragedy to which the hon. Lady referred cannot be exaggerated; I join her in congratulating the Yorkshire Post and the local paper, the Courier, on their restrained and sensible campaign. Long-established haulage firms in my constituency, such as Joe Dean, have asked me to convey their belief that safer lorries create better rather than worse business.
The hon. Lady made her points in her own way. I have only one point to add, which was not covered adequately earlier; I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will pick up further points in his reply. I believe that there should be more mobility in regard to traffic inspection points. Cowboys tend to divert their lorries from the fixed points that are often provided because they know where they are likely to be inspected, and that cannot be good. I have written in the past about this matter to the Minister, but I feel that I should mention it again.
1.44 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I shall speak briefly to allow my hon. Friend the Minister to respond in detail, but I wish to highlight issues raised by the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
Growing concern about lorries that do not meet the safety requirements that we rightly demand is bad news for those who operate within the law. Protection should be provided not only for lorry drivers but for the innocent travelling public who are sometimes involved in horrendous accidents. I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister about the accident that took place on Cromford hill in my constituency last year; another bad accident involving the mother of my constituent Mrs. Williams, also in my constituency, probably led to the formation of the Brake campaign. I pay tribute to the way in which Mrs. Williams has put so much work into bringing the issue to the fore.
306
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure us about the number of inspections that will be carried out. It is vital for the whole road haulage industry to understand that the Government are serious about enforcement. Although we must look for efficiency gains in management costs, we must not be diverted from the need to enforce the law as it stands.
1.45 pm
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I am grateful for the opportunity to assure the House that the Government remain fully committed to raising the safety standards of vehicles.
I acknowledge immediately that what the hon. Lady said is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am delighted that my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) and for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) were able to speak; I am well aware of their interests in the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley has taken a particular interest in it since the tragedy in Sowerby, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire—a former Transport Minister—has long been concerned about it.
Earlier this week, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) came to see me with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. We held a useful meeting with the organisers of the lorry safety campaign Brake. The hon. Lady chose to quote what was said then; she has her recollections of the occasion and I have mine, and no doubt any significant differences in our recollections will become clear. Suffice it to say that I believe we should spell out the measures that we ought to take, how they should be developed, what is practical and what is not, the reaction that is, no doubt, understandable on occasions but may be less practicable when implemented on the ground, and how we intend to build on our good record.
We have a good record. We are introducing measures to achieve further improvements, with the objective of making our roads safer. I pay tribute to staff at all levels in the Vehicle Inspectorate—a highly trained body of men and women who are fully committed to keeping our roads safe and working closely with the police and trading standards departments of local authorities throughout the country.
The Government certainly share the objectives of the Brake campaigners. One of those many objectives is to ensure that lorries are properly controlled and adequately maintained. Enforcement measures should be in place to ensure that, and transgressors should be suitably dealt with.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, we are satisfied that an enforcement regime is in place and that it ensures that the vast majority of lorry operators are operating legally, within the requirements of the operator licensing system. That system sets very high standards: many believe that they are the highest in Europe. Despite that, we are constantly seeking improved ways of targeting enforcement against operators who run outside the system.
We must remember that operators are responsible for maintaining their vehicles in a safe and roadworthy condition. No Government can ever stand over all operators all the time. My hon. Friend the Member for

307
West Derbyshire was quite right to say that the majority of lorry operators try to operate legally and that they deeply resent those who do not. Enforcement is being directed effectively to ensure that transgressors are suitably dealt with.
The enforcement system underpins the individual responsibilities of vehicle operators, with three complementary forms of control. It is important that we recognise each of those components in our control system. The operator licensing system is administered by the licensing authorities. They are independent traffic commissioners, appointed by the Secretary of State and supported by the staff of the eight traffic area offices.
With very few exceptions, hauliers wishing to operate in road haulage must apply to enter the operating licensing system; entry is conditional on having adequate maintenance arrangements, not just when a licence is sought but throughout its life, to ensure that vehicles are maintained and kept mechanically sound. We have produced, in partnership with the industry trade associations, the "Guide for Maintaining Roadworthiness", which sets down the standards that operators are expected to reach in operating their vehicles. The guide has the strong support of the traffic commissioners.
An operator's performance in running his or her fleet is kept under review and can be called into question by the licensing review boards of the traffic area offices, which monitor operators' performance and bring together all the relevant data. Those licensing review boards can consider whether to recommend disciplinary action against those who fail to match the formal declaration that they made to the traffic commissioner when they applied for a licence to operate in road haulage. A computerised database has been developed to support those licensing review boards, and the number of cases considered increased from 2,175 in 1991–92 to 3,291 in 1993–94, as the system became more effective.
The Vehicle Inspectorate directly supports the operator licensing system and the traffic commissioners through its work on enforcement and in carrying out maintenance investigations and appraisals. This year, the Vehicle Inspectorate plans to carry out 15,109 in-depth investigations, which are usually directed at new operators, with around 32,000 appraisals.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich was quite wrong when she asserted that, under the arrangements now in statute under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, there would be any relaxation of the supervision of operators. She is factually wrong. The reality, of course, as she would know had she listened to the debate, is that operators' licences, in every case, will be examined every five years, as now.
On deregulation related to the advertising arrangements for operators, no one has complained on any basis whatever. There are, in fact, better arrangements for representations from members of the public on operators' licences. As the hon. Lady should know, there is an advertisement that offers interested parties a narrow window during which they must post their concerns about the operator's licence. Late representations are routinely ruled out, much to the irritation of those who wish to have them taken into account. It is quite right that we should have the arrangement, which we have developed, to allow
308
people to make representations at any time during the five years and still have those representations taken into account.
Almost all heavy goods vehicles are subject to annual roadworthiness tests by the Vehicle Inspectorate. A certificate is issued if a vehicle is shown to meet safety and emissions standards required to pass that test. In 1993–94, the Vehicle Inspectorate carried out annual tests of about 448,000 heavy goods vehicles, of which about 127,000 had to be retested, and about 224,000 trailers, of which 43,000 had to be retested.
As well as roadworthiness tests and the operator licensing arrangements, checks are made at the roadside to ensure that UK lorries are operated safely and within the law. Checks are also made on foreign vehicles using our roads. This year, the Vehicle Inspectorate plans to carry out about 120,000 roadworthiness checks on lorries and trailers, including more than 5,000 foreign vehicles. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley that those spot checks are a powerful deterrent, as an immediate prohibition is issued for vehicles found to have significant defects, and that ban is not lifted until the inspectorate is satisfied that the defect has been remedied.
Prohibitions were issued on 16 per cent. of vehicles checked in that way in 1993–94. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that there should be an clement of surprise in the way in which the checks are carried out, so that operators do not simply seek to avoid the areas where they think that the checks will take place.
In addition to roadworthiness checks on lorries, the Vehicle Inspectorate also checks that other requirements are being met, including correct documentation, overloading, drivers' hours, tachographs, vehicle lighting, tyres and placarding of hazardous loads, all of which can have a direct effect on the safe operation of lorries. The Vehicle Inspectorate aims to carry out those checks on some 306,000 lorries in 1994–95. In 1993–94, checks of that nature resulted in some 15,000 prosecutions. It is the Government's intention that lorry standards should be maintained and that enforcement should be directed against those who operate outside the law, or fail to maintain their vehicles and meet the requirements of the operator licensing system.
Much has been made—indeed, the hon. Lady referred to it—of the Department's 20 per cent. efficiency gains initiative. I want to assure the House, not for the first time, that we are quite clear that the level of enforcement by the Vehicle Inspectorate is being maintained. The efficiency gains that the Vehicle Inspectorate is achieving arise from a variety of measures, including reductions in middle management, rationalisation of the organisation, reduced accommodation costs, an increased use of information technology and improved productivity of inspectorate staff at all levels.
The Vehicle Inspectorate expects to achieve the targets set without any reduction in its effectiveness as a road safety agency or in the level of enforcement that it provides. The effectiveness of that work and the position on resources and staffing for enforcement are kept constantly under review. Each year, the Department agrees with the inspectorate a balance of enforcement work to match the enforcement requirements of the Department and the traffic commissioners.

309
Enforcement is directed against a broad range of requirements and the mix of enforcement activity is kept under review, and redirected where considered necessary, to address any new priorities.
For example, more enforcement effort has been directed to drivers' hours, and tachograph investigations have been carried out by a Vehicle Inspectorate task force to address the particular concerns of the traffic commissioners, because, of course, tiredness among drivers is a lethal cause of accidents. It is entirely right that, if one is looking to operate a safe regime, one should direct substantial effort at tachograph investigations. Interestingly, we carry out about twice as many such investigations as other European countries. Our record on that is second to none.
We are also looking at the problem of illegal operators. A small minority chooses to operate illegally outside the system and enforcement is being targeted against them. It is true that the scale of illegal operations is difficult to estimate, and we are currently examining how a more precise quantification of the size of the problem can be obtained.
Contrary to what the hon. Lady asserts, I have not asked Brake to produce that evidence, or in any sense challenged it or relied on it to do that. I merely suggested that, if it had any information on that score, I would be more than happy to receive it, because it is important that the organisation should not feel that it is being told that it must rely solely on the statistics gathered by the Department. When one is in the area of illegal operations, by definition one must be prepared to take a fairly wide view on where the information comes from.
We want to take action against illegal operators on two broad fronts: first, by building up information to identify who they are; and, secondly, by targeting the locations where we know they may be. We recognise our own responsibilities as a major contractor of civil engineering work in that respect. Discussions are still taking place on the detail, and I am grateful to the Federation of Civil Engineers and Contractors, which responded positively to the introduction of checks by main contractors on the licence status of vehicles delivering to and from the Department's own construction sites, for providing
310
facilities for checks and displaying signs warning drivers that checks will be carried out. I know that the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office have taken similar initiatives.
The objective, of course, is to prosecute the illegal operator in court, where, I hope, a suitably heavy fine will be awarded. Another objective is to persuade the illegal operator to apply for a licence and enter the licensing system. Once in the system, the performance and subsequent transgressions that result in prosecutions can be taken into account by the traffic commissioner when considering disciplinary action against a licence holder or a driver. I am satisfied that the traffic commissioners are mindful of the need to perform their statutory duties for operator and driver discipline with due regard to ensure that the procedures are properly followed and that appropriate disciplinary action is taken where justified.
Enforcement needs to be supported by data sharing. Some computer systems are already in place and others are being developed to support the enforcement and roadworthiness work of the Vehicle Inspectorate and the operator licensing function of the traffic area offices.
I want to say a few words to the hon. Member for North Cornwall about the concept of corporate manslaughter. I must make it clear to him that it is not directly my policy area in terms of constructing the criminal law. As he rightly said, I told the campaigners that there are already a whole range of remedies, including legislation on manslaughter, for such cases. I entirely take his point about the existence of the concept of corporate manslaughter and its applicability in other circumstances.
Although I do not want to rule out the prospect of other offences being created on the statute book, I reiterate that there is already a panoply of offences. From his experience, the hon. Gentleman will understand that the diffidence of the courts is often at issue. They are diffident about bringing charges in such difficult areas. I am satisfied that our effective and valuable enforcement system plays a vital part—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Time is up.

Homelessness
2 pm
Mrs. Ann Winterton: As many hon. Members are aware, the country's main national homelessness charity, Shelter, recently organised a promotional event, Shelter Week, through which it sought to boost awareness of its work and to encourage support and involvement by our constituents. I was asked to record a taped message of support for the promotional campaign and I was delighted to do what I could in a limited way to assist. As a result of that involvement, I decided to seek an opportunity to put on record a number of important points of detail and of principle in an effort to assist in moving the issue of homelessness further up the public, political and parliamentary agenda.
My starting point is simple. In a well organised and affluent society such as ours, it is a tragedy in personal, social and economic terms that homelessness continues to be a major problem. I am anxious to do all that I can to encourage the establishment of a new consensus in finding practical solutions. The more I look at the situation, the more I am convinced that real and lasting solutions will be found only when the problem is tackled by a genuine partnership between national and local government, housing associations, charities, campaigning organisations and individuals.
It is against that background that we need, first, to appreciate the sheer scale of the problem, which persists despite the commitment and determination of successive housing Ministers. In February, Shelter published a report which showed that it is helping a record number of homeless and badly housed people—it helped 64,000 households last year—through its national network of housing aid centres which are supported by central and local government grants as well as, of course, by charitable donations. The report also clearly demonstrated how crucial a decent home is to stable family life and how homelessness causes great individual misery and leads to increasing burdens on the taxpayer.
In 1993, some 139,790 households in England were accepted as homeless under the law, although many more sought assistance under the legislation and were not accepted. Although there has been a welcome decline in the number of people accepted as homeless since 1992, research by Shelter published last year showed that many authorities believe that the reduction in numbers was due to a temporary increase in the supply of housing association homes following measures in the 1992 autumn statement.
There remains considerable concern that homelessness will increase once again as the housing association development programme of homes to rent is reduced next year. The output by housing associations of new or rehabilitated homes to rent will be less than a third of what many experts agree is required. The Minister may be interested to learn that the Housing Corporation's assessment of housing needs concluded that about 100,000 low cost homes a year would be needed for the decade up to 2001. Perhaps he will take the opportunity provided by this debate to say whether he agrees with that assessment and what research his Department has carried out on the subject.
It is not just that the number of new homes coming on to the market has been reduced. The volume of new lettings of council and housing association homes has
312
remained relatively static and in many areas the size or type of housing most commonly available to re-let is all too rarely appropriate for those in most urgent need. The success of the right-to-buy scheme, which I whole-heartedly support, has had the practical effect of allowing 1.5 million council houses to be sold, removing them for ever from the system.
The private rented sector is often financially beyond the means of many people, especially the very young, who cannot afford the necessary deposit or rent in advance. In short, in some areas there is not enough decent housing available at affordable rents. One of the largest factors in the homelessness equation—the breakdown of traditional family life—must also be confronted.
Liberal divorce laws, the encouragement of teenage sexual activity and single parenthood, and the general undermining of the family unit—by which I mean the husband and wife and their children bound together by marriage—by taxation and other legislation, have been major contributors to changes in our country's demography. Those changes have led to less stable homes and more fragmentation. Successive Governments cannot ignore their responsibility for those social changes.
There is much evidence of disrepair in the existing housing stock. One in six homes needs urgent repairs costing more than £1,000, and they include more than 2 million owner-occupied homes. Some of those who own their homes continue to face real problems of negative equity, although, thankfully, that problem is less acute in the part of the world that I represent in Cheshire. The problem has been exacerbated by rising interest rates and the fears created by the decision of the Secretary of State for Social Security substantially to reduce income support for mortgage interest payments. That move has prompted the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Building Societies Association, the House-Builders Federation and the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance to warn of an increase in the number of repossessions next year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who is the chairman of the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance, told the House just a few days ago that, thus far, the house building industry is certainly not participating in the more general economic upturn that we all agree is taking place. That view will be shared by many. Unless the Treasury takes steps to encourage greater confidence in the housing market, there is every prospect that home ownership—participation in the property-owning democracy—will no longer be such a popular option as it has been in the immediate past.
One of my greatest concerns is the effect on family life, on the development of children and thus on the future of our society, of placing too many families in relatively insecure temporary accommodation. I remain concerned that too many local authorities place too many such families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation at an extremely high cost to the public purse. Living in such accommodation is surely bad for the health, education and welfare of families, especially those containing young people. Shelter is to be congratulated on at least highlighting the problems and pressing instead for resources for investment in good quality housing.
A recent report by the Standing Conference on Public Health estimated that homelessness and poor housing conditions were adding a staggering £2 billion a year to health care costs. More than 50,000 families live in

313
temporary accommodation in which disrepair, overcrowding, shared cooking and sanitary facilities, and lack of space for children's play and study lead to higher rates of infection, depression, anxiety and behavioural problems in children, and an increased number of injuries sustained through accidents. Surely it is not, therefore, a case of being unable to afford the resources to tackle the problem; rather it is illogical and counter-productive to allow those problems to continue further.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will indicate a willingness to agree that all changes in housing policy and benefit arrangements should be assessed against the test of whether they will increase or decrease the number of families in unsuitable bed-and-breakfast accommodation. A classic example of just what can go wrong when bringing forward changes in housing policy is revealed when we consider how the funds saved by reducing housing subsidies to housing associations and councils has been offset by more current and future spending on housing benefit as a result of higher rents. Higher rents also contribute to higher wage demands and thus fuel the inflationary spiral.
A recent survey found that 94 per cent. of the public believe that homeless people should be found homes, although that may he slightly idealistic in some ways. We need to build on that consensus to find a real, lasting and practical solution to the problem. We need an adequate supply of affordable homes for people who need them, and those in the greatest need are the homeless.
In addition, we need an owner-occupied sector which is secure and not just a route into homelessness for some people. We need a housing system that offers mobility, flexibility and real choice. Surely we, the Government, charities and individuals need to do everything that we can to extend measures which help people to keep their homes, and to ensure stability in family life, of which housing is an essential part.
I hope that, if nothing else, this short debate has provided the opportunity for my hon. Friend the Minister to respond constructively to what I have said, to avoid polemics, and to rise to the challenge for the Government to redouble their efforts to tackle a problem. In a relatively wealthy, well run society such as ours, there can be little excuse for the continuation of that problem.
2.11 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): The principal aim of the Government's housing policy is that a decent home should be within reach of every family. Relieving homelessness is an important part of our housing policy. Figures collected for my Department each quarter by local authorities show that fewer and fewer households are becoming homeless and requiring local authority help to obtain accommodation.
For the past two and a half years, there has been a reduction every quarter in the year-on-year numbers of households accepted for rehousing under homelessness legislation. The figures show that the Government have been successful in encouraging authorities to move away from using bed and breakfast hotels as temporary accommodation for homeless households. The number of homeless applicants living in bed and breakfast accommodation at the end of September 1994 was only about a third of the number three years previously.
314
A number of authorities use short-term leases of privately rented accommodation as a better alternative to provide good quality temporary accommodation for homeless households. To help authorities to continue to provide that accommodation, we shall shortly be laying regulations which will extend for up to a further two years the period for which such leases can be held without the cost scoring as capital expenditure.
Our policies are dealing with the needs of people sleeping rough. The Government's six-year £180 million rough sleepers initiative in central London is widely regarded as having had considerable success in reducing the number of people sleeping on the streets of the capital. A count by voluntary agencies last November found about 290 people sleeping rough in central London, a reduction on estimates of more than 1,000 before the initiative began in 1990. Independent research into the first three years of the initiative also showed that several thousand people had been helped to find accommodation through the initiative, and that many more had been prevented from becoming homeless in the first place.
Many of the people who remain on the streets of central London are the "hard core" of rough sleepers who may have slept out for a number of years. They may suffer from alcohol or drug abuse, or they may have mental health problems. The needs of those people can best be met by focused co-operation by health authorities, social services departments, housing authorities and voluntary sector agencies. We have to accept, however, that some long-term rough sleepers will be resistant to offers of accommodation and that it may take time to persuade them to come inside.
My ministerial colleagues and I have paid a number of visits to projects for single homeless people in central London, managed by excellent voluntary sector organisations such as Centrepoint, St. Mungo's, Crisis and the Salvation Army. Many of those are funded by the Department. One cannot fail to be impressed by the way in which those agencies seek to provide assistance for individuals who would otherwise sleep rough.
By March 1996, the rough sleepers initiative will have provided about 5,000 places in a range of permanent and temporary accommodation, as well as outreach and resettlement workers who contact people sleeping on the sheets and help them to start a new life away from the streets. The initiative has shown how voluntary and statutory agencies can work together towards the relief of single homelessness.
Outside central London, it is the responsibility of local authorities to consider the needs of people sleeping rough as part of their overall housing strategy. I commend to local authorities the model of co-operation between statutory and voluntary agencies developed under the rough sleepers initiative. For our part, the Government pay grants under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 to voluntary agencies which provide direct and practical help for single homeless people. In 1994-95, £6.8 million has been made available to more than 150 projects.
As well as specific action to prevent and relieve homelessness, the Government are pursuing wider policies aimed at expanding the housing options available to everyone. Eighty per cent. of respondents to surveys said that they would prefer to own their own homes. There can no doubting our success in expanding owner-occupation. The right to buy for council tenants has brought home ownership to more than 1.6 million

315
families in Great Britain. We are widening the choice for tenants who want to become home owners. The local authority cash incentive schemes and the Housing Corporation's incentive schemes for tenants have helped a further 21,000 people to buy homes. Those schemes have the additional benefit of freeing council or housing association dwellings to house more families in greatest need.
We shall continue to give high priority to bringing the option of owner-occupation within the reach of more people. Since house prices and interest rates are both low, home ownership is more affordable than it has been for years, so now is a good time for people to think about buying.
We recognise, of course, that not everyone will be able to afford to buy a home outright, particularly young people, so our policies also deal with the demand for rented accommodation. In particular, we are keen to expand the role played by the private rented sector in offering accommodation to people in housing need. It is a mistake to assume that private rented accommodation will, by definition, he inadequate. For many families, it is the right and most flexible answer. With several hundred thousand vacant private sector homes in England, scope exists for bringing more homes into private renting to help meet housing demand.
We have introduced a number of initiatives to achieve that. For example, housing associations have become involved in the management of private rented stock. Acting as managing agents, they have brought benefits to tenants, through the provision of a high level of service and security, and to landlords by providing a high quality, hassle-free intermediary. To build on this initiative, a new scheme—HAMA Plus—has been introduced. It will provide an additional £5 million in 1994-95 to housing associations providing management services to bring empty properties back into shape and back into use. Housing associations have also been central to the flats-over-shops initiative, which not only brings unused space back into use but brings new life to abandoned areas of our high streets.
Local authorities themselves have also done a great deal. A number have introduced imaginative schemes to encourage local landlords to co-operate with them in housing families and others in need. One approach that is achieving impressive results is the introduction of rent and deposit guarantee schemes. They give landlords the reassurances that they may require to house low-income tenants and can dramatically increase the chances of such households gaining access to rented accommodation.
There is now some evidence of an increase in private lettings. The number has grown from just over 1.6 million in 1988 to just under 2 million at the end of 1993. It is important that we continue to reinforce that trend in recognition of the vital role that a healthy private sector can play in meeting housing need. But the social rented
316
sector also has, and will continue to have, a role to play in providing long-term, settled housing for families who need help.
It is difficult to estimate the need for social housing at national level because it depends on how need is defined and short-term fluctuations in factors affecting access to owner-occupation, such as house prices and interest rates. However, many publicly quoted estimates of 100,000 homes a year seem to us to be overstated.
We are investing significant sums of money in social housing. Public resources to housing associations—the main providers of new low-cost housing for rent and for sale—are more than £1.5 billion this year, enabling some 60,000 new lettings to be provided. That will bring the total over the three years to 31 March 1995 to more than 180,000, an all-time high level of housing association provision and about 27,000 more homes than we promised in the 1992 Conservative manifesto. Over the next three years—1995–96 to 1997–98—we expect Housing Corporation and local authority expenditure together, and the private finance that they will attract, to produce a further 180,000 new lettings.
If local authorities are to make the best use of those new lettings and the existing stock, they need fair and rational systems for allocating their housing and their nominations for housing association tenancies. The courts' interpretation of the current homelessness legislation has made that impossible in some areas. At present, households who happen to apply for assistance under the homelessness legislation are automatically placed on a fast track for housing allocations, irrespective of whether they have the greatest need for long-term social housing. Meanwhile, families in need on the housing waiting list are left standing. For that reason, we are committed to reform.
Our proposals would separate the allocation of long-term tenancies from the provision of immediate assistance to the homeless. Quite simply, those who have the greatest need for long-term social housing should get the highest priority, whether or not they have been accepted as homeless by the local authority. At the same time, we are committed to retaining an effective safety net for homeless families and vulnerable people to ensure that those groups have access to suitable accommodation.
The relentless growth in the number of households in this country has presented a formidable challenge for our policies on housing throughout the Government's period in office. I am pleased to say that those policies have withstood the test and are succeeding in dealing with homelessness and increasing the supply of dwellings. We have also expanded the housing options available, so that more people than ever before have the opportunity to own their own homes.
2.23 pm
Sitting suspended.
2.30 pm
On resuming:—
It being half past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

CONTINGENCIES FUND 1993–94
Ordered,
That there be laid before this House a Return of the Accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 1993–94, showing:—
(1) The Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 1994.
The Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Burns.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Post Office
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to assess the opinion of the public on the future of the Post Office.
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The Government issued a Green Paper on the future of postal services in June last year.
    Mr. Raynsford: As the President of the Board of Trade appears a little coy on this issue, may I remind him of the implacable opposition of the British people to the privatisation of postal services? May I also remind him that the people of Greenwich are equally opposed to the back-door privatisation of their post office by Post Office Counters, which is trying to close the Crown post office and to hand it to a franchisee, probably operating from the back of a supermarket?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that the unions tried to organise a strike on the issue on Monday. I am pleased to tell the House that that strike was even more of a failure than the one a few weeks ago.
    Mr. Dover: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main difficulty is that the public still believe that he has it in mind to privatise Post Office Counters, whereas our only proposal is to privatise Royal Mail?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right. More than 19,000 post offices are in the private sector and only a relatively small number—a few hundred—are Crown post offices. The proposals that the Government considered were related to the privatisation of Royal Mail.

    Regional Electricity Companies
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with the Director General of Electricity Supply about the pay and perks of directors and executives of the South Wales, Northern and Eastern regional electricity companies.
    The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. Tim Eggar): My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions. The regulator has no responsibility for these matters.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not a fact that the chairman of the South Wales electricity company has received a 68 per cent. rise in pay, that the chairman of Northern Electric has received a 46 per cent. rise and that the chairman of Eastern Electricity has received a 110 per cent. rise? When will it dawn on Ministers that the British public are scandalised by the way in which the bosses of privatised monopolies are making vast sums, beyond the dreams of avarice, out of consumers? The bosses are up to their ankles in the trough and they went in head first. When will Ministers realise that this scandal must be dealt with, that the responsibility is theirs and that they must take action?
    Mr. Eggar: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that we are awaiting the

    319
    consideration of the Greenbury committee. The committee will consider these issues, among others. The Government have made it clear that if, after receipt of the recommendations, it is felt appropriate to legislate, we shall certainly consider doing so.
    Mr. Batiste: Is not the real point that, as Professor Littlechild demonstrated so clearly this week, the regulator has all the powers necessary to look after the interests of the British consumer? His new intervention is good news for the British consumer, who will get even lower electricity prices as a consequence of the privatisation programme.
    Mr. Eggar: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) in the debate only 10 days ago criticised the regulator because, allegedly, he was not taking enough account of the interests of consumers. Following the regulator's announcement yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman attacked him for not taking account of the interests of the shareholders.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Is it not strange that, after the extraordinary events of the past 48 hours, the President of the Board of Trade is not making a statement about them and about the consequences of the regulator's announcement? Far from attacking Professor Littlechild, as the Minister wrongly claimed, I welcomed his belated action yesterday. Is it not clear from his announcement that electricity consumers have been massively overcharged and fleeced of perhaps billions of pounds over the past four or five years? What action do Ministers intend to take to ensure that the regulator acts now to reduce electricity prices further? Is it not clear that electricity shares are overpriced exactly because consumers have been overcharged?
    As officials and Ministers in the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry knew of Professor Littlechild's intention to consider a price review before the sale of PowerGen and National Power shares, is not that inside information, as defined in part V of the Criminal Justice Act 1993? As we saw yesterday, beyond question the matter was price-sensitive. In withholding that information, are not Ministers and officials guilty of either absolute negligence or complete dishonesty in their handling of this affair?
    Mr. Eggar: What is absolutely clear is that the Labour party opposed privatisation, and therefore opposed the benefits to consumers which have already flowed from privatisation, including a reduction in real terms in electricity prices of 9 per cent. over the past two years. The right hon. Gentleman says that the consumers have been ripped off. He seems to have forgotten the record of the previous Labour Government, when real electricity prices rose by 22 per cent. between 1974 and 1979.
    With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's outrageous allegation towards the end of his long question, may I refer him to the article in The Guardian on Saturday, which made it very clear that he had written to the regulator asking for a reduction in prices ahead of 1 April? Did he say to the stock exchange—[Interruption.] This is very relevant. The right hon. Gentleman has accused my right hon. Friends and me of misleading the public who have bought Generating Company shares. The right hon. Gentleman did not refer the letter that he wrote to the regulator to the stock exchange, nor did he give any
    320
    indication in that letter, as I understand it, that there was any expectation that the political pressure that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to bring to bear on the regulator would have any impact on the Genco sales.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: When considering the pay of directors of regional electricity companies and, indeed, companies as a whole, does my hon. Friend agree that those matters are not for the Government but for the shareholders who own the companies? To make that system effective, will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of shareholders having, by law, to vote every year on the pay and perks of their directors, just as they presently have to vote for the reappointment of auditors?
    Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend has made an interesting suggestion, and it may be one of the things that the Greenbury committee will consider.

    Post Office
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many post offices now have agency status.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): A total of 18,960.
    Mrs. Roche: Given that more than 1,300 people in my constituency have signed a petition opposing the change to agency status at Muswell Hill post office and that the senior area manager in charge of that post office has told me that he does not know of one person who supports the change, why are the Government foisting that change on my constituents and on people up and down the country?
    Mr. Page: Any proposal to change from Crown to agency status is the decision of Post Office Counters. May I give the hon. Lady a little hope for the future? When such a conversion takes place, an independent survey is made immediately and in 99 per cent. of cases the public have deemed themselves generally satisfied with the move.
    Mr. McLoughlin: May I welcome my hon. Friend to his new post? He is absolutely right to say that conversions of Crown post offices have been generally accepted. Will he confirm that one of the usual benefits of the conversion policy is that post offices under agency status open longer and give a far better service to the public? Will he not be distracted by the synthetic strike action which failed miserably this week?
    Mr. Page: I thank my hon. Friend for those kind words. He is right; Monday's strike was a miserable flop. Only 75 Crown post offices shut, while 740 stayed open—and of course, the 18,960 agency post offices were still there to provide service to the customer. Moreover, the proof of the pudding is in the eating: when conversions take place, we find that the level of trade increases.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of gross domestic product was invested in manufacturing industry in 1993.
    Mr. Heseltine: Manufacturing investment was 2.3 per cent of gross domestic product in 1993 and 10.2 per cent. of manufacturing output, when measured at constant prices.
    Mr. Campbell: But is it not true that, in the past 15 years, 40 per cent. of jobs in manufacturing industry have been lost? There was the loss of the pits, the loss of the shipyards and the loss of the steelworks—and the Government do not even know that they have done it.
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is trying to imply that the overmanning that had done so much to hurt British industry could somehow be sustained. He should allow us enormous credit for the fact that Britain is now manufacturing at far higher productivity rates and is therefore far more competitive than it was. Investment forecasts for manufacturing industry next year are seen to be rising significantly.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that among the factors that influence investment in manufacturing industry are the levels of manufacturing output and of interest rates? As manufacturing output fell significantly in January, the most recent month for which figures have been recorded, is it not a great relief to my right hon. Friend that we are no longer in the exchange rate mechanism, and are not being forced to raise our interest rates today, along with the countries that had the misfortune to remain in the ERM, which will crucify their domestic economies because of their loyalty to the European dream?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has very strong views on that subject, and I admire his ingenuity in trying to exploit them in the context of the question. But that is not relevant to our position today, because the outlook for British manufacturing investment for next year is extremely encouraging.
    Mr. Wilson: Do not the appalling figures for manufacturing output released this morning give the lie to the over-inflated hype that we hear from the Government about the success of manufacturing and about the recovery? Is it not extraordinary that, when exports are doing relatively well, factory output is falling? What does that tell us about domestic demand? Is it not true that all the claims about economic recovery are fragile and that the real economy, as represented by this morning's figures, has little to do with the world of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Governor of the Bank of England?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman does not live in the real world. The figures announced today show that output in January was 4.3 per cent. higher than output a year ago, and that productivity in the fourth quarter of last year was 5.9 per cent. higher than that of a year ago. The latest CBI forecasts show an 8.4 per cent. growth in manufacturing investment this year, and those by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research show an increase of 9.3 per cent. When will Opposition Members recognise success when they see it?
    Sir Donald Thompson: Is it not obvious to my right hon. Friend and to the rest of the House that, as unemployment is falling, manufacturing industry and other industries are improving?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right. Employment is increasing both in manufacturing industry and in the
    322
    service industries, and one of the most exciting things that is happening is that British manufacturing exports are rising significantly throughout the world. All the forecasts suggest a better year this year, and an even better one next year.

    Post Office
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the Post Office concerning proposals to employ additional part-time staff to replace full-time staff.
    Mr. Eggar: My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions. Staffing levels and working patterns within the Post Office are a matter for Post Office management, not the Government. I understand that the Royal Mail wholly refutes the allegations of target cuts in full-time postal jobs made in recent press reports.
    Mr. Prentice: Is not the accelerating casualisation of the work force of the Post Office directly attributable to the uncertainty about the future of the organisation and to the Government's unwillingness to make plain what they intend to do about the Post Office in the future? Should not the Government give the Post Office commercial freedom to expand its business and to create new full-time jobs instead of allowing it to twist in the wind with no clear idea of where its future lies?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman appears to be totally unaware that the Post Office employs 115,000 full-time staff, that it is committed to improving the standards of services delivered both to households and to businesses, and that it has a fine record which is second to none in the world.
    Sir Peter Emery: In considering staff matters, will my hon. Friend look at the problems of staffing in contracted-out post offices in relation to motor vehicle licences? However much we may welcome the new sub-postmasters, something is very wrong when many of them cannot issue vehicle licences. A constituent of mine had to motor 60 miles to get a licence, and that is nonsense.
    Mr. Eggar: I shall look into my hon. Friend's specific concern. As a matter of general policy, we are encouraging Post Office Counters and sub-post offices in particular to expand their business opportunities and to improve the width and breadth of the services which they can offer to constituents.
    Mr. Hain: The Minister must know that the switch from full-time to part-time staff has come about because of the cost-cutting that has been forced on the Post Office as a result of the Government's dithering over its future and their failure to give the Post Office commercial freedom. Will he come clean on the fact that one of the results of that will be a decline in the number of second deliveries? There has been a contraction in second deliveries, but, as more part-timers are employed by the Post Office, the Government's long-term objectives of getting a once-over-the-ground service and sacrificing second deliveries will be the result.
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman appears to be unaware that the reason why fewer letters are delivered on the second delivery is that the Royal Mail has so improved

    323
    its service that the vast majority of letters are delivered on the first delivery. If there are no letters left, it is hardly surprising if few are delivered.
    Madam Speaker: Mr. Dykes.
    Mr. Dykes: May I thank my hon. Friend—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I was calling the hon. Gentleman to ask Question 6.

    Machine Tool Exports
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the development of United Kingdom machine tool exports in recent months.
    Mr. Eggar: I am not sure whether to apologise to my hon. Friend or not.
    The Department takes a continual interest in the export performance of industry. Export sales of machine tools at current prices in the fourth quarter of 1994 were almost double the level achieved in the same period in 1993. In the first three quarters of 1994, the machine tool industry ran an estimated balance of payments surplus of £40 million.
    Mr. Dykes: With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I shall try to ask a question about the Post Office on another occasion.
    I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that, after years of battering and decline, the machine tool industry has now significantly turned the corner and is producing much improved figures? Would he say that that was due to the recent devaluation of the pound or to reinvestment?
    Mr. Eggar: It is due to the first-class commitment by management in the machine tool industry towards identifying significant new export opportunities and to a considerable commitment by the work force to additional training. The industry has a record of which Members on both sides of the House should be proud.
    Mr. Barry Jones: On the vital subject of manufacturing, can the Minister tell us why the Chancellor of the Exchequer believed that Consett steel works was producing steel?
    Mr. Eggar: The Chancellor is extremely proud of the fine record of manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom. He is also extremely proud of the record of inward investment in the north-east of England. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that my right hon. and learned Friend is proud of the introduction of Nissan, Samsung and many other allied companies.

    Telecommunications
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received on the relative costs of telecommunications services in the member states of the European Union.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): Studies for my Department and by other bodies show that United Kingdom telecommunications costs are among the lowest in Europe. The UK is pressing for rapid liberalisation of European telecommunications to bring down costs throughout the Union and to stimulate multi-media communications.
    Mrs. Knight: As low telecommunications costs are an essential element in ensuring that business is competitive, when does my hon. Friend expect liberalisation to take place throughout the European Union and does he expect that British Telecom will benefit from that?
    Mr. Taylor: I am delighted to confirm that the Telecoms Council last November set a date of 1 January 1998 for complete liberalisation of voice telephony and infrastructure, and Commissioner Bangemann has confirmed that that is the date by which liberalisation must have taken place, not the date from which it should commence. That is tremendously good news for European industry, but it is especially good news for industry in this country competing in the newly liberalised markets, given the experience of competitive telecommunications and falling costs that we have had for many years.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that one of the important considerations affecting costs in the sector is the extent to which fibre-optic linking will be made available, not only in the industrial cities and conurbations, but throughout all areas in these islands? Will he give an assurance that, in developing policy, he will bear that in mind and ensure terms and conditions of agreement with contracting companies which place an obligation on providing services to rural as well as to industrial areas?
    Mr. Taylor: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that we must ensure that access to the super-highway covers the whole country and not just parts of it. We are considering licensing those parts of the country that are not yet covered by the cable industry, but the most interesting way to take that service to the really rural areas is probably through alternative technologies, such as use of the radio spectrum. I am studying the outlying parts of Wales with the Secretary of State for Wales to find out how quickly we can produce proposals on the use of the radio spectrum to bring together the rural communities.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my hon. Friend accept that he deserves considerable congratulation, as the breakthrough in telecommunications will be of great benefit to the British telecommunications industry, as he rightly said, and to consumers throughout the European Union? Will he be emboldened by that success to press forward, together with his colleagues, to ensure that we extend the single market to energy and the airline industry, and go for complete airline deregulation in very short order as well?
    Mr. Taylor: It is always good to have the support of my hon. Friends in this matter. I also had the support of the other Ministers at the G7 conference the weekend before last when it was made clear in the conclusions that British policies had set the agenda. There is no doubt that within the European Union we should extend the benefits of the competitive market to energy and the airline industry. That will require us to stiffen the resolve of the European Commission and to ensure that, once member states agree regulations, the European Court of Justice has adequate powers to take action if countries do not obey the rules to which their political leaders have agreed.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does not the Minister realise that many domestic households in this country have fewer phones than households in our competitor countries because of the very high connection charges, which are

    325
    higher in Britain than in Sweden, Australia, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Austria, Belgium, Portugal, Luxembourg, the United States, France, Germany and Canada?
    Mr. Taylor: The point about telephones is that the overall costs in this country are among the lowest in the European Union. They are slightly above those in Sweden, which has also liberalised. The key condition for telecommunications is liberalisation and Opposition Members should remember that, given the amount of opposition with which they met our telecommunications policies over the years. We have a proud record in telecommunications and it has given us, through the alternative infrastructure of the cable industry, access to even cheaper connection and standing charges, as will have been seen from the policy announced by Nynex Communications only last week, when it cut the cost of telephony by 25 per cent.
    Sir Michael Grylls: Does my hon. Friend agree that the transformation of a sleepy British Telecommunications and a nationalized Cable and Wireless—as it was—into world-class companies that are winning orders and being very successful throughout the world is a huge tribute to the success of the privatisation programme and the fact that they are able to compete and win business in Europe? We must continue pressing to open the market, so that those very successful and now private companies can win more and more orders.
    Mr. Taylor: Britain now has 150 public telephone operator licensees, having started with just one in the early 1980s. BT has therefore had to face competition in the domestic market and, increasingly, in the local loop from the cable industry. It is therefore a more successful company. Whenever I go to other countries and talk to their telecommunication industry leaders and Ministers, they want BT to join partnerships with them. I am delighted at the success of both BT and Cable and Wireless in helping British exports and making use of their new-found competitive instincts.

    Chemical Industry
    Mr. Watson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department is taking to increase the participation of women in the chemical industry.
    Mr. Page: The continuing competitiveness of the chemical industry depends on it attracting and retaining high-quality employees, both male and female. My Department is in regular contact with the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Chemical Industries Association and the Office of Science and Technology's development unit for women, in order to promote the role of women within the chemical industry.
    Mr. Watson: The Minister's response betrays the fact that he is totally unaware of figures provided by the Chemical Industries Association, which show that, of some 280,000 workers within the industry, only a third are women. Is he further aware that a working party established by member companies of the CIA and trade unions in the industry have unearthed considerable evidence of job segregation, which prevents women from reaching many of the more influential and better-paid jobs in the industry? On International Women's Day, how does
    326
    he intend to stop that waste of talent and ensure that women's skills are utilised fully throughout the chemical industry?
    Mr. Page: I accept that the industry starts from a low base, but I do not accept the doom and gloom scenario that the hon. Gentleman advances. For example, the Chemical Industries Association has produced an equal opportunities self-assessment pack, which enables chemical companies to implement equal opportunities. In 1992–93, 36 per cent. of first degree graduates in chemistry were female. That is a step in the right direction.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend recognise that I am the son of a lady research chemist, and that the lady whom my mother once succeeded in a job as a research chemist in the 1950s, our right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, has made the most significant contribution to Britain and the world of any research chemist ever?
    Mr. Page: I had often wondered what made my hon. Friend so special, and now I know.
    News in that direction is encouraging. The proportion of women studying chemical engineering is rising: in 1988, the figure was some 17 per cent. and in 1993 it had risen to 22 per cent. Again, figures are going in the right direction.

    Departmental Offices
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to offer flexitime and parental leave in offices run by his Department.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Flexible working hours arrangements already operate extensively throughout the DTI and its agencies. All such arrangements are set up locally.
    Mr. Ross: Does the Minister agree that the development of the executive agencies is putting the availability of flexitime and parental leave at risk? Given that both flexitime and parental leave are important to encourage, maintain and help women back to work, will he outline to the House his proposals to ensure that both parental leave and flexitime are safeguarded within those agencies?
    Mr. Taylor: Given that the DTI is setting the lead with its "Investors in People" programme, which will make extremely good commitments to all DTI employees, I have no doubt that the various agencies will make their own local arrangements. Throughout the civil service, flexitime is increasing because that is what employees want. We are also safeguarding parental leave. If the hon. Gentleman has a constituency example that is causing him concern, I hope that he will write to me. Overall, we find that the reactions of staff to how they are treated within the agencies and the DTI are encouraging.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: What measures is my hon. Friend's Department taking to encourage and allow people to work at home, as part of the flexi-arrangements that he has described?
    Mr. Taylor: One specific way is that, as we roll out new technology, and as Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology, I am encouraging tele-working. There is no doubt that the ability to access from home the

    327
    same computers, and in the same real time, as those used in the office, will be an interesting way of proceeding to avoid people having to commute every day simply to gain access to office information and material and to make a contribution.

    Solent Routes
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the President of the Board of Trade who will be conducting the inquiry into the Solent routes following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report; and when he expects to make an announcement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans): The Director General of Fair Trading will review the cross-Solent ferry services market this year, as announced in 1992 on publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. I understand that the director general is to seek the opinions of interested parties shortly and will announce his findings in due course.
    Mr. Field: Following the escape from Parkhurst prison, my hon. Friend and the nation now appreciate just how difficult it is to leave the Isle of Wight. Although the majority of my constituents appreciate the tremendous improvement that has taken place in the quality of service on the cross-Solent ferry routes, nevertheless anxieties remain about the high prices.
    I should like my hon. Friend to be able to reassure me that the next, and second, inquiry will consider costs carefully, especially as the first inquiry concluded that the ferry routes to the Isle of Wight are the most expensive in the whole of the world, yet reached no conclusion.
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend has always given special attention to that issue, and I recognise that. He must be aware that the MMC's report concluded three years ago that, although there was a monopoly position on the Isle of Wight in favour of Wightlink, it did not operate against the public interest in terms of profits or fares, and that that restricts the power of the President of the Board of Trade to take remedial action. We do not have legal power to act unless there is an adverse finding by the MMC.
    In that context, the then Secretary of State announced that the position continued to require monitoring, and for that reason the position would be reviewed three years later. That review is to take place, and I am sure that the opinions outlined yet again by my hon. Friend will be expressed to the director general.

    Investment
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to help ensure that profit-making British companies invest in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Heseltine: The Government have pursued, and will continue to pursue, the policies that have turned the United Kingdom into an attractive place for investment, whether by British or overseas companies. Since 1979, the volume of investment in plant and machinery has increased by more than a half, and total business
    328
    investment by more than a third. The United Kingdom is second only to the United States in attracting overseas investment.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the President recognise the tendency of British companies, after they have made profits as a result of the efforts of their work force, to invest those profits abroad? Will he also recognise that it follows that Britain now has a record of investment that is about the lowest in the industrialised world? Bearing in mind the persisting high level of unemployment, what will the Government do about that position?
    Mr. Heseltine: The first thing that I would advise the hon. Gentleman to do is return to his constituency and explain that unemployment has decreased by 430 in the past 12 months. Then perhaps he will move on to Electrotech Ltd., which has announced the creation of another 200 new jobs in the next three years. After that, he can go to British Steel at Llanwern, which has announced the creation of 150 jobs. After that—[Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members cannot take that, because things are going too well for them. After that, the hon. Gentleman can go on to Castle Leisure in his constituency, which has announced the creation of 80 new jobs. By the time that he has finished that journey, there will probably be some more good news.
    Sir Cranley Onslow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the biggest possible deterrent to profitable investment anywhere in the United Kingdom would be the imposition of the provisions of the social chapter?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am in absolute agreement with my right hon. Friend that, if the Labour party ever had the chance to introduce the social chapter, that would be the biggest single accelerator of unemployment that one could impose on our manufacturing base.
    Mr. O'Neill: Does the President of the Board of Trade recall that, when ICI was under threat from Lord Hanson, the whole House held that company's commitment to investment in high regard? On 24 February, Bryan Bullock, the ICI power services manager, said:
    "The UK's largest industrial consumers for whom electricity is a feedstock cannot wait indefinitely for competition to emerge and will emigrate overseas".
    Does the President agree with that statement? How long must we wait for Littlechild to change his mind about that issue? Is the President prepared to intervene to defend the major energy consumers in the UK and to give them the fair crack of the whip internationally that they have not had previously because of the regulator's indifference to their concerns?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that we recently changed the law to provide companies such as ICI with the opportunity to generate their own on-site electricity. I believe that ICI has already taken advantage of that new flexibility.
    This is a question about Britain's interests in investment and in our major companies. ICI, whose officer the hon. Gentleman has quoted, is one of Britain's jewels in the crown. It invests across the world, earns profits across the world and carries the flag of British industry into every corner of the world economy.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that he continues to encourage the

    329
    highly successful British pharmaceutical industry, to ensure that it remains firmly anchored in this country as one of the jewels in the crown to which he referred?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will realise that we give every encouragement to the pharmaceutical industry, which is one of Britain's leading industries. There is massive investment in that industry, and we are pioneering new drugs which are extremely important for our future.

    Share Options
    Mr. Clapham: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he proposes to introduce to regulate the issue of share options.
    Mr. Evans: Share options and other aspects of directors' pay are under consideration by the Greenbury committee. I have no plans to introduce any measures in advance of that committee's findings.
    Mr. Clapham: I am rather surprised at the Minister's answer, particularly in view of the public concern, of which he must be aware, and in the light of the Prime Minister's acceptance of Labour's position that something must be done about boardroom excesses. The Minister must also be aware that it was revealed recently that 77 directors of the private electricity companies had awarded themselves £72 million in share options. In the light of that, does he agree that it is in the public interest for the Government to regulate to control boardroom excesses?
    Mr. Evans: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that the Government are prepared to give legislative backing to any proposals from the Greenbury committee which require such back-up. We are prepared to examine that issue.
    However, the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that share options as a whole should be opposed. We believe that well-devised share option schemes help to motivate key staff and to reward high performance. I welcome proposals from institutional investors to ensure that share options are linked to realistic measures of management performance. The hon. Gentleman should also know that listed companies are required to give the stock exchange full details of their share option schemes.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Does my hon. Friend agree that, rather than having share options, it would be much more motivating, stimulating and sensible if executive bonuses were linked to movements of the FT Index, so that executives shared the losses as well as the profits, as do shareholders? Is that not precisely what British Gas is proposing?
    Mr. Evans: The Government primarily take the view that companies should decide the pay levels of their staff. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Greenbury committee has said that it is drawing up a code of conduct on that subject. I know that the committee is prepared to examine a wide variety of possible forthcoming proposals.
    Dr. John Cunningham: The abuse of share options is widespread among privatised monopoly utilities such as gas, water and electricity. The Government have a Bill about the gas industry before the House, but why does it contain no proposals to end those abuses in the interest of the consumer? Would it not he better for the President of the Board of Trade, instead of pouring out his energy
    330
    wastefully in the bluff and bluster that we have just heard, to expend it more efficiently in taking the action which people the length and breadth of the country want to end the abuses? The opportunity exists now. Why do not the Government take it, or is it once again the Prime Minister expressing distaste for something but doing nothing about it?
    Mr. Evans: Many in the House will find it strange and inconsistent on the part of the Opposition that, although they attack the whole concept of the share options, they tabled an amendment to the Finance Bill, the effect of which would have been to grant unlimited tax relief to company directors on fees paid for tax advice on the best time to exercise share options—a proposal that "Accountancy Age" said had tax planners in Britain licking their lips with anticipation.

    Inward Investment
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further steps his Department is taking to encourage inward investment into the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Heseltine: A number of steps have been taken recently to strengthen the United Kingdom's inward investment promotion. These include the appointment of a new chief executive and moves to set up a computerised database to improve the presentation of all relevant information to prospective investors. Currently, proposals for upgrading the United Kingdom overseas marketing efforts and an "aftercare" programme for existing investors are being developed.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that 40 per cent. of Japanese inward investment into Europe and 43 per cent. of American investment into Europe comes into Britain? Does he agree that that is because Britain has more to offer than any other European country?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we can add to the figures she gave the results now coming from Korea and Taiwan and the flow of companies coming here from Europe itself. It may interest the House, as this is such an important part of the reconstruction and rebirth of our manufacturing base, if I say that, in 1993-94, the Invest in Britain Bureau recorded 428 inward investment decisions, creating or safeguarding 99,000 jobs. If one takes the figures from 1979-80 to 1993-94, the IBB recorded more than 4,000 projects with more than 600,000 associated jobs.
    Mr. Beggs: Can the President of the Board of Trade assure the House that Northern Ireland gets equal promotion with other regions of the United Kingdom when inward investment is being attracted, or is it left to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Ministers, the Industrial Development Board or perhaps the present Minister for Trade, who did an excellent job when he was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office?
    Mr. Heseltine: The Invest in Britain Bureau is responsible for the United Kingdom, but in respect of the actual availability of cash to help the stimulation of

    331
    inward investment, the hon. Gentleman will be as aware as the rest of the House that Northern Ireland receives more than its proportionate share.
    Mr. Bell: The President of the Board of Trade did not mention the fact that most of the multinationals that have come to our country have created works councils under the social protocol. We now have more multinationals with works councils than any other European country. I am grateful to the President of the Board of Trade, who, when he visited Samsung, recognised the work of Hartlepool council and Stockton council in getting Samsung to our area and the significant effort made by the work force, but can he not tell us now that he has made better arrangements with the Treasury for more regional assisted schemes? Will there be better infrastructure, and how will we meet the competition from Europe to get more regional development flowing our way?
    Mr. Heseltine: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could have heard what I or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs said. Britain is getting far in excess of any proportional share of inward investment flowing into the European Union. It is coming here because overseas investors see Britain as one of the most competitive places in Europe in which to invest. One of the reasons for that is that we do not have the social chapter which the Opposition would impose.
    Dr. Twinn: In continuing his successful campaign to bring inward investment into Britain, will my right hon. Friend highlight the excellent location to be found in north London, Edmonton and Enfield, which is made even more excellent by the good help in the real terms of economic assistance given by him and by his Government?
    Mr. Heseltine: I shall do my best to help my hon. Friend. He will know that he is not alone in making such suggestions.
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what his Department is doing currently to encourage inward investment in York.
    Mr. Eggar: The Invest in Britain Bureau is providing £1.27 million in grant in the current year for the Yorkshire and Humberside development agency for the encouragement of inward investment in the whole of Yorkshire and Humberside—which, of course, includes York. It is important that local authorities such as York work in close partnership with the YHDA.
    Mr. Bayley: Is the Minister aware that the Swiss-based multi-national company ABB Rail Vehicles Ltd. is one of the companies that have invested heavily in the British economy during the last few years? It has invested £50 million in the York carriage works. That investment, however, is likely to be written off by the company because of the Government's failure to ensure continuity in orders for new trains for British Rail.
    What kind of advertisement for inward investment in the United Kingdom is provided when changes in Government policy mean that investors lose their money? What do the Government intend to do to ensure that
    332
    British Rail places an order for trains to keep the York works open, and to maintain a viable rolling stock manufacturing industry in our country?
    Mr. Eggar: I suppose that it would have been too much to expect the hon. Gentleman to draw attention to the successes of investment in the York area—for example, the decision by Samsung Heavy Industries to invest in manufacturing industries at Flaxby. It is the first time that a Korean company has done so.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned ABB. British Rail has invested heavily: some £4 billion has been invested in rolling stock since 1979. and over the past 10 years nearly 4,000 new locomotives and vehicles have entered service. The public sector has made a considerable commitment to investment in rolling stock, and ABB must compete for the contracts that are available.
    Mr. Waller: The information that my hon. Friend has given about inward investment in Yorkshire and Humberside is welcome. Is it not worrying, however, that the level of high-technology investment by small and medium-sized enterprises that are British-owned is still lower than that of many of their competitors? Will my hon. Friend seek a fiscal and financial environment in which such enterprises are encouraged to invest in the most high-tech equipment to a greater extent?
    Mr. Eggar: We are considering all possible ways of encouraging growth in small and medium-sized enterprises. We recognise the critical importance of providing a climate in which established small companies in particular can grow into medium-sized companies, which often means taking advantage of modern technology, new investment opportunities and so on. Business Links can play an important role in that. We are constantly examining issues such as that raised by my hon. Friend; I hope that he will feel free to discuss the matter with us if he wishes.

    Women
    Ms Estelle Morris: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures his Department is taking to encourage more women to pursue careers in engineering-based and technology-based industries.
    Mr. Page: My Department promotes a number of national and regional schemes to encourage women, as well as men, to pursue careers in engineering-based and technology-based industries. Some, such as Insight, Women Into Science and Engineering and Women Into Information Technology, are aimed specifically at girls and women.
    Ms Morris: The Minister's answer does not address the question with the urgency that it deserves. Is he aware that, in the last decade, although the number of women gaining engineering degrees has doubled to 15 per cent., the number of chartered engineers who are women has remained at 1 per cent? What action will his Department take to ensure that the skills of women graduating in engineering are not lost to British industry, and that women are encouraged to seek professional engineering status?
    Mr. Page: I accept that there is a need to change the perception of the engineering industry, and to get rid of the "oily rag" image. That is why the Government are

    333
    promoting 50-odd schemes around the country in an attempt to bring about a greater knowledge of engineering, and in particular the change in attitudes that is at the core of advancement. The Insight Programme, which is being run by the Engineering Training Authority, gives some 500 lower-sixth-form girls a week in universities, and is being supported by British firms.
    Mr. Thurnham: I add my warm congratulations to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that there is considerable untapped potential for women in engineering? Is he aware that, when I came to the House, my wife took over the running of the engineering business that I started in 1972 and that is now successfully employing more than 500 people?
    Mr. Page: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind 'words. As the House knows, some 45 per cent. of the work force is made up by women, and it is only right that they should take their proper place in the professions. My hon. Friend may take comfort from the fact that the proportion of women in management and professional occupations has risen from 25 per cent. in 1984 to some 30 per cent. in 1993.

    Iraq
    Mr. Miller: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from companies and trade associations about trade with Iraq.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Since 1990, the Department has answered thousands of inquiries about the impact of the sanctions legislation on trade with Iraq, particularly about the humanitarian trade, which is permitted by the United Nations.
    Mr. Miller: What action will the Minister take, given the allegations that the French intend to open up trade links with Iraq? Does he not think that that will be a breach of United Nations sanctions?
    Mr. Taylor: We are discussing, with our people at the United Nations, the common observance of sanctions policy by all member states. We are aware of reports that certain countries have decided to open up early talks about what might happen after any sanctions are lifted on goods other than humanitarian. We do not, of course, want British industry to be disadvantaged, but that is not itself a justification for Britain not honouring the sanctions policy, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are continuing to have talks to ensure that other countries observe those standards as well.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that Iraq is one of the most evil regimes —if not the most evil—in the world and it would be quite wrong for this country to vote for the lifting of sanctions against that wicked man?
    Mr. Taylor: The character of the Iraqi regime is, without question, diabolical, and I do not think that there is any attempt, certainly not by the DTI, to alter our impression. Our repulsion at what is going on in Iraq is very high. On a day-to-day basis, however, Trade Ministers must deal with many issues and we are aware that certain other countries do not have the same upright attitude to sanctions policy. We are in discussion with the Foreign Office, and with the United Nations, on those matters. We are not unaware of the stories coming to us.

    Dounreay
    Mr. Maclennan: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given to the employment of a managing contractor at Dounreay.
    Mr. Page: That is a matter for the Government division of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, which is currently reviewing how best to strengthen the management of operations at Dounreay.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister acknowledge that, although the excellence of Dounreay's work is recognised, its safety record, its environmental acceptability, has rested for many years on an integrated management structure? Is he aware that the new structure proposed for the site—a Government division supervising a partly privatised operation, a partly contractorised operation, with possibly as many as three major contractors on-site—is giving rise to some concern about the direction of the site, about its coherence, about its mission? Will he visit that site and bring his new enthusiasm for efficiency, effectiveness and excellence to bear upon the problems and give the leadership which, at the present time, is lacking'?
    Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman overwhelms me and I would be only too delighted to come and visit Dounreay in the fulness of time. The further introduction of contractors at Dounreay is currently being considered by the UKAEA. One of the options is the appointment of a managing contractor, but at the moment no decision has been made. Safety, which must obviously be paramount at a site like Dounreay, will still be subject to the nuclear site licensing.

    Companies House
    Mr. Terry Davis: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations his Department has received favouring the contracting out of functions of Companies House; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: My Department has received representations on the future of Companies House from both supporters and opponents of contracting out. The majority regard Companies House as having made significant improvements over recent years, but there is scope for further improvement. The contracting-out programme provides a framework in which to achieve that.
    Mr. Davis: Is it not a fact that on that, as on so many other matters, most respondents disagree with the Government's proposals? How much did it cost the Government to find out what the rest of us have known all along—that most of the customers of Companies House are satisfied with its services and do not want to see them contracted out?
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman would do well to exercise a little more caution before swallowing whole the line from the trade unions in this matter. The trade unions had claimed that the SRU report, which is in the Library, had come to a conclusion which was different from that announced by the Government. An examination of the report, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has carried out, shows that the Government's policy is consistent with what is contained in the report.

    World Trade Organisation
    Mr. Clappison: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy towards the World Trade Organisation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: The new World Trade Organisation is the custodian of the multilateral trading system, which brings great benefits to the United Kingdom in terms of economic wealth, jobs and consumer choice. We intend to encourage it to develop effectively.
    Mr. Clappison: Will my hon. Friend comment on the prospect of China joining the World Trade Organisation, given the recent trade issues between China and the United States?
    Mr. Taylor: It is important to bring China into a modern multilateral organisation such as the World Trade Organisation. I am in regular talks with the Commissioner who is responsible for European negotiations with China, Sir Leon Brittan, and the prospects look encouraging. The key matter is that China must come in on acceptable terms, otherwise it could destabilise the whole organisation. We have the same sort of worries about China outside the organisation as the Americans, particularly in the matter of piracy of intellectual property and in connection with the music industry, which is a great contributor to our external trade performance.
    Mr. MacShane: Can the Minister give some guidance on whom the Government will back as the new director general of the World Trade Organisation? The Minister will know that Mr. Salinas of Mexico dropped out after being linked, via his brother, to the murder of an important politician. The European Union is backing Mr. Raimondi of Italy, who is a strong advocate of social links in world trade. What is Britain's line on the next director general?
    Mr. Taylor: It is a jolly good job that the hon. Gentleman is not responsible for our discussions because he has named the wrong Italian, but never mind. Mr. Ruggiero, the Italian, is the solidly backed candidate of the European Union and we have never demurred from that. At the last count on an official trawl, he had 59 votes and Mr. Kim, whom I have met, who has been to see me, and who is an impressive candidate, had only 28 votes. President Salinas had about 27 votes and has backed out.
    We are urging all other nations to rally round a clear leader, because it is most important for the World Trade Organisation to get its act together quickly. It can do that credibly only if it has an effective director general. We do not wish to see any uncertainty beyond 15 March, when Mr. Sutherland ceases his temporary period in office.

    Earth Observation Satellites
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what use his Department makes of the information available from earth observation satellites.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: The Department of Trade and Industry works with industry and other Government Departments to identify those practical applications of satellite data. The British National Space Centre has sponsored a first round of jointly funded demonstrator programmes with industrial users, including predictions of sugar beet yield, monitoring environmentally sensitive areas, studying coastal zone erosions, identification of offshore oil drilling sites and locations of fishing grounds. I am pleased to announce that an invitation to bid for a second round of demonstrators was announced last week.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Does my hon. Friend agree that British industry plays a part in space technology of the kind that is involved in earth observation satellites? Can he assure the House that British industry is getting a fair deal from our membership of the European Space Agency?
    Mr. Taylor: I am delighted to say that the British space industry is one of the most effective in Europe. It is involved in several joint ventures, such as Matra Marconi Space, with the French. It is a big employer in the United Kingdom and makes a considerable contribution to our balance of payments. It is important for the European Space Agency to devise much more efficient programmes because it currently depends too much on juste retort.
    If we could get a much more efficient system of allocating contracts, I am sure that British industry would do even better. It is certainly being backed by the Government's participation in ESA programmes through the Department of Trade and Industry and, I am delighted to say, in earth observation, with other Departments such as the Department of Transport.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Minister acknowledge the importance of liaison with our European partners in the European Space Agency? Does he realise that Britain can achieve little by itself in that important subject, and that much more can be achieved, especially in monitoring the environment, if we co-ordinate and liaise with our European partners?
    Mr. Taylor: I have no doubt about that. We are firmly committed to the European Space Agency. We contribute considerable sums of money to it. However, it needs to be much more efficient in the way in which it exercises its affairs and allocates its programmes, and in its allocation of the science budget, which is the responsibility of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council.
    We have said that we do not want to reduce the scope of the science budget, but that we wish it to be delivered more efficiently. In relation to each of those matters, I am sure that, at the ministerial conference, where I shall be representing this country, we shall achieve much more progress with the ESA and, therefore, much better value from the considerable use that Britain makes of information coming from satellites in space.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Madam Speaker: There is a point of order from Mr. Jopling.
Mr. Michael Jopling: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, you were kind enough to respond to a point of order from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), when you said that he was correct in his assertion that, when a Bill receives its Second Reading and is referred to Committee, the Committee should reflect the views of the House when it voted.
Of course, I agree that that is an important matter and that it should be taken into account, but other important matters should also be given due weight, most particularly the views of hon. Members who spoke in the Second Reading debate. Would you be kind enough to clarify the position?
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. Like the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says. Several matters have to be taken into account when hon. Members are nominated to serve on Standing Committees. Standing Order No. 86 embraces them in the words:
"the qualifications of those Members nominated and … the composition of the House".
The important point for me to emphasise is that the interpretation of Standing Order No. 86 is normally left to the Committee of Selection, which has been nominated and endorsed by the House. That Committee is given the task of making nominations. Strictly speaking, these matters are not for me.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is known to you that, on 8 March, the Table Office wrote to me to say:
"the Lord Advocate has made it clear that in relation to the Lockerbie case, as in any other case, it is not appropriate for the investigating or prosecuting authorities to give details of investigative steps which have been taken."
My point of order is this. Is the decision a matter for the Table Office, or is it a matter for the Crown Office? The Crown Office's objection to naming individuals other than those already named in previous questions seems an evasion of its responsibilities. My complaint is with the Crown Office, and not with the Table Office.
Madam Speaker: When a question has been refused and the hon. Member concerned wishes to make representations to the Speaker on the matter, the practice is for those to be made privately; they should not be raised by way of a point of order, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman, who is a long-standing Member of the House, realises.
However, these questions are covered by Scottish Office answers to other questions in the hon. Gentleman's name. I confirm that the Department's answers preclude the hon. Gentleman from putting further questions of that sort for a particular period.
Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for giving you only a few minutes notice of this point of order.
338
I have in my possession a copy of a Select Committee report issued in November—House of Commons document 385—which makes the strongest possible representations to the Government that time on the Floor of the House must be given to discussing the implications of the draft Euro-proposal for a common format of visa, with a Euro-symbol stamped thereon. The Committee thought the issue so important that it published a separate report, reprinting paragraphs and documents, and making it clear to the Government that it believed that the issue had to he debated at an early date in the House. The Committee may take the view, as I do, that a common format visa will lead inevitably to the mutual recognition of Euro-visas.
Only yesterday, the Leader of the House sent the Committee a letter, dated 7 March, relating to the report of 20 November. It said that, although he thought that there was indeed a case for a debate, we could not have it now, although we might have it soon in European Standing Committee B.
However, I have been advised that a specific proposal to establish such visas is to be considered by the Council of Home Affairs Ministers in Brussels tomorrow. It has been reported, rightly or wrongly, that the United Kingdom Home Office Minister will agree to it.
I appreciate that our powers are limited but, if a Select Committee says that we should debate this vital issue and if it issues a special report, is it not scandalous that there is to be a meeting in Brussels tomorrow to decide the issue, especially given the fact that many hon. Members—of, I think, all parties—believe that a common Euro-symbol visa is effectively the beginning of the end of border controls?
I therefore ask you, Madam Speaker, whether any step can be taken to ensure an emergency debate before tomorrow, so that the House may express an opinion. What is the point of having Select Committees to establish a unanimous opinion if we cannot discuss the issue, and if the Government are to go to Brussels tomorrow and agree to the proposal?
Mr. Robert Key: Calm down, Teddy.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Although the hon. Gentleman may not think so, democracy matters a great deal. This country belongs to the people. [Interruption.]
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I hardly need further comments on a point of order that has been explained to the House very clearly and with which I can deal.
As the hon. Gentleman realises, the issue that he has raised has to do with the arrangement of business; it is not a matter for the Speaker. The arrangement of business is one of the responsibilities of the Leader of the House. I suggest that, as soon as he can, the hon. Gentleman attempts to raise the matter with him, to see whether there can be a change of business.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is no doubt that you are a doughty champion of the rights of the House. If my right hon. or hon. Friend goes to Brussels tomorrow and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East

339
(Sir T. Taylor) said, stitches up an arrangement with other European Ministers, what can the House then do about it? What can you do to help the House today to sustain its position, powers and influence?
Madam Speaker: If I had received a request for a private notice question or for a debate under Standing Order No. 20 by midday today, there could perhaps have been changes in the business. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) raised the issue, which is barely a point of order, with me at precisely 3.20 pm, 10 minutes before he raised it on the Floor of the House.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I did not know before.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may not have known before, but I cannot change the business of the House unless the proper procedures agreed by the House arc followed at the correct time. Much as I might be sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman and perhaps others are seeking to do, I have to uphold the procedures of the House.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. In case I appeared discourteous, I must point out that the letter was sent yesterday and arrived this morning, but that I received it only at 3.15 pm. The meeting is tomorrow; what the blazes are we to do?
Madam Speaker: I cannot give any account of Paddington Bear the postman or why, if the letter was posted yesterday, it was received only late today, as presumably it was posted in the same building. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has done his best to raise the matter, but I repeat that I have to follow the procedures of the House and cannot accept what he is saying at this stage. Had it been raised with me by midday, I could perhaps have done something about it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is Paddington Bear really Postman Pat?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member is always on the ball—I am very grateful.
Mr. John Gunnell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had a request from the Secretary of State for Health for an opportunity to explain to us how it was that Leeds general infirmary proved to have the nearest bed for a brain-damaged patient in Kent?
The patient had to be flown by helicopter from Sussex to Leeds, necessitating a 12-hour delay in treatment following a road accident. After a seven-hour operation, his condition is clearly still critical. Has the Secretary of State asked for an opportunity to explain to us why more than half the country was without beds for a brain-damaged patient? Surely that represents a serious emergency nationally for the health service.
Madam Speaker: I have had no request from a Minister to make a statement on that or any other matter.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the Home Secretary has been in his place and has heard the exchanges between several hon. Members and yourself, if, bearing in mind what has
340
been said, he is anxious to make a statement to the House, perhaps at 7 o'clock, would you view such a request sympathetically?
Madam Speaker: I do not have to give sympathetic consideration to a statement. I am informed by the Minister concerned that he will make a statement. I have made this point to the House on several occasions. That is the procedure of the House. If a Minister wishes to make a statement at any time, I have to hear that statement.
Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you agree that if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T,. Taylor) says, the letter was written yesterday and arrived today, bearing in mind that the Government may make a decision tomorrow and that the House will debate the matter at a later stage, that is a totally unacceptable situation? What powers do you have to force Ministers to take proper account of the wishes of the House, so that matters can be properly and publicly debated before the people of this country?
Madam Speaker: I have no powers whatever in that respect. If the House at some time wishes to give me such powers, that point may be considered by the Procedure Committee. At present, I have no powers or authority in that respect.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The delay from the time of publication of the report to the answer received points to the fact that the Government do not want a debate on the matter. Surely the House should not he manipulated by Ministers, who have ensured that there is no opportunity at the proper time in the House today to move that there be a change of business. I suggest that you should have some powers to inform the Government that this is totally unacceptable, and to defend the rights of Members of the House.
Mr. Jack Straw: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker—
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that we have had enough points of order now. The whole House understands what has taken place. All I can say is that there are Ministers on the Treasury Bench at present who have been here throughout the exchanges. I expect that those Ministers have taken note of the strong feelings in the House on the matter.

BILLS PRESENTED
  CHILD SUPPORT
  Mr. Secretary Lilley, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mrs. Secretary Bottomley, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Secretary Redwood, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Alistair Burt, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to child support maintenance and other maintenance; and to provide for a child maintenance bonus: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

  CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Gordon McMaster, supported by Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Adam Ingram,

  341
  Mrs. Irene Adams, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Thomas Graham, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. Michael J. Martin, Mr. Jimmy Wray and Dr. Norman A. Godman, presented a Bill to make it unlawful in Scotland to discriminate against disabled persons in respect of employment and in other circumstances, and to establish a Disability Rights Commission for Scotland; to make provision for access to polling stations and voting by disabled persons in Scotland; to place certain duties on local authorities, education authorities and other bodies in Scotland 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 17 March, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

  VALUING WOMEN'S UNWAGED WORK
  Ms Mildred Gordon, supported by Mr. Harry Cohen, Ms Tessa Jowell, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Alan Simpson, Ms Jean Corston, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mrs. Anne Campbell and Mrs. Irene Adams, presented a Bill to require government departments and other public bodies to include in the production of statistics relating to the gross domestic product and satellite accounts a calculation of the quantity and value of the unwaged work of women: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

  TAXIS (PROTECTION OF PASSENGERS)
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy, supported by Ms Rachel Squire, Ms Glenda Jackson, Ms Ann Coffey, Ms Angela Eagle, Mr. Geoffrey Hoon, Mr. Kevin Hughes, Mr. Derek Enright, Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Kevin Barron, presented a Bill to make it unlawful for any person who
  342
  has been convicted of prescribed sexual offences or offences of violence against the person to drive any taxi, minicab or private hire vehicle; to place appropriate duties upon licensing authorities; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 24 March, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

  TAMPONS (SAFETY)
  Ms Dawn Primarolo, supported by Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Ms Jean Corston, Ms Harriet Harman, Ms Clare Short, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Ms Mildred Gordon, Mr. John Austin-Walker and Mr. David Hinchliffe, presented a Bill to make provision for tampon packaging and advertisements for tampons to carry certain warnings and information, and to require the Secretary of State to make regulations for these purposes; to lay upon the Secretary of State duties with respect to research into, and publicity for, tampons and health; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 28 April, and to be printed. [Bill 76.]
  DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
  Ms Jean Corston, supported by Ms Clare Short, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Ms Glenda Jackson, Ms Angela Eagle, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Ms Joan Ruddock, Ms Diane Abbott, Mrs. Barbara Roche and Mrs. Alice Mahon, presented a Bill to place duties upon Her Majesty's Government both to undertake a publicity campaign to call public attention to the criminality of domestic violence and to the opportunities for redress, and to co-ordinate policy for refuge provision for victims of domestic violence: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 28 April, and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

Vegetarianism
3.43 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a national body to promote the health advantages of vegetarianism.
I declare my interests. I am the parliamentary adviser to the London Beekeepers Association, and I am a vegetarian. However, I am nobody's turnip. I came to vegetarianism fairly late in my somewhat dissolute life; it has been a journey of discovery. My decision was based partly on health grounds, and partly on animal welfare considerations.
I am, however, no food fascist. If people wish to eat meat and run the risk of dying a horrible, lingering, hormone-induced death after sprouting extra breasts and large amounts of hair, it is, of course, entirely up to them. I would not even hold such ill-advised people personally responsible for the appalling cruelty inflicted on countless millions of living creatures to satisfy the desire for meat. All I ask is that everyone should be fully aware of the consequences of their own habits and the healthy eating alternatives available.
I am just old enough to remember the second world war. Alas, I played no heroic part in that great struggle, but I note with some interest that, at the end of the war, because of rationing and constant advice from the Department of Health, the civilian population emerged healthier than ever before. "Dig for Victory" was a most apposite entreaty.
The Government campaign during the previous war should have been continued, because the greatest killer in our society is ignorance about our own bodies. Indeed, a quick look around the Chamber probably makes my point better than I can in these few words. I see overweight, under-exercised, stressed-out bodies, many of which are daily stuffed with cholesterol-rich food, nicotine and alcohol.
A Department of Health report published last week revealed that English men and women are getting fatter and smoking and drinking too much. Regrettably, in that respect we are very much in step with those we represent. Among those surveyed, it was felt that stress was adversely affecting people's health, and that many of them were clearly swallowing their anxieties in the type of food they ate. Stress, which probably affects most Members of Parliament, often leads to a poor dietary regime, which in turn leads to major health problems. The link between stress and a poor diet is undeniable.
"The Health of the Nation" urges the British population to increase their consumption of fruit, vegetables and fibre. All mention of meat products, especially red meat, is played down. Evidence from bodies such as the World Health Organisation points conclusively to the fact that a vegetarian diet closely matches healthy eating guidelines.
There is a mass of statistical evidence, especially from the United States of America, to prove that a vegetarian diet saves not only lives but vast amounts of money in fewer demands on health services. The total annual direct medical costs savings from avoiding meat and tobacco are estimated in the States to be as high as $80 billion a year.
Studies show that twice as many non-vegetarians as vegetarians have been hospitalised during the past year, and that the use of prescription drugs has also about
344
doubled. Several other studies have shown that the prevalence of hypertension among vegetarians is about a third to a half of that of non-vegetarians, even when alcohol, tobacco and caffeinated beverage use is controlled.
Cancer, as we all know, is one of the western society's greatest killers. One in three Americans develop cancer each year, more than 1 million cases are reported and diagnosed each year, and medical costs total around $35 billion each year. According to the National Research Council, 30 to 60 per cent. of cancers are attributable to diet. A study in Germany found that vegetarian men faced less than half the risk of a cancer death, and vegetarian women about a 25 per cent. lower risk compared with non-vegetarians.
It is now accepted in all quarters that vegetarians suffer 30 per cent. less heart disease, which is the biggest killer in the United Kingdom, and 40 per cent. less cancer, which is the second biggest killer. There are fewer cases of vegetarians suffering from arthritis, diabetes, osteoporosis, kidney failure and so on—the list goes on and on.
A vegetarian is likely to save the national health service an average of £40,000 during a lifetime. Of all food poisoning cases, 95 per cent. occur in animal foods, and as a result, meat eaters suffer many more days off work because of food poisoning. An old joke in the east end is: "When the bottom has fallen out of your world, eat one of Harry's hamburgers and let the world fall out of your bottom". There are more than 2.5 million cases of salmonella, listeria and e-coli 157 each year. That represents an enormous real cost to what is left of British industry.
Not only do veggies live longer: they look better. Vegetarians are 10 per cent. leaner than omnivores. When omnivores kick the meat habit, they lose an average of 10 to 22 lb. Ministers should bear that in mind, given that a target has been set to reduce obesity in this country to no more than 6 per cent. in men and 8 per cent. in women by 2005.
Persuasive though the health reasons are, there are other reasons for vegetarianism, too. Meat production involves several serious environmental problems. Many of the most serious water pollution incidents reported to the National Rivers Authority every year are due to slurry and sewage from livestock, and slurry being spread on land contributes to acid rain. Moreover, livestock create the single largest source of methane emissions in the United Kingdom, adding to the greenhouse effect.
Meat production also uses far more fossil fuels than the production of fruit and vegetables. Although 85 per cent. of Britain's agricultural land is used for meat production, getting protein from meat is monstrously inefficient: 10 kg of vegetable protein fed to livestock will supply only 1 kg of meat protein, and while meat protein produced on 10 hectares of land will feed only two people, soya protein grown on the same area would feed 61 people.
Millions of people all over the world are dying of starvation, while the world feeds 38 per cent. of all crops to animals rather than to human beings, so as to produce meat, most of which is consumed in the industrialised countries. Add to that the impact of over-grazing, which produces deserts and deforestation, and the price of meat becomes too high for the world to pay.

345
The central question is: if vegetarianism is so good, how come everyone does not embrace it today? That question ignores the fact that 2,000 people a week are becoming vegetarians, with the fastest growth among teenagers—but even that increase is simply not enough. Part of the reason why it is not greater lies in the years of accumulated prejudice against vegetarianism—for example, the image of the veggie as a spotty nerd sporting a woolly hat, an anorak and socks worn under open-toed sandals—[Interruption.] How unlike myself, Madam Speaker.
Such a caricature is fast fading, but vegetarianism is still seen by those in authority as a mild form of eccentricity, to be pitied and patronised. The "real men eat meat" syndrome—[Interruption]—characterised by those on the Government Benches, is still with us. That is all part of the myth carefully fostered by the meat industry—a powerful industry heavily hacked by Government, with both resources and propaganda.
The Meat and Livestock Commission has a staff of about 600 and an annual budget of about £43 million, some £4 million of which comes direct from the Government. Compare that with the Fresh Fruit. and Vegetable Information Bureau, run as one of the accounts of a public relations consultancy, which has a budget of about £130,000 and four staff paid by the PR firm.
In other words, in terms of ability to inform, to advertise and to influence, there is no contest. One has only to think of the £10 million campaign by the MLC, "Recipe for Love", or the £14 million spent on the "Meat to Live" campaign, to realise that the dice are loaded. Massive subsidies are handed out by the taxpayer to the meat-producing industry.
We need to redress this terrible imbalance, and the purpose of my Bill is to set up a fruit and vegetable commission funded by the industry and by Government, with the Government using some of the massive savings gained by the health service when a growing proportion of the population switches to vegetarianism.
A vital part of the work of that new commission would be public education. People in this country are poisoning themselves through ignorance, and the Government in part connive at that scandalous and eminently avoidable situation. My Bill would seek to alleviate that ignorance, and to promote a healthier and a happier nation.
3.53 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: As a partial vegetarian for many more years than the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), I must tell him that we do not need an extra publicly created body. Incidentally, I do not regard any of the characteristics that the hon. Gentleman attributed to vegetarians as applicable to me. He also said that listeria came from animals, whereas I thought that in general it came from cheese.
If the hon. Gentleman wants a public body to promote fruit and vegetables, why does he not give that as an extra responsibility to the Covent Garden market authority, which already exists? He claimed that one in three Americans develops cancer each year—but that would mean 80 million people a year, and I do not believe that figure.
Mr. Tony Banks: During their lifetime.
Mr. Bottomley: That may be so, but that is not what the hon. Gentleman said.
If we imagine that, in just one part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland, in which there are 35,000 farmers, one third of them full-time—all farmers had to turn all their fields to set-aside, we should discover what the land could and would look like without the farmers.
As a final point, I would say to those who like the look of sheep and cows in the fields that one cannot have livestock without dead stock. I recommend that people make up their own minds about what they eat and supply, and the House ought to send the hon. Gentleman off to Covent Garden today.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No.19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 95, Noes 66.

Division No. 97]

[3.54 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Khabra, Piara S

Ainger, Nick

Lewis, Terry

Allen, Graham

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Livingstone, Ken

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Lynne, Ms Liz

Barnes, Harry

McAllion, John

Barron, Kevin

Mackinlay, Andrew

Battle, John

McMaster, Gordon

Bayley, Hugh

Madden, Max

Berry, Roger

Maddock, Diana

Burden, Richard

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Byers, Stephen

Meale, Alan

Callaghan, Jim

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Miller, Andrew

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Campbell-Savours, D N

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Canavan, Dennis

Mullin, Chris

Chisholm, Malcolm

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

O'Hara, Edward

Coffey, Ann

Pearson, Ian

Cousins, Jim

Pope, Greg

Cox, Tom

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Dalyell, Tam

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Davidson, Ian

Primarolo, Dawn

Dowd, Jim

Rendel, David

Eagle, Ms Angela

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Eastham, Ken

Rooney, Terry

Etherington, Bill

Sedgemore, Brian

Fatchett, Derek

Sheerman, Barry

Flynn, Paul

Simpson, Alan

Foster, Don (Bath)

Skinner, Dennis

Galbraith, Sam

Soley, Clive

Gapes, Mike

Spink, Dr Robert

Godman, Dr Norman A

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Gordon, Mildered

Steinberg, Gerry

Gunnell, John

Stott, Roger

Hain, Peter

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Hall, Mike

Timms, Stephen

Hanson, David

Tipping, Paddy

Hardy, Peter

Vaz, Keith

Heppell, John

Walley, Joan

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Hinchliffe, David

Wray, Jimmy

Hutton, John

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Jean Corston and

Jowell, Tessa

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

Keen, Alan

347

NOES

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Jessel, Toby

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Beggs, Roy

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Beith, Rt Hon A J

King, Rt Hon Tom

Booth, Hartley

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

McLoughlin, Patrick

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Budgen, Nicholas

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Butcher, John

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Carrington, Matthew

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Pawsey, James

Day, Stephen

Porter, David (Waveney)

Dicks, Terry

Riddick, Graham

Dixon, Don

Robathan, Andrew

Donohoe, Brian H

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Dover, Den

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Dunn, Bob

Shaw, David (Dover)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Sims, Roger

Fishburn, Dudley

Speller, John

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Gallie, Phil

Sweeney, Walter

Gill, Christopher

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Godsiff, Roger

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Tracey, Richard

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Harris, David

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

Haselhurst, Alan

Hawkins, Nick

Tellers for the Noes:

Hendry, Charles

Mr. David Wilshire and

Jenkin, Bernard

Mr. Julian Brazier.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Bill Etherington, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Mr. Chris Mullin and Mr. Alan Simpson.

Vegetarianism
  VEGETARIANISM
  Mr. Tony Banks accordingly presented a Bill to establish a national body to promote the health advantages of vegetarianism: 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 78.]

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
4.6 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 2nd March, be approved.
At the beginning of last year's debate, I said that successive Home Secretaries had looked forward to the time when they would no longer have to come to the House to argue for the continuation of the exceptional powers first introduced in 1974. I also noted that, for most of the intervening 20 years, that had been very much a hope rather than an expectation. By the time that I came to wind up our short debate last year, the IRA had reinforced the point by launching a number of mortar bombs at Heathrow airport, thereby endangering the lives of many people from this country and overseas.
For nearly six months after that debate, terrorist activity continued at a high level in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. A further five members of the security forces were killed in Northern Ireland, and a further 96 were injured. On this side of the Irish sea, it was only the skilful interception at Heysham on 12 July of a trailer containing a two-tonne bomb that prevented untold destruction in one of our towns or cities.
Nine days later, a bag containing explosives and other bomb-making material was denied to terrorists only when a passenger on an Oxford-Reading train removed it in the hope that it might contain something more valuable.
As recently as 13 August, the IRA planted two bicycle bombs: one in Brighton, which was safely defused; and the other a device outside Woolworth's in a busy shopping street in Bognor. It was pure good fortune that the Bognor device, and the subsequent bomb found on 22 August in a litter bin outside Laura Ashley in Regent Street, did not produce the same tragic consequences as the two explosions in Bridge street, Warrington.
Since then, the IRA cessation of violence and the subsequent loyalist ceasefire have transformed the situation. For the first time for many years, the people of Northern Ireland can go about their daily business without fear of violence from republican or loyalist paramilitaries. For the first time for many years, the imminent threat of IRA violence in the towns and cities of Great Britain has receded.
The Government have done, and will continue to do, everything in their power to consolidate the ceasefire into a lasting peace. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 21 October that we were prepared to make a working assumption that the cessation was intended to be permanent and, accordingly, exploratory dialogue began between officials and representatives of Sinn Fein on 9 December. Shortly afterwards, exploratory dialogue with so-called loyalist groups began. Both sets of dialogue continue.
It remains the Government's earnest hope that those who have previously supported the use of violence to advance their cause can be brought fully and irrevocably

349
within the political process. That of course means that there needs to be substantial progress on the issue of decommissioning arms and explosives.
Sir Anthony Grant: Has my right hon. and learned Friend read the extraordinary report that Mr. Adams and various IRA people are bringing a case in the European Court to claim vast sums of damages for being excluded from this country? Is he aware that that has caused outrage among my constituents, and no doubt many other people, who feel that it would be monstrous if huge sums of the taxpayer's money were extracted by those people, after all the misery and suffering that they have caused for years? Can my right hon. and learned Friend give us some reassurance about that?
Mr. Howard: I can understand the outrage to which my hon. Friend refers. The case was brought in the courts of the United Kingdom. It has been referred, on a point of law, to the European Court of Justice. Reports that the European Commission has made representations in support of the Adams claim are inaccurate. There is an exception in the provisions in the European treaty for free movement of people, for purposes of maintaining security, and I therefore do not share the opinions that have been expressed, in the newspaper reports to which my hon. Friend referred, about the likely outcome of that case.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin rose—
Mr. John Greenway rose—
Mr. Howard: I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).
Mr. John Greenway: The speech of my right hon. and learned Friend thus far and the most recent intervention have been about terrorism emanating from Ireland, and possibly from Northern Ireland, spreading into the rest of the United Kingdom. Does he agree, however, that there is great anxiety about the terrorist threat from outside the United Kingdom in respect of other matters?
Is it not the case that the two outrages in the past year, which have involved the serious injury of no less than 18 people, were not the work of the IRA but of an entirely different terrorist threat? In York and Harrogate, no less than five incendiary devices were activated, which were believed to be the work of the animal rights movement.
Obviously, we need those powers, regardless of the continuing peace process in Northern Ireland, which of course we all want.
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the continuing danger from terrorism, quite apart from Northern Irish terrorism. I agree that we shall certainly need powers to tackle terrorism on a permanent basis. Whether they would need to be precisely the same powers that we have needed in the past 20 years is a matter that falls for consideration. When the appropriate time has been reached, that matter will be given the consideration that it deserves.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Howard: I give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).
Rev. Martin Smyth: We have been speaking about exclusion orders as well, and we have
350
noticed that there is to be a lifting of exclusion orders as Her Majesty's Government seek to respond to what is happening. Does the Home Secretary agree that, although the Ulster Unionist party has disagreed with the concept of temporary exile within the United Kingdom, the IRA-Sinn Fein have not lifted any of the exclusion orders that they have imposed on the people that they have expelled from their homes—never mind the hundreds that they have expelled from earth?
Mr. Howard: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and let me give him an assurance. The decisions that have been taken about individual exclusion orders by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and those decisions that I have taken, which I shall explain to the House in a moment or two, have been taken on security grounds, and on no other grounds, and will continue to be taken on precisely that basis, and that basis alone.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Howard: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), and then I must make progress.
Mr. Terry Dicks: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give the House an assurance that, irrespective of what any European Court says about Mr. Adams and his allegation that he has lost his rights by being denied entry, this Government, our Government, my Government, will take no notice, will flatly refuse to recognise his so-called rights and flatly refuse to pay him, or any of his ilk, any money at all?
Mr. Howard: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall never authorise any payment of damages as a result of that case.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Howard: No, I must make progress.
The publication of the "Framework for the Future" document means that there is now a comprehensive set of ideas to stimulate political dialogue among parties committed to constitutional methods. But the subject of today's debate is not the political process as such, but its implications for the future of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. In particular, I wish to explain to the House why, more than six months after the start of the IRA ceasefire, the Government are seeking the continuation of the Act in its entirety for a further 12 months.
Our position since 31 August has been characterised by two complementary responses. As threat levels have reduced and the immediate prospect of terrorist violence has receded, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I have kept in close contact with our security advisers and have agreed to the lifting of restrictions which have no longer seemed justified in the new situation.
The broadcasting restrictions against Sinn Fein were lifted last September. In October, all the remaining closure orders on border roads in Northern Ireland were rescinded, and the exclusion orders against Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were revoked. Since then, the presence of the Army on the streets of Northern Ireland has been greatly reduced and the Metropolitan and City

351
police have been able to scale down the high-profile armed patrols which they had been operating in central London.
But we are not prepared to do anything which would expose the people of our country to unnecessary risk. The troubles of the past 25 years have claimed the lives of more than 3,000 people and have injured many more. It would in our view be wholly irresponsible to dismantle our defences while the paramilitary organisations remain intact, while they continue to carry out brutal punishment beatings, while their command structures, weapons and explosives remain in place, and while they retain the capability to resume violence at very short notice.
Mr. Julian Brazier: On the point about dismantling our security apparatus, will the Home Secretary comment on the words of the late Lord Diplock, delivered more than 20 years ago, about dealing with cases involving the security forces? He said:
"the jury … should remind themselves that the postulated balancing of risk against risk … is not undertaken in the calm analytical atmosphere of the court-room … but in the brief second or two which the accused had to decide whether to shoot or not and under all the stresses to which he was exposed".
Does the Home Secretary agree that, in considering cases such as that of Clegg and the two guardsmen, judges should think about those words very carefully?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend knows that I am unable to comment on particular cases. However, I agree entirely with the generality of the quotation by Lord Diplock.
Mr. Madden: Will the Home Secretary tell the House how often he has visited Northern Ireland since 31 August, how many community and political groups he has met, and how many of those groups have urged him to renew today's legislation? I have paid two such visits to Northern Ireland—the most recent of which was last week—and all the political groups there, Unionist and republican, emphasised the fact that the suspension of the exclusion and detention powers would greatly reinforce the peace process. Why does the Home Secretary disagree with them?
Mr. Howard: I have no doubt that we shall hear from the political representatives of the people of Northern Ireland in due course during the debate.
The hon. Gentleman stretches the credulity of the House if he suggests that it would be more sensible for the House to base its judgments on his reports—after two visits to Northern Ireland—than on the very careful examination of the question which was undertaken by Mr. John Rowe, to whose report I am about to come. He undertook extensive consultation in Northern Ireland, he talked to many people, and he reached a clear view about the necessity of the provisions.
I have not been to Northern Ireland since 30 August, but those members of the Government who have direct responsibility for Northern Ireland are there day after day, and they are in an excellent position—a position infinitely superior to that of the hon. Gentleman on the basis of his two visits—to form a view.
Against the background to which I have referred, let me return to the specific provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and explain why we believe it would be premature to allow any of its provisions to lapse.
352
First, we have given proper weight to the conclusions reached by Mr. John Rowe QC, who has carried out the customary annual review of the legislation. I am sure that members of all parties will want to record their thanks to Mr. Rowe for a thorough report, produced in the light of very widespread consultations.
Mr. Rowe's clear conclusion, reached at the end of an entirely independent scrutiny, was that the Act should now be renewed in its entirety for a further 12 months. He recognised that the moment might come when one or more provisions of the legislation would no longer be necessary, and he rightly observed that the making of this order would not rule out the possibility of change during the next 12 months. An order can be made under section 27 of the Act at any time to discontinue specific provisions of the Act, and he recommended that the Government should keep that possibility in mind.
That was Mr. Rowe's recommendation. In explaining why the Government have decided to accept it, I want to deal particularly with the powers of detention and exclusion, which remain the most exceptional features of the legislation. I also intend to say something about the longer-term future of the legislation, if, as we all hope, the present cessation leads to a lasting peace.
First, there are two aspects to the continuing need for the powers. Since 1984, a substantial part of the legislation has been available for use, in respect of not only Northern Irish terrorism but international terrorism. I need hardly remind the House that the single most devastating terrorist crime in this country was not an act of Irish terrorism, but the Lockerbie air disaster, in which no fewer than 270 people were killed.
Since then, the threat to this country from international terrorism has not gone away. The car bombs outside the Israeli embassy and Balfour house last July were a reminder of the particular vulnerability of the Jewish community. The Iranian fatwa against Salman Rushdie remains in force, and, with the growth of Islamic radicalism, we need to remain vigilant against the possibility that Britain will be used as a base for plotting acts of violence overseas and raising money for terrorist purposes.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In what way would the prevention of terrorism legislation that we are considering have done anything about Lockerbie? If the Government want the truth about Lockerbie, they had better talk seriously to the intelligence community, to Sir Peter Marychurch, Sir Colin Figures, American intelligence, Sir Charles Powell and, yes, the former Prime Minister.
Mr. Howard: I know of the hon. Gentleman's long interest in Lockerbie and all its ramifications, and I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow him down those byways today.
It is no part of the Government's case that this legislation is the only, or even the primary, weapon in our armoury against international terrorism. The Immigration Acts and the general provisions of the criminal law have a crucial part to play. But if the Prevention of Terrorism Act were simply swept away without any thought to what might need to go in its place, we would undoubtedly be making the job of the police much more difficult.

353
We are not dealing here merely with theoretical possibilities. The recent charges in connection with last July's bombings followed arrests under section 14 of the legislation and extensions for 48 hours beyond the initial two days' detention.
Secondly, the Government agree with Mr. Rowe that it is too early yet to conclude that parts of the legislation are no longer needed in connection with Northern Irish terrorism. Let me take in turn the two key powers of detention and exclusion.
As a result of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Brogan, there is already a difference in the way in which the powers of detention operate between international terrorism and Northern Irish terrorism. The Act allows the police to detain suspects for up to 48 hours on their own authority, and up to a maximum of five days beyond that on my authority or that of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Scotland.
In the light of the Brogan case, however, we gave an assurance that, in international terrorism cases, the period of extension would not exceed 48 hours. We are satisfied that our practice in such cases is already fully consistent with the requirements of the European convention on human rights.
We concluded that we could not sensibly agree to a similar restriction in Northern Irish terrorism cases, given the exceptional risks posed to the security of this country. We therefore made a specific, narrowly drawn derogation from the convention to enable us to retain executive extensions of detention for a maximum of five days. The validity of that derogation was subsequently upheld by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Brannigan and McBride.
Mr. Chris Mullin: This is what worries many of us who oppose parts of the Act. If people can be detained for seven days and nights, it will be possible to get anyone to confess to anything during that time. Does that concern the Home Secretary?
Mr. Howard: If there were any substance in the hon. Gentleman's allegation, it might indeed concern me. I must tell him, however, that the history of some of the questioning that has taken place during extended periods of detention gives the lie to his assertion.
Mr. Tom King: The point, surely, is not the length of the period of detention. Is it not a fact that, in perfect conformity with the European convention, those responsible for the Eksund activities were detained by the French authorities for two years, but it was the authority of a judicial officer that enabled them to be detained in that way? The idea that anyone detained for more than seven days will confess to anything does not accord with the European convention.
Mr. Howard: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. It is always essential to keep in mind the distinction between form and substance.
We have continued to keep the need for the derogation under review, and have considered the matter again in the light of the ceasefire. In the first eight months of last year, there were 377 extensions of detention throughout the United Kingdom, the overwhelming majority in Northern
354
Ireland. In the more than six months since then, there have been just 18 extensions, five of them related to international terrorism.
The periods of detention have tended to decrease; the only instance in which detention has exceeded four days since the ceasefire involved the complex investigation of the Newry post office murder.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: I wonder about the Home Secretary's figures. Page 1 of the "Home Office Statistical Bulletin" clearly tells us that 61 people were detained in Great Britain in 1994 under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and that all but one were detained in connection with Northern Irish terrorism. If I heard him aright, the Home Secretary said that five people had been detained in relation to international terrorism. Is the Home Secretary right, or is the statistical bulletin right?
Mr. Howard: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that we are talking about different periods of time. I was talking about the period leading up to the ceasefire and the period since then.
Provided that the ceasefire holds, there is every reason to believe that the number of cases in which the police will need to seek extensions of detention will be very small, and the number of occasions on which they request extensions of more than 48 hours smaller still. However, as the Newry incident illustrates, it is too early for us to be satisfied that these powers could be suspended, or our limited derogation from the European convention on human rights withdrawn.
The Northern Ireland paramilitary groups retain the capability to resume their attacks at very short notice, and investigations into past crimes continue on both sides of the Irish sea. The Government accept the view of the police that it would be wrong at this early stage to withdraw any of their existing powers of arrest and detention.
In chapters 5 and 7 of his report, Mr. Rowe analyses the arguments for giving the judiciary responsibility for determining both extensions of detention and exclusion orders. His conclusion is that these processes are properly executive in character and that a judge would
"be exercising a function which could be called judicial only because he happens to be a judge by occupation."
That point was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).
This issue has been extensively debated in the past, and I do not intend to say more about it now, except that, while the need for these temporary provisions remains, we do not believe that it would be right or practicable to introduce an innovation that has been consistently rejected by all those who have taken an independent look at the legislation since 1974, at the invitation of successive Governments.
Exclusion has always been the most difficult part of the legislation, particularly for those of us who are proud to call ourselves unionists. Since the House first debated these provisions in 1974, there have always been some who, while wholly supportive of other parts of the legislation, have had misgivings about denying British citizens access to part of their own country.

355
I understand and sympathise with those concerns, but when faced with a determined terrorist assault on our most fundamental human rights, we have had, reluctantly, to countenance some measures which in more normal times would not be acceptable.
At the time of the debate a year ago, there were 80 exclusion orders in force, nine made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and 71 by me or my predecessors. By the time of the IRA ceasefire, the figure of 80 had reduced to 74. Since then, my right hon. and learned Friend and I have reviewed the case for each of the remaining orders in the light of the assessment of our security advisers.
My right hon. and learned Friend was able to conclude last month that all his remaining orders should be lifted. On 17 February, I announced that, with the help of the Metropolitan police, the RUC and the security service, I was considering all the 56 orders for which I was responsible. I have now revoked a further 16. There are now just 40 orders in force.
I have considered whether it would be possible to go further and lift all the remaining orders. I have not done so, for two reasons. First, it is clear that, if the ceasefires were to break down, we might receive very little, if any, warning, and without doubt many of the key targets would, as before, be on this side of the water. Secondly, the police remain satisfied that among those still excluded are some who would be likely to play some part in mainland terrorism were it to resume.
I welcome the shift in the position of the Labour party on exclusion orders. Last year, the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), speaking from the Front Bench, described exclusion orders as an example of internal exile of a kind previously practised in this century only by Stalin, Mussolini and Franco. In a radio interview this morning, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said that, although he dislikes exclusion orders, he accepts that I should be able to reactivate them with 24 hours notice if the ceasefires were to break down.
What the hon. Member for Blackburn overlooks is that, if all exclusion orders were to be lifted now, there would be nothing to stop those people coming here well before any possible breakdown of the ceasefire, to make preparations for renewed attacks. That is not a debating point. It is a point that goes to the heart of the exercise of these powers in the cause of protecting the safety of our people.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with that point in the course of his speech. For my part, I shall continue to keep the need for each of the orders under review, but I am not prepared to take unnecessary risks at this stage, in the face of the clear view of the police and our other security advisers.
Let me finally say something about the way forward. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 are explicitly temporary pieces of legislation, and it has always been the Government's position that exceptional powers should not be retained any longer than necessary.
There are therefore two questions that will need to be addressed if, as we all hope, the ceasefires continue to hold. First, how long will some or all of these exceptional
356
powers need to be maintained, whether in force or in reserve? Secondly, even in the longer term, will there be a need for some specific, permanent counter terrorism legislation in the light of the continuing threat from international terrorism?
On the first, the Government whole-heartedly accept Mr. Rowe's recommendation that they should keep the need for the existing powers under close review. If the moment comes when one or more of them could be discontinued, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or I can lay the necessary order under this Act or the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 at any time.
Moreover, Mr. Rowe's regular reviews provide a wholly independent assessment of whether the time has come for changes to be made. His PTA report is before the House, and he is now embarking on his separate, annual review of the Northern Ireland legislation, which the House will have the opportunity to debate in about three months. In addition, the House will need to consider next Session what to do before the emergency provisions Act reaches the end of its statutory life in August 1996.
The second question—what permanent counter-terrorism legislation, if any, might be needed if a lasting peace is established in Northern Ireland—is one on which the Government have an open mind. At the right moment, there would need to be a wide-ranging look at all the options. There are a number of ways in which that could be done, but we are persuaded that it would be premature at this stage to try to address these longer term issues. The priority for now is to make much further progress down the road of securing a lasting peace.
There is a better chance now than at any time in the past 21 years that an end may soon be in sight to this long series of annual debates. But the prospects remain uncertain. It is the Government's unshakeable conviction that we must not lower our guard until we can be satisfied that Northern Irish terrorism is really at an end.
If, as we earnestly hope, that day comes, it will be in no small measure due to the skill and fortitude which the police and security forces have shown down the years, fortified by the exceptional powers entrusted to them under this legislation. I pay tribute to them for their work, for which we are all enormously indebted to them. I commend the order to the House.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At 23 minutes past 4, according to the Chamber clock, it was the Home Secretary and not I who brought into the debate the subject of Lockerbie. Does he not owe it to his colleagues at least to explain what relevance the measures that we are discussing have to the Lockerbie bombing?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I was not in the Chair at the time. I am quite sure that, if Madam Speaker had thought that there was anything amiss, she would have drawn it to the attention of the House.
4.37 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: Terrorism is a scourge of far too many societies across the world. It can be an especial cancer for countries that aspire to be democratic, because the measures that are sometimes necessary in a democracy to fight terrorism and reduce terrorist acts can collide with some of the most important features of those

357
democracies, such as the liberty of the subject before the law and the paramount need for an independent and transparent system of justice that applies equally to all.
Every hon. Member shares a complete abhorrence of terrorism and a desire to see it eradicated from all parts of the United Kingdom. It is the Opposition's fervent hope that there should be bipartisan agreement on the measures that are necessary to defeat terrorism. Unfortunately, such bipartisan agreement has proved no easier to achieve this year than last, but our endeavours to obtain such an agreement will continue beyond tonight's vote.
We all owe a particular debt to those in the police and armed forces and in the security and intelligence services for their dedication and for their daily risks. Many of them have paid with their lives in the fight against terrorism, from whatever source. In opening the debate for the Opposition this time last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who is now the leader of the Opposition, said:
"It is not in dispute, and never has been, that we need anti-terrorist legislation. It is not in dispute that the powers…of detention"—
of terrorist suspects—
"should remain."
My right hon. Friend also supported the continuance of the proscription of terrorist organisations and the
"attachment of terrorist funds."—[Official Report, 9 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 300.]
Last week in a Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and this Monday on the Floor of the House, the Opposition approved without a Division an order made under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 in respect of international terrorism. Three things, however, are in dispute: the power to make exclusion orders, which are a form of internal exile; the absence of a judicial element in decisions to extend detention; and, above all and especially important at this time, the need for a general and comprehensive review of anti-terrorist legislation.
Had such a review been announced, and had it been able to take into account our concerns in relation to the first two matters that I raised, we should not have voted against the order tonight, but the renewal of the Act comes before the House in a single, take-it-or-leave-it order that the House cannot amend. In those circumstances, and as we have been unable to make progress on any of the matters that I have specified, a parliamentary committee of the Labour party had no alternative but to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the order.
Mr. A. J. Beith: I understand and share some of the hon. Gentleman's reservations, but would he give the same advice to his right hon. and hon. Friends if he believed that they would win the vote tonight?
Mr. Straw: If I believed that we would win the vote, we would be in government and the question would not arise. I have dealt with the point. This is a take-it-or-leave-it order. A Division is the only way in which the Labour party can put on record its serious reservations about the way in which the Government have responded to its proposals.
Although the Act to which the order directly relates was passed in 1989, legislation to counter terrorism was first introduced by the then Labour Government in
358
November 1974, four days after the Birmingham pub bombings. That measure passed through all its stages in the House and in the other place in the near record time of 48 hours. There was unanimity on the need for that legislation to deal with what the then Home Secretary Roy Jenkins described as a "wholly exceptional situation" and a "clear and present danger", but, equally, there was wide understanding of the enormity of what the House was doing.
Roy Jenkins, now Lord Jenkins, described the provisions as "draconian" and said that they were "unprecedented in peacetime". Parliament has rightly determined that the use of and justification for such powers must, in consequence, be kept under continual review. Powers were therefore laid down requiring what amounted to annual audits of the exclusion and detention orders made under the Act.
In recent years, those audits have been carried out by John Rowe. From time to time, wider, more fundamental reviews of the merits and future use of those powers have been undertaken by distinguished figures in public life such as Lords Gardiner and Shackleton in the 1970s and Viscount Colville in 1987. Each of those wider reviews re-emphasised the intention that those powers should be temporary. The Secretary of State referred to that earlier when he said that the measures were explicitly temporary.
In his 1975 report, Lord Gardiner said that the continued existence of these powers should be
"limited both in scope and duration".
In 1978, Lord Shackleton said:
"It would be highly regrettable if the view were to gain ground that these powers should in some way slide into part of our permanent legislation. I do not think that they should."
Today, the Home Secretary echoed the same point that he made this time last year, when he said that, since 1974,
"it has been the hope of successive Home Secretaries that the day would come when the circumstances which made these exceptional powers necessary would cease to exist".
He went on to say:
"for most of the past 20 years, that has been very much a hope rather than an expectation."—[Official Report, 9 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 292.]
Of course, he was right in his opening remarks today to refer to the continuing terrorist outrages that took place on the day of the debate this time last year right up until the IRA ceasefire in August; but, in the 12 months since that statement in 1994, something exceptional and remarkable has happened. Thanks to the extraordinary tenacity first of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and then of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), and thanks to the commitment, to which we pay tribute again, of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and the determination of all the communities in the Province, effectively there has been a peace, however temporary, since the IRA ceasefire in August. For the first time in 25 years, people in Northern Ireland are enjoying something of the normality of life that we in Britain have taken for granted.
I hope that no hon. Member is sufficiently naive to assert that the situation in the north of Ireland is so stable that lasting peace is now a certainty. Of course that is not the case, and of course it is a fact of life that the paramilitary organisations in both communities remain intact and have the same access to arms and explosives as they had before the ceasefires came into effect. Now is not the moment for complacency; but, to pick up the

359
phrase used by the Home Secretary last year, as the distant "hope" of peace has been replaced by a clear "expectation" of peace, in our judgment now is the time to establish a comprehensive and fundamental review of the future need for prevention of terrorism measures.
The review should be conducted on the basis, to use the words of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, of the
"Government's working assumption that the ceasefires are intended to be permanent."
The review would be established to consider in the changed circumstances and on the Government's working assumption the need generally for there to be anti-terrorism measures on the statute book and the extent to which it was desirable or practical to include some of them in the general law on police powers and criminal procedures.
We would wish the review to consider, among other things, issues of concern relating to exclusion orders and decisions on the extension of detention. We proposed that the review should be conducted by a High Court judge or someone of similar standing and that the process of the review should be as open as possible, given the subject matter.
As I believe the House is aware, we pressed the case for such a review with Ministers well in advance of today's debate. We believe that in this area, more than almost any other, it is far preferable for matters to be treated on an all-party basis, and, as I said, had such a review been accepted, we would not divide the House tonight.
The Secretary of State's response to our proposals for a review has fallen into two parts, as I observed during a number of interviews that he and I have given. On the one hand, in an interview earlier this morning, the Secretary of State appeared to claim that the J. J. Rowe review into the operation of the Act in 1994 had already met our request but, on the other hand, he appeared to concede our case for a separate and much more fundamental review, as he did a moment ago, but with the caveat that it should not occur yet. Let me deal with those two points in turn.
There has, in fact, always been the clearest distinction between the kind of fundamental review that is now needed, and which was carried out in the past by Lord Shackleton, Viscount Colville and Lord Gardiner, and the annual reviews now carried out by Mr. Rowe. As Mr. Rowe concedes in the opening paragraph of his report, the review examines the operation of the Act in 1994. Although he considers whether there is a need for the Act to continue, he reaches his conclusion exclusively on the basis of how the Act has operated in the past, not on the circumstances in which it might operate in the future.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that the House had to
"take full account of the new situation"—[Official Report, 17 February 1995; Vol. 254, c. 833–34.]
which the ceasefires have created; but Mr. Rowe said that, in making his judgment, he took account of the new situation. He said in paragraphs 2 and 3 of his report:
"I cannot have regard to such things … I am not part of the peace process".
360
However, no fundamental review of the kind that we seek could conceivably do its work unless it did take account of the facts and the reality of the peace process.
The issue of human rights is central to the argument in a democracy about the use of anti-terrorist powers which involve a specific dilution of an individual's human rights. Mr. Rowe says that he "should have regard" to human rights which, he said, he kept "in mind", but he draws his readers' attention specifically to the absence of human rights considerations in his formal terms of reference. However, no fundamental review could possibly exclude such consideration from its terms of reference, because issues of human rights are at the heart of any fundamental review.
Mr. Dicks: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that rights and obligations are two sides of the same coin? If we take a certain Mr. Gerry Adams, how can we be concerned about his so-called "right" to come into this country when he has refused to accept his obligations to the rest of society? The hon. Gentleman cannot talk about rights without accepting that obligations go alongside them.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, correct to say that rights are balanced by duties. It is a fact of life with which the House and Ministers have had to wrestle since the IRA bombing campaign here in the early 1970s and just before that in Northern Ireland. The basic liberties that we take for granted have been assaulted by terrorist operations. I accepted and acknowledged that in opening my speech. Of course we take account of that. We also, however, have to recognise—this point was made extremely eloquently in Viscount Colville's fundamental review in 1987—that, if we stoop to the level of the terrorist and abandon altogether those fundamental liberties, we have lost the battle against terrorism.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: The hon. Gentleman may, inadvertently, have done an injustice to Mr. Rowe. The hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Rowe did not take into account the changed circumstances. I draw his attention to paragraph 15 on page 7, where Mr. Rowe makes that very point.
Mr. Straw: Indeed; the hon. Gentleman may draw my attention to paragraph 15 because I was coming on to deal with exactly that. I hope that I have done every justice to Mr. Rowe's report, because no purpose is served by seeking to alter the sense of what he said.
In one interview this morning, on breakfast television, the Secretary of State sought to elevate the Rowe review by saying that I had given evidence to it. The implication was that this turned the Rowe review into the fundamental review that the Labour party had sought. Would that that were the case! It is perfectly true, as Mr. Rowe records in the appendix to his report, that he separately saw my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) and me.
However, those meetings were informal conversations. In no sense were they formal meetings to take detailed and forensic evidence about the future need for this legislation. Moreover, they took place when Mr. Rowe completed his report. I saw him on 31 January and my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar saw him on 2 February. Mr. Rowe formally submitted his report to the Secretary of State on 3 February, the very next day.

361
To deal directly with the point raised by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), in paragraph 2 of the Rowe report, Mr. Rowe wholly detaches himself from the peace process. He says:
"I am not part of the peace process: I not a member of the Government"—
quite right!—
"I am not bound by any Government policy."
In paragraph 15, however, he makes an important concession to the reality of the peace process and to our argument. As we have heard from the Secretary of State, Mr. Rowe says that, although the whole of the prevention of terrorism Act is needed now,
"I do not ignore the facts of the ceasefire or the talks, and if events occur so that one or more provisions of the PTA is no longer necessary, section 27(6)(b)"—
which allows provisions to be put into cold storage, as we have heard—
"can be used … the Government should keep this section in mind during the coming year."
I said a moment ago that the response by the Secretary of State to our calls for a review was to claim at first that the Rowe review was sufficient. Twenty minutes later on the "Today" programme, and again in the House this afternoon, the Secretary of State said something very different, implicitly acknowledging that the Rowe review was not the same thing as a fundamental review. On the "Today" programme he said that, although he hoped that the ceasefire would be permanent, we would still need some anti-terrorist powers, an issue that is not in dispute across the Floor of the House. He said that we faced dangers from international terrorism; of course we do. He then said:
"I accept that in that situation there will be a need to look very carefully and to have a review as to what powers we will continue to need for the long term."
That is exactly our case for a fundamental review. However, the Secretary of State finished by saying:
"But we are not at that point yet."
There we have it. The Secretary of State accepts the need for a long-term review. He said earlier this afternoon that we needed a wide-ranging look at all the issues and that he did not consider Rowe to have provided that. The only issue is one of timing. The view of the Secretary of State is, yes, there should be an independent review, but not yet.
I simply do not understand his argument. There were two fundamental reviews in the 1970s and one in the 1980s, despite the fact that the overall security situation remained unchanged and dangerous. However, there has been no fundamental review since Lord Colville's. in 1987. Even if there were no ceasefire, a fundamental review would have been well overdue. Indeed, that point was made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition this time last year. With the facts of the ceasefire, the case for the establishment of a fundamental review seems to us to be unanswerable and overwhelming.
As I have repeatedly made clear, Labour Members do not, of course, say that, pending the outcome of the review, the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act as a whole should be put on ice; rather, we say that, on the working assumption of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that the ceasefires will turn out to be permanent, the review's recommendations should be available to
362
Ministers and to Parliament to coincide with the time, which we all hope will come, when it is judged that peace in Northern Ireland is permanent.
Mr. Stephen Day rose—
Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a second.
The Secretary of State made some heavy weather of there being no question meanwhile of dismantling the security apparatus. There is no question on the Labour Benches either of dismantling the security apparatus.
Mr. Howard rose—
Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the Secretary of State and then to his hon. Friend.
Mr. Howard: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's somewhat convoluted argument, but I am having considerable difficulty in doing so. The hon. Gentleman concedes that lasting peace is not a certainty. There is a difference between us as to when there should be the fundamental review to which he referred, but the House is concerned with whether these powers should be renewed now, in the existing situation. If the hon. Gentleman accepts the uncertainty and if, as he said a moment ago, the existing security apparatus with the powers that sustain it should not be dismantled, why cannot he agree with Mr. Rowe, who said that the whole Act is needed now? Why cannot he agree with the Government, and why cannot his party vote with us in the Lobby this evening?
Mr. Straw: By his attitude, the Secretary of State has just explained the reason. He knows that we sought a bipartisan agreement, not on the suspension of the powers but on the establishment of a fundamental review. We had no interest in playing party politics on this issue. I hope and believe that the Secretary of State does not either. It is interesting, however, that, for the first time in my recollection, he has used the term and acknowledged the need for a fundamental review.
I dealt with the issue of the vote in my opening remarks and in answer to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). This is a take-it-or-leave-it order. The only way in which we can express not only our opposition to exclusion orders as they currently operate and the fact that the Secretary of State, as I shall explain, is unwilling to suspend their future use, but our reservations about the decisions on the extension of detention and, above all, the Secretary of State's failure, which I continue to fail to understand, to establish a fundamental review which will be without prejudice to the operation of those powers, is by voting against the order.
Mr. Howard rose—
Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) and then come back to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Day: I find it difficult to accept that the hon. Gentleman mentions that in future we may recognise a permanent peace. Does he agree that the only real sign of a permanent peace is when terrorists hand over their weapons and that, until then, there cannot be real peace, only the hope of it? Given that scenario and the fact that we certainly cannot describe the present situation as permanent peace, why will not the hon. Gentleman ensure

363
that the powers to contain the threat of a return to terrorism are available to the Government of the day if they needed them?
Mr. Straw: I have just dealt with that. As the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was explaining, I think yesterday, the issue of how one judges a permanent peace is slightly more complicated than the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying—I hope that I understand it correctly—that the only issue between him and the Government is the timing, and perhaps the nature, of the review. He also complains that the order is a take-it-or-leave-it order, but there is absolutely nothing in it about a review. So if the only difference between the hon. Gentleman and the Government is the review, why does he not vote for the order, which provides the powers that the police, the security service and Mr. Rowe say are needed if we are to keep up our guard?
Mr. Straw: That is about the poorest argument I have ever heard the Secretary of State come out with. I have answered it once already, but I am happy to answer it again. This is a take-it-or-leave-it order, and our concerns should come as no surprise to the Home Secretary because he has known of them for several weeks. If he is anxious to assist us not to vote against the order, he could bring forward what, from what he has let slip this afternoon, is evidently in his mind—the fundamental review, which I suspect he will announce in a shorter rather than a longer time.
I shall now deal with two specific issues that concern us—exclusion orders and extensions of detention. I welcome the Home Secretary's revoking of the 16 exclusion orders. One of the reasons why we believe that a fundamental review is necessary is that, the last time the case for them was examined in such a review, by Lord Colville in 1987, he found that case wholly wanting.
I have given the matter as much attention as I can, and I acknowledge the strong views of those directly involved in the fight against terrorism about the need to maintain exclusion orders. I think that the Home Secretary will accept, however, that those views can never be overriding. Politicians, such as Ministers and Members of the House, must make wider judgments.
Lord Colville looked most carefully at the balance to be struck between the practical case for exclusion orders made by people in the security forces, and such orders' collision with basic liberties. He said:
"This power is the most draconian in the present Act. It is only applicable to Irish terrorism".
Lord Colville had previously explained:
"I have to agree that it is probably an effective way of getting rid of people from an area where otherwise they might cause great trouble; that it disrupts terrorist lines of communication and supply of arms, ammunition and explosives. However I am not convinced that the ends justify these means. I renew my recommendation … that Part II of the Act relating to exclusion orders should not be renewed … or not replaced in the new Bill … I recognise that the alternative is a hard decision, but I express the view that it would be the correct one both in terms of civil rights in the United Kingdom and this country's reputation in that respect among the International Community".
364
That is absolutely right. We accepted that view in 1987, and we accept it now. What lies behind it is the fact that exclusion orders apply only to people from Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said, that is one reason why the Ulster Unionists have always opposed them, too.
We note with great approval that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, ahead of the Home Secretary's announcement today, has already announced the lifting of all orders in Northern Ireland. Lord Colville criticised what he described as the burden and the heavy work load that exclusion orders imposed on the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the armed forces in Northern Ireland.
If the peace process continues positively, it is improbable that either the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will use the power in future. We therefore believe that, pending the outcome of the fundamental review that we seek, future use of exclusion orders—de novo use—should be suspended by means of section 27 provisions.
The Secretary of State said that that was all right, but that under section 27(7)(b) there would be a period of 24 hours before the use of exclusion orders could be invoked. In fact, the period is probably shorter than that, but the Secretary of State knows that, given the other powers of detention—we do not suggest that those should be put on ice at this stage—if the security situation changed radically, even if he had exercised his power to put the future use of exclusion orders on ice under section 27, in practice the power could be restored at a moment's notice, first by the use of the powers to detain a person against whom a potential exclusion order was to be made and then, when the order had been laid, as it could be, as a matter of urgency, by the use of the order itself.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has answered a question that I did not ask him. Will he now answer the question that I asked him in my speech? I said that, if the powers to make exclusion orders were removed, no action could be taken in respect of known terrorists who might want to cross into Great Britain in advance of a resumption of terrorism. If one waited until the point that the hon. Gentleman seems to think appropriate, it might be too late. That is why I said that we had to continue with the powers. Unless we did, we would not be able to keep in place any of the existing exclusion orders—those that I have retained after the review of that I undertook. They would all have to go. That is the question that I put to the hon. Gentleman earlier. May we have an answer to it?
Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State is making enormously heavy weather of what is really a simple issue. Either he intends to continue to make future use of exclusion orders, which seems to collide with the peace process, at least while there is a great possibility of a permanent peace, or he does not. If the power to make exclusion orders were put on ice, what would really happen?
The Home Secretary has gone to great lengths to quote Mr. John Rowe's report, and Mr. Rowe drew attention to the fact that the power could be used at some stage in the 12 months following his report—that would now mean during the next nine months. If the security situation

365
deteriorated, as the right hon. Gentleman appears to suggest it may, there is no reason why the power could not be re-established quickly.
Mr. Clive Soley: I do not think that the Home Secretary is aware of the history here. There was a time, especially in the early 1980s, when the argument against the extended use of the security services, including MI5, which was being considered as an alternative to exclusion orders, was always that the security services were stretched too far. That is one of the big changes since that time.
The security services are no longer overstretched, because of the collapse of the cold war and the changed security situation in Northern Ireland. The Home Secretary himself admitted that there were only 40 people whose movements interested him in connection with exclusion orders. The preference would be to use the security services as they ought to be used and as they are prepared to be used, rather than using internal exile.
Mr. Straw: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point, which is connected with the detail of Lord Colville's argument in his 1987 report.
I shall now deal briefly with extensions of detention. One of the features of democratic societies is that decisions to detain people are made judicially, by a process separate from the role of Ministers and politicians. On Monday, the House re-emphasised its commitment to the need for such a separation of powers, when it agreed without a vote to remove Ministers' discretion on miscarriages of justice and to transfer it to an independent criminal cases review commission.
However, under the legislation before us decisions to extend detention are made by Ministers. In our judgment, that is inherently unsatisfactory, as was recognised by the present Foreign Secretary who said in 1989, when he was Home Secretary:
"We continue to look for a judicial mechanism".—[Official Report, 30 January 1989; Vol. 146, c. 65.]
Last year, the Home Secretary said that that search had been in vain.
I accept that this is not an easy area, and I have read in detail the views of John Rowe and of Viscount Colville in last year's debate on the PTA renewal in the other place. However, there are other examples within our common law system in which a judge effectively makes a judicial decision even though not all the evidence, or even any of it, can be shown to the defendant. Ex parte applications to protect the disclosure of certain unused prosecution evidence provide one example. Another arises when the question is whether public interest immunity should apply to evidence. I do not believe that such a mechanism would be impossible to draw on if the will were there.
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) was right to say that one of the reasons why this country has got into difficulty with the international courts is not that we treat terrorist suspects worse than other countries do. Despite our reservations about some aspects of the legislation, there is ample evidence to suggest that we treat terrorist suspects better than other comparable countries do.
We get into difficulties because Ministers are involved in decisions on detention, whereas in other countries—those with civil law procedures—a magistrate or some other detached person in the judicial system makes those
366
decisions. That is one of the practical reasons why we should continue to search for a judicial element in extensions of detention and elsewhere within the scheme of the Bill.
For the past 25 years, the people of the north of Ireland have had to live with the ever-present dangers of political violence. Two Members of the House—Airey Neave and Ian Gow—have been murdered by terrorists.
Mr. David Trimble: What about Robert Bradford?
Mr. Straw: I am sorry.
All Northern Ireland politicians have lived through periods of mortal danger. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) still carries the scars to prove that. We can neither forgive nor forget the terrible and brutal atrocities which have scarred our society. But we also have an obligation to do all in our power to stop those atrocities from happening again.
In the changed circumstances of a sustained ceasefire, now is the time to review precisely what anti-terrorist legislation we need. That would not undermine the fight against terrorism but strengthen it by ensuring that the powers needed for that fight are proportionate to the threat and that they enjoy the consent and understanding of the public of the United Kingdom. Labour wants a bipartisan approach in this area. I greatly regret that the Government have not accepted our proposals to achieve the consensus that we seek. It is for that reason—and for that reason alone—that we will express our regret in the Lobby tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the debate continues, I must point out that many hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that hon. Members will exercise self-restraint regarding the length of their speeches, so that no one is disappointed in this very important debate.
5.11 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: I listened carefully to the precisely constructed arguments of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), but nothing he said detracts from my conclusion that it would be irresponsible and indefensible to do anything other than support the renewal of the provisions.
I think that the hon. Gentleman makes two mistakes. First, he gives inadequate attention to the comprehensive and convincing arguments put forward by Mr. John Rowe for renewal. I do not believe that I have read an independent annual report which so convincingly put forward the argument for renewal since the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act came into being.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that he does not like the powers of detention and the exclusion orders. I respect that, but he makes an entirely false deduction from that premise, and says that, because of that dislike, he and his right hon. and hon. Friends must go into the Opposition Lobby tonight. That is not the case. There is an alternative.
The Opposition could say that the overriding interest of the country is to maintain the fight against terrorism. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can put on record to this House, the media and the country their opposition to two significant aspects of the measures. They can

367
nevertheless say that, despite their opposition to those points, the importance of having the means to fight terrorism is so overriding that they will vote with the Government. I suspect that, if the Opposition did that, they might conceivably find that they were not 40 points ahead in the opinion polls, but 42 points. They may feel, however, that they do not need that additional luxury.
There are a number of reasons why we should renew the provisions. The first is entirely related to Northern Ireland, and Mr. Rowe rightly made much of that. He reported that there remains
"a very real threat of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland".
He pointed out that
"activity by terrorist groups has not stopped",
and referred to assaults, intimidation, robberies, extortion, racketeering, money-collecting, the possession of firearms and explosives and the Irish National Liberation Army's continued reluctance to renounce what it regards as an armed struggle. On Northern Ireland issues alone, there is sufficient justification for the renewal of the measures.
The second reason why the House would be mistaken to do anything other than support renewal relates to international terrorism. It is very often overlooked that, although the genesis of the measures lay with the Birmingham atrocity and a number of other acts thereafter, the United Kingdom remains a focal point for visitors from many nations who have brought to London in particular their own factional interests and who fight their own factional battles.
Last year, only one non-Irish foreign national was arrested under the PTA, but that was an exception. The average figure during the previous 10 years was 33, and the peak year was 1984, when 73 foreign nationals were arrested under the PTA. We must accept that international terrorism continues to be a real threat, and Mr. Rowe rightly drew attention to that. There is justification for the continuation of the Act on the grounds of international terrorism as well.
The third reason why it would irresponsible not to renew the measures is simply—as Mr. Rowe pointed out—that the powers are needed and working. On proscribing, Mr. Row wrote:
"In all circumstances it is clear that this part of the Act is needed".
On exclusion orders, he wrote:
"There is value in the exclusion order preventing terrorism … this part of the Act should be continued".
On terrorist funding, he wrote:
"These powers of PTA are necessary".
On arrest and extension he wrote:
"There is a continuing need for the power of arrest under section 14, and the power of extension of detention".
Mr. Rowe's conclusion—to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary drew attention in his remarks—is:
"PTA should be renewed, with every Part as at present enacted."
The last reason why we should renew the powers is not insignificant. The police who were on the front line of the fight against terrorism have been found to be using the powers fairly, and they wish them to continue. The House would need a very good reason to deny them those powers, and I for one cannot see what those reasons are.
368
On the grounds that I have outlined, there is a compelling argument for doing nothing other than renewing the provisions.
5.16 pm
Mr. Roger Stott: I am grateful to have caught your eye so early in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I take note of what you said and I shall try to contain my remarks and be as brief as possible, as I know that other Members want to speak.
I have a vivid memory of being a young Member of Parliament 21 years ago in the Chamber and of being told of the awful atrocity that had occurred at Birmingham. The deaths of those innocent young people on the mainland of Britain was a tragedy, although I realise that similar events had occurred in Northern Ireland for a good deal longer. The response of the House 21 years ago to that event was fairly predictable. All of us were shocked, and the House represented the anger that was felt through the whole of the United Kingdom about that atrocity. Therefore, the Prevention of Terrorism Act was born.
I was present in the Chamber for not all, but part, of the 36 hours it took the House to pass that legislation, and it was placed on the statute book 21 years ago. We passed it because of the feelings which we had at the time about the appalling violence of the IRA. I well remember listening to what I would consider to be the finest speech I ever heard in this Chamber, from Brian Walden, the then Labour Member for Birmingham, Lady wood. It is a great
pity that we did not have the cameras in the Chamber on that occasion, so people could go back to look at that speech. All we have instead is the cold print of Hansard.
That was the time when the Act was born. I voted for it, and I continued to vote for its renewal for a number of years thereafter. But, as time went by, I, and my party, began to realise that the draconian powers—those are not my words, but words used by people who have reviewed this legislation—contained in the Act were becoming unsustainable. The erosion of people's civil liberties and human rights, which are clearly contained in the Act, can no longer be sustained.
The Act has undoubtedly produced a very corrosive atmosphere in certain parts of the country and in certain communities. It has been counter-productive to its original intent because it has not prevented terrorism in any shape or form. Because of its draconian powers, it has damaged Britain's standing with the rest of the world. We introduced the measure 21 years ago and the Home Secretary is asking the House to renew it for a further year. Is it not a bitter irony that this Act has come of age during the time of peace in Northern Ireland?
The Government have always said that there is no such person as a political prisoner in the United Kingdom and I agree but, with hindsight, the provisions of the Act have run contrary to that belief. The Act has enhanced the status of prisoners because, as the Home Secretary said, the Government have had to apply for a derogation from the European court, which basically means that we are in a state of war. If that does not enhance their status, I do not know what does.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said that there appears to be some difference between the way in which the Home Secretary has operated the

369
provisions of the PTA and the way in which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has operated the emergency provisions Act.
The justification for continuation of the PTA is the possibility that paramilitaries may go back to the gun if peace breaks down in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) gave the figures earlier. In 1994, only one person was detained under the category of international terrorism, but 1,509 other people were detained under the provisions—I think that that is the right figure—in Northern Ireland and the mainland of the United Kingdom, and nearly 80 per cent. were released without charge. It is difficult to interpret those figures to mean anything other than that the PTA is seen as an anti-Irish Act, and it is seen as such by the vast majority of law-abiding Irish citizens in the United Kingdom.
The Home Secretary has spelt out the justification for the Act and its renewal. The problem with the PTA, from the perspective of the principle of equality under the law, is that, whatever the Home Secretary or any of his successors or predecessors might say, the prisoners have been treated under a legal system that has not applied to ordinary criminals. They have been given a special category and denied the normal rights given to ordinary people in custody and on charge. The state has been seeking the benefit of the odious label, without accepting the need to extend to those suspects the procedural safeguards that are routinely available to non-paramilitary defendants.
The PTA has created special criminal offences for subversives and it gives the Executive wide powers of arrest, detention and exclusion of terrorist suspects, while claiming that they are just ordinary criminals. That is the paradox of the Government's thinking.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said, it is a pity that there can be no cross-party consensus on the matter. We believe that anti-terrorist legislation is required, and it is a pity that the Home Secretary did not take up the offer of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, because consensus is necessary.
In the past, because of the attitude that the Opposition take, it has been said that Labour is soft on terrorism. I resent that remark. Everyone who has had responsibility for Northern Ireland, as I did for six years on the Opposition Front Bench, has condemned the IRA and other paramilitaries for the atrocities that they have committed—as has every other hon. Member in this House, especially those representing Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and I—with some risk to my life—have never ceased in our condemnation of the IRA, so I will not take lessons from anyone who suggests that we are soft on terrorism simply because we disagree with the way in which the PTA has been used.
We are debating the renewal of the legislation at a time of peace in Northern Ireland. I was in Belfast and Derry during Christmas week and there was a palpable sense of relief among the ordinary people. Christmas week—a joyous week, when we all celebrate the birth of Jesus—and the people of Northern Ireland were enjoying the freedoms that everyone in this Chamber has come to accept as commonplace, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said. I hope and pray that the peace will
370
continue and that the renewal of the Act will not destabilise the peace process, but I certainly do not think that it will necessarily help it.
Mention was made of exclusion orders and the Home Secretary will be aware that last year I raised the case of John Matthews, a young man from Derry who had been taken in under the PTA. He was in a high security gaol for three months and was brought before a stipendiary magistrate. The prosecuting authorities told the magistrate that they were withdrawing all the evidence against him and the magistrate said, "You may leave this court without a stain on your character," which he did. Five minutes later, he was re-arrested and the Secretary of State signed an exclusion order. Even to this day, Mr. Matthews does not know the reason.
If the boy were guilty of any offence, he should have been tried and brought to justice in the proper way. He should not have been excluded in that way. John Matthews is in Altnagelvin hospital having his wisdom teeth removed. I hope that some of that wisdom will flow around the Secretary of State for the Home Department in future when he considers exclusion orders.
Finally, I saw an interesting piece of news on the tapes yesterday, which read:
"The IRA ceasefire has allowed police in London to boost operations against other criminals, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner said today. Hundreds of officers who would otherwise be deployed countering the threat of random terrorism attacks were now working in other areas, said Sir Paul Condon … He was commenting at the launch of the Metropolitan Police Service's first police plan, which, in a reflection of the IRA ceasefire, does not list counter terrorism amongst its top priorities."
Those were the words of the chief of the biggest police force in London, and here we are, once again debating whether we should renew the order.
I cannot vote for this order this evening, for the reasons that I have explained. I hope that, next year, we shall not have to go through this process again. I hope that there will be stability and the peace process will solidify. I hope that the constitutional parties of Northern Ireland will get round the table and discuss the issues of the governance of Northern Ireland in a peaceful, progressive way.
5.29 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: I commend to the House the excellent and probing report on the operation of the PTA drawn up by John Rowe.
How do the majority of law-abiding people in Northern Ireland view the so-called "ceasefire and peace process"? They see that it is to the advantage of the terrorists, especially the IRA, as the IRA can dictate when that peace will be broken. In the interim, the Government are dancing to a tune of concessions in order to keep the Provisional IRA sweet. Mr. Rowe refuses to be won over by IRA blarney or promises that the violence is over permanently. The truth is that the IRA has no intention whatever of decommissioning or surrendering arms. It remains today one of the advanced terrorist organisations in the western world, with the greatest possible killing potential.
I am amazed at Members of this House who visit Northern Ireland and say that all is well. All is not well. If they visited people in the constituencies of hon. Members represented here, they would see that they are targeted by the IRA and the police have warned them that they are in danger. They should go to the homes of people who have

371
been told that, for safety's sake, they must leave the home in which they have lived all their lives. Is that what the House believes peace is?
One has only to look at what has taken place during the period when hon. Members have eulogised the wonderful spirit of peace. Mr. Rowe said that the
"risk of terrorism continuing is a real one."
That is a factual statement, because terrorism is continuing. The report does not try to mask the reality that the IRA could, at any moment, resume its military terrorism. It has not stopped its vicious and atrocious assaults, nor stopped funding its organisation.
From the Provo ceasefire to the close of last year, there were 70 incidents. Perhaps the House agrees with Mr. Maudling's view that there is an acceptable level of violence. In January, nine vicious assaults took place. I do not know how one draws the distinction between knee-capping a person and giving that person a bit of towel to bite on as nails are driven through a stick into the calves of his legs. I do not know what hon. Members would prefer to have done to them. That is supposed to be peace.
The rate at which the IRA is stealing cars throughout Belfast, taking them to west Belfast, removing their engines' ancillaries and selling them is colossal. It is beyond even the police to reckon how many incidents of that type are happening all over the city. At midnight on 17 January, two soldiers sustained serious head injuries on the Antrim road. On 29 January, two petrol bombs were thrown in Strabane. A man was injured by a shooting incident in Monagh Pass. The Army defused an incendiary device in a shop on the Newtownards road. The Army disposed of a bomb at Woolworth and another bomb in Habitat in Belfast. The Army disposed of a further bomb in North street. A number of Orange halls have been attacked at Maree, Bawn and Pomeroy. In January, five armed robberies in Northern Ireland were all carried out by terrorists. Yet we are told that there is peace.
I remind the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), who talked about the wonderful spirit at Christmas, that we have had IRA ceasefires at Christmas for a very long time. They are nothing new. We need to come down to what is really happening in Northern Ireland and how people there feel. There can be a permanent peace only if the terrorists' arms—their capability to kill, maim, bomb and destroy—are taken from them.
Whereas at first Ministers used the word "surrender", they now use the word "decommission". Today, we heard on our radios and televisions the voice of Mr. McGuinness from Londonderry saying that there can be no question of the IRA giving up any of its arms until the British Army and the RUC give up their arms, and every licensed gun in Northern Ireland is handed in. He said that only then will it be time to talk about the IRA surrendering its arms. Is that the basis on which this so-called "peace" is to be made?
Rev. William McCrea: Does my hon. Friend agree that many people in Northern Ireland have expressed great anger at the Secretary of State's statement in the United States of America that a "token" gesture will be required of the IRA before Her Majesty's Ministers will enter into talks with murderers like Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein?
Rev. Ian Paisley: From what we saw on our television screens of the Secretary of State, I was amazed that he went to America to make that announcement. Why did he not tell it to us in Northern Ireland, given that we are most concerned about it?
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the word "token" never crossed my lips, either in the United States of America or anywhere else?
Rev. Ian Paisley: It is not a matter of semantics. What did cross the Secretary of State's lips was the fact that there could be a gesture with a small amount of arms handed over and that faith could be put in the word of the terrorists that they would cease their activities. The Secretary of State will no doubt hear for himself the reaction of people in Northern Ireland.
Rev. William McCrea: Does my hon. Friend know that the Government of the Irish Republic and Her Majesty's Government know that there are currently three dumps in the Irish Republic? They know exactly where the arms are. Those weapons have been lost to the terrorists and will be used as that gesture because the IRA can never use those weapons again.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I have heard it said by those who are acquainted with how the IRA works that the authorities in the south of Ireland are well aware of weapons hidden there.
Mr. Dicks: I understand—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that there will be no move to have Adams and McGuinness sitting round the negotiating table until every last weapon that they own has been handed in. Is that wrong?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies, may I point out that we are dealing not with the general state of the peace negotiations but with the renewal or otherwise of the provisions against terrorism? I hope that he will address that point.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, but all the other speakers today discussed relevant matters, and I thought that I would also have the leniency of the Chair. I am glad that I got as far as I did, and I thank you for your leniency.
Mr. Dicks: The Government would not talk to IRA/Sinn Fein until all their weapons had been surrendered.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree that that is what I, and everyone, understood, but now we can see them weakening and weakening until we do not know when Ministers will sit at the table. That is the feeling.
There is a noticeable variance between what the Home Secretary says and what the Northern Ireland Office says. The Home Secretary hides behind Mr. Rowe's report, rightly. I agree with the report; I commend it. However, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland issued a statement on 17 February 1995, and he said:
"As Mr. Rowe himself makes clear, most of his work was completed before the PIRA cessation of violence and it was wholly completed before the loyalist cessation. His recommendations do not, therefore, take full account of the new situation which these events created, nor of the Government's working assumption that the ceasefires are intended to be permanent."

373
However, when we read the report, we discover that the villain—Mr. Rowe himself—makes an entirely different affirmation. He says:
"It is said, at least as to Northern Ireland, that since the ceasefires terrorism has stopped, and talks have started and the Government has a working assumption that the ceasefire is intended to be permanent. The submission was made to me that the PTA should not now be used in any circumstance, and that no use should have been made of it from 31 August 1994 onwards. I have considered these points carefully, but my conclusion remains the same, and I am convinced of it."
I do not understand, therefore, why the Home Secretary comes to the House and praises Mr. Rowe and then that statement emanates from the Northern Ireland Office, saying that Mr. Rowe was not fully acquainted with the situation. He has studied the situation, and I believe that he has made a right assessment of what has taken place.
Mr. Rowe says about exclusion orders:
"I … have seen a clear indication that exclusion orders can deter excluded persons from engaging in terrorist acts in Great Britain … there is proof that exclusion orders have disrupted the terrorists' plans."
Anything that can disrupt the terrorists' plans, anything that can keep a mass bomb from reaching its destination, should be welcomed by every fair-thinking person in the House.
On Victory in Europe day, Winston Churchill made one of his very few impromptu speeches in the House. He said:
"the strength of the Parliamentary institution has been shown to enable it at the same moment to preserve all the title deeds of democracy while waging war in the most stern and protracted form."—[Official Report, 8 May 1945; Vol. 410, c. 1869.]
That is what we need to do. We need to wage war on those terrorists from whatever side they come, and we also have to keep to the rules of democracy. If a person sets out to take away the life of another person, I believe that the law needs to step in and stop that person committing that crime.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said in the House:
"I believe that we have a prime duty to defend the liberties of our constituents, but a Bill of Rights and a whole volume of liberties are of little value to someone who is 6 feet beneath the ground or someone whose body has been dismembered by a bomb."—[ Official Report, 28 November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 699.]
Of course at that time he was not so contaminated with IRA/Sinn Fein; he was speaking from his heart about what was happening in this part of the United Kingdom. I would say to the House today—
Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I have given way a great deal. I am beyond my time. I shall be castigated by Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall not give way.
Mr. Mallon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it right that an accusation of that type should be made against the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—that he has been contaminated by the IRA—and should not that remark be withdrawn, in the interests of the type of justice that you are talking about?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I think it was just about within the bounds of the way that we deal with things here, but I would caution all Members, especially in these delicate circumstances, to remember that we maintain the very highest standard of conduct and manners, especially when referring to other Members of the House.
Rev. Ian Paisley: If people want to call for the IRA, with its arms still intact, to be brought to the discussion table and
374
treated as a body with constitutional politicians, I for one will call that person a person contaminated by Sinn Fein/IRA, without apology. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has said very nice things about me, with which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) would quite agree. I am stating the facts, and I have read from Hansard, and if the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North wants to go back on his own word, that is for him to do.
All I am saying to the House and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I conclude my speech, which has been greatly interrupted—I should really be pleading for accident time—is that the House has a solemn responsibility to safeguard the people of Northern Ireland in the same way that it safeguards the people of the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Home Secretary said that he was a Unionist. As a Unionist, he should be as dedicated to keeping the people of Northern Ireland in safety as he is to keeping in safety any person in the rest of the United Kingdom.
5.46 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I do not need to reiterate the list of misery, death and mayhem that originally precipitated the legislation and has kept it on the statute book for so long. That has been done by other hon. Members.
I do not want to dwell at length on the peace process and the current cessation of violence, except to say two things. First, violence has not ceased altogether in Northern Ireland, and several unpleasant incidents have taken place in that period, and therefore some of the Northern Ireland legislation may continue to be necessary for that reason.
Secondly, confidence needs to be maintained and built on, and that must include a decommissioning process whereby arms and explosives come out of the hands of terrorists so that it becomes clear to people that they are not about to resort to terrorism again, or to use the possibility of doing so as a negotiating ploy.
The problem with that is that we shall never know whether we have obtained all the Semtex and whether all the guns have been removed from either side. The world that one hon. Member described, in which not only every gun held by terrorist organisations, but every Army weapon, every RUC weapon and every licensed gun in Northern Ireland had disappeared, is not the real world.
Judgments will need to be made at some time whether the process that is taking place is one in which a return to violence becomes genuinely unlikely or even very difficult for terrorists to undertake. Whoever has ministerial responsibility at that time will have to make that judgment, and he will not be able to do so by simply saying, "It is fine now, everyone. I have got all the weapons; I know that we are all right." That will not happen. I do not envy anyone the job of making the judgment, but that process must begin.
The other side of the coin to building confidence through decommissioning is that the political process must keep going, and all those involved have to be clearly engaged in that process to provide the basis on which confidence can be built on that side.
It would be irresponsible to scrap the anti-terrorist legislation entirely with immediate effect. We shall therefore vote to renew it tonight, although we shall

375
continue to demand a general review of the working of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. That review should take account of the security position as it develops in the next few months so that parts of the Act that are not effective for security purposes can be scrapped. Anti-terrorist powers are major limitations on civil liberty, which can be justified only if they are essential for security. They should not be treated as bargaining counters in the peace process. Nor should they be determined by negotiations between the Conservative and Labour parties in the hope of enabling Labour to get off the hook in voting against renewal. I do not believe that Labour Front Benchers would recommend that their hon. Friends vote against renewal in the Lobby tonight if they thought that they could win that vote. The Labour party is making a point and, in part, I agree with it.
However, I am not prepared to make that point in that way because I believe that we must keep the powers on the statute book since they may be required for security purposes. We should continue to argue about the speed with which a review can be undertaken and changes made.
I turn to the key elements in the prevention of terrorism legislation. The very fact that the Home Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary have revoked a significant number of exclusion orders is a sign that those powers are no longer as valuable as they may have been in other circumstances. The powers should be relaxed on those grounds alone; they should not be relaxed as some kind of boost to the peace process or as an offering to the negotiations.
It must be demonstrated that the exclusion orders are not appropriate for use in current circumstances. Such major incursions into civil liberty and such defiance of the Unionist principle of one United Kingdom are very difficult for the Government to defend unless there is an overriding security reason for doing so. We have so few exclusion orders now that we must be close to seeing their complete removal. We would have to make sure that we could cope with the security consequences of that move and ensure that the people from whom the exclusion orders had been lifted did not pose a threat to this country. There are ways of achieving that goal.
I submit that the powers of detention without charge will need to be either cut back, as has occurred in respect of international terrorism, or put under judicial control. There have been several references to the debate about judicial consideration of detention. Curiously, most of the countries with which we are compared in discussions about human rights have judicial processes for extended detention—a fact of which Mr. Nick Leeson is already aware. Other people who find themselves in trouble and in courts overseas become aware of them pretty quickly also.
We have a rather different tradition and, in some ways, it is a stricter one. In this instance, it has led to the Executive taking responsibility for detaining people without charge for longer than would normally be permitted. Mr. Rowe believes that judges might be seen to be acting as part of the Executive if they were brought into that process. If we must maintain powers for longer detention for any period of time, we may have to try to overcome Mr. Rowe's objections and work out how the judiciary can participate in the process without merely being a servant of the Executive. On the present evidence,
376
I do not think that we will be dealing with the number of cases that initially made that outcome seem very difficult, or impossible, to achieve.
I think that the powers relating to the proscription of organisations are of diminishing security value. Their main importance may now lie in the way in which proscription expresses the revulsion of people in this country at the activities in which terrorist organisations—both republican and loyalist paramilitary organisations—have engaged. People find it very hard to accept the fact that legally permitted organisations carry out acts of terrorist violence within our jurisdiction. However, I think that those powers are of limited usefulness as a security measure.
The powers for the confiscation of funds, the investigation of funds and the transfer of money and money laundering are potentially of continuing importance—especially if there is a possibility of a return to violence. They are also of great significance in relation to terrorism that is not related to Northern Ireland. As has been mentioned already, the House dealt with an order relating to terrorism from the Indian sub-continent only a few days ago. Those powers and the powers of investigation associated with them under section 17 and schedule 7 may be needed in the future.
I think that the border controls and stop-and-search activities at points of entry are likely to prove of continuing importance. If exclusion orders are dropped, it may still be necessary to keep a fairly careful watch on who is crossing from Northern Ireland to Britain or who is travelling in the opposite direction. Those powers may serve a continuing purpose.
Most members of the public, when subjected to the inconvenience created by the powers, recognise that they are important—perhaps more readily than they would in other contexts. When there is broader debate about passport and border controls, I often wonder whether hon. Members know how irritated some of my constituents get about delays with border controls and passports. However, in the context of Northern Ireland terrorism, I think that people are appreciative of the reasons for the powers and co-operate readily when showing their passports or in allowing their luggage or their vehicles to be searched.
The Government will have to review the separate Northern Ireland emergency provisions. If Ministers have to come back to the House for another renewal of the present prevention of terrorism legislation without undertaking a full review, it will be a sign either that the peace process has failed—leaving a heightened security threat—or that they are not keeping up to date with current security requirements.
I do not believe that the mix of security requirements which makes up the legislation in its present form is likely to be what we will need a year from now. Other forms of terrorism may be become more important than Northern Ireland terrorism, so a different mix of powers will be required and we will rely rather less on this emergency legislation than on the general body of law.
I believe that a review is essential, and the Secretary of State recognised that in his remarks today. He believes that a fundamental review of the powers is appropriate, but he does not want to embark upon it as quickly as I would wish. We shall pursue that area of difference with him and we will continue to emphasise our view that some of the features of the legislation must not he regarded

377
as permanent fixtures of our statute book because they represent major incursions into civil liberty. However, we believe that we must ensure that the powers are intact while the review process takes place.
5.55 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: I wish that I did not have to support my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in the Lobby tonight, but I must support him for the following reason: the Irish Republican Army is still in being. It still
"maintains its arsenal; is still recruiting; still targeting; still training; still researching improvised weapons".
They are not my words; they are the words of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. There is an additional reason which he did not list when making his speech in the United States: the IRA is still fund-raising.
"Extortion and blackmail, and intimidation and the collecting of funds, all for terrorist purposes, still goes on".
They are not my words, but the words of Mr. Rowe in his report.
In researching for my speech in this debate, I used two very helpful briefing documents: first, a case for the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 from the Committee on the Administration of Justice in Northern Ireland; and, secondly, Mr. Rowe's report. I studied both documents very carefully. The CAJ report makes some very interesting points. I share its wish that the Act could be scrapped. I accept that its provisions result in a departure from the ideal standards of civil rights and natural justice. But bombers and murderers deny their victims the most fundamental of human rights: the right to life.
As much as I respect the case advanced by the CAJ, I reject it because it is founded on a false premise. It claims that Northern Ireland's emergency is over; but it is not. As the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) explained, the emergency is certainly not over. All that has changed since we debated the Act last year is that there is a temporary ceasefire which has been called by some—but not all—of the organisations concerned. Would-be negotiators are still supported by evil psychopaths with guns in their pockets and Semtex in their briefcases.
The other document that I considered was Mr. Rowe's report. His research is meticulous and his objectivity is impressive. The report has persuaded me that all of the provisions in the Act must continue for at least one more year. His general conclusions are deeply disturbing. In paragraph 9 of the report, he states:
"Since the ceasefires there have been assaults and intimidation, which are terrorist related; likewise robberies of shops and of the person; and they continue to take place. There is extortion still going on, and racketeering, by terrorists: and there are still collections of money being made for terrorist funds".
That leads him to a very clear and simple conclusion:
"In short there is activity and threat."
I find that disturbing, but 1 find his detailed conclusions on each of the provisions equally disturbing.
He turns first to proscribed organisations and states in paragraph 18:
"The organisations which are proscribed are still in existence. It is known that they maintain their structures in place, and INLA has not announced a ceasefire. The IRA has done so; but after a robbery in Northern Ireland in the Autumn, and after the ceasefire, when a
378
considerable sum of money was stolen, the IRA acknowledged that it was responsible: a public appeal was made for the return of the money taken, but nothing came of that".
He turns to exclusion orders and states in paragraph 22:
"there is proof that exclusion orders have disrupted the terrorists' plans."
That leads him to support the continuation of the power to make exclusion orders.
Regarding his comments on the funding of terrorism, there is no need to labour the point again, as it has been covered in the debate.
When he turns to arrest and detention, he states in paragraph 42:
"At the present time there is still terrorist related activity, and a threat … and therefore there is a continuing need for the power of arrest … and the power of extension of detention."
Finally, turning to his comments on port controls, he states in paragraph 68:
"It seems to me that … these powers of examination are vital, and my conclusion is that they should be continued."
In other words, an expert who was asked to examine the working of the Act during 1994, having done his research, concludes that every part of the Act is still necessary.
There is another reason why I support its continuation. It is a reason that I deeply regret having to raise in the debate, but I am afraid that I take yesterday's statement by my right hon. Friend and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as a weakening of his stance on the surrender of weapons and explosives. If I understand him correctly, it seems to me that terrorists will be allowed to keep their arsenals for some time to come. All they have to do is make a small gesture of good faith. Can we expect good faith from bombers or good faith from assassins? When in the history of the IRA has it ever shown good faith to anybody?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course I never said, and of course it is not the case, that terrorists are allowed to keep their weapons for some time to come. I have said, and the Prime Minister has said, that there is no case for anybody retaining arms which are illegally held. That is abundantly clear and there is no change whatsoever in the Government's position. I said that, before we could sit down with Sinn Fein in the substantive, inclusive political talks, there had to be substantial progress made on the decommissioning of arms. That was said not only by the Prime Minister but by Mr. Bruton. I also said:
"In a democracy, parties will not sit down, must not sit down, with another party that implies that if it doesn't get its way, it is prepared to condone a return to violence."
Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for saying that and I am sorry to continue to labour the point, but a press statement from the Northern Ireland Office, which I assume he authorised, stated:
"In order to test the practical arrangements and to demonstrate good faith, the actual decommissioning of some arms as a tangible confidence building measure and to signal the start of a process."
If I understand that correctly—I am willing to give way to be told that I do not—I take it to be a weakening and I believe that to be wrong. I am sorry, but I cannot support my right hon. and learned Friend in that.
It gives me no pleasure to speak in these terms and I sincerely hope that nobody in the House will have to talk in the same way in a year's time. We have come a very long way since last August and I pay unreserved tribute

379
to all those who have been involved in the process, but the ceasefire has not yet become permanent. Terrorists have not yet called an end to their evil activities. The Act therefore remains necessary.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary asks for my support. I assure him that he has it for as long as he needs it.
6.4 pm
Mr. David Trimble: We in Northern Ireland have enjoyed six months without serious terrorist incident. That is something for which the entire community is profoundly grateful. There has been a continuation of some terrorist activity, but none the less, the existence of the ceasefire is very welcome. Despite that, our judgment, together with that of other parties that have spoken this evening, is that tonight the House must renew the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
We are not out of the woods yet. We still have terrorist organisations which are armed to the teeth and regularly threaten a return to violence if they do not get their way. Scarcely a week goes by without Mitchell McLaughlin issuing a fresh threat of a return to violence.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) quoted from the speech by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in Washington recently. The part that struck me as significant was the reference to the IRA "still researching improvised weapons". The fact that they are still researching and trying to develop new weapons is clear evidence of the danger that exists.
It is not just our judgment in the House. The Irish Government have formed the same judgment, but although they have repealed the so-called state of emergency dating back to 1939, they have retained the "offences against the state" legislation that provides for special criminal courts and internment. They have retained their legislation, and we must do the same.
I shall not rehearse our arguments on previous occasions, but I shall briefly touch on parts of them. I shall not repeat our position on exclusion orders. We find them objectionable in principle. They are not new. They were not invented in 1974; they were also contained in the 1939 Act, on which the 1974 Act was based. Then and now, they were the recourse of lazy authorities that lit on that provision because it seemed an easy way of introducing control.
As to seven-day detentions, I still remain of the view that it is possible to introduce a sufficient judicial element. There is a problem here that can be solved. I am aware of Mr. J. J. Rowe's comments about judges, but that is not the issue. We are addressing how to introduce a judicial element, not the present High Court judges. That is not the appropriate point. Mr. Rowe's approach is that of one who sees only difficulties rather than trying to find a solution, and I am sure a solution can be found.
While the Act has to be renewed for a further year, it must be the hope of hon. Members that this will be the last renewal, and that, despite the worries and concerns of so many hon. Members about whether the present temporary ceasefire will become permanent, it is important that we do not lose the protection that the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Northern Ireland
380
(Emergency Provisions) Act provide with regard to terrorist acts. It is not wise to leave the United Kingdom without some permanent protection.
There will always be the danger of a renewal of republican violence, and there are also threats from what we have this evening called international terrorism. I shall mention just a few examples.
Groups involved in the civil war in Algeria are said to be using London. There was a murder last week in London which has been linked to an extreme Islamic group, which I understand is banned in some other countries. We may want to consider banning it here. The Pakistani Christians whose death sentences were quashed in Pakistan and who had to leave Pakistan because they would no longer be safe there, could not come to the United Kingdom because they would not be safe here. They had to go to Germany. That is a reflection on our country.
Therefore, while the Act has to be renewed for this year, in the coming year we should undertake a major review of the legislation for the purpose of considering what permanent provision should be made. It remains to be seen whether it will be possible to move to that permanent position in the course of the year, but it is now appropriate for the Government to move in that direction.
I imagine that, if consideration was being given to what permanent provision is needed to deal with terrorism, we would want to retain the port and entry control powers. The powers relating to arrest, search and special offences in the current legislation might be put in cold storage, but available if needed—with, of course, appropriate parliamentary safeguards. Such a review could not be confined to the PTA; it would have to involve the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.
Sir Patrick Mayhew indicated assent.
Mr. Trimble: I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is nodding.
I believe that the form of the review should follow the precedent set by the 1979 Gardiner committee. I do not think it appropriate to involve a High Court judge. We have already expressed that view to the Home Secretary, and I gather from the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that the Labour party tried to persuade him to follow the same line.
I understand the Home Secretary's caution, and I understand that there are still matters for him to consider; but I hope that he will not delay his action for too long, for action must be taken. He has acknowledged the need for permanent provision, and he has also acknowledged that a review is the best way in which to consider what that provision should be.
As for the stance of the official Opposition, I find it amazing—although we agree with the Labour party on some specific points. The hon. Member for Blackburn said, after referring to the need for a review, that, had such a review been announced, there would have been no vote against the order.
The Home Secretary and others acknowledge that such a review is necessary and will be carried out. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the only problem was the issue of timing. Is that so important that he must divide the House, and send the wrong signal to terrorists?

381
I pay tribute to the way in which, over the past couple of years, the Leader of the Opposition has tried to change Labour's position. He has succeeded to some extent, but I am sorry that neither he nor his spokesman have had the courage to travel the rest of the way. We know the reason: the Opposition Back Benches contain a number of—well, "scoundrels" might be the appropriate word, but I am not sure whether it is in order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No, it is not.
Mr. Trimble: I happily bow to your judgment, Madam Deputy Speaker, and withdraw the term. A number of Labour Back Benchers, however, would defy their leader because of motives of which I do not approve. I shall go no further.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: We are against the Act.
Mr. Trimble: Yes.
As other hon. Members have pointed out, the peace process depends on the surrender or decommissioning of weapons. Through my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), we have made what we consider to be a positive proposal, but time precludes me from giving the details.
I join the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) in deploring the confusion that seems to have crept into the Government's position. In his statement, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland seemed to be saying that, if some arms were surrendered, Sinn Fein and the rest of the IRA could take their place at the table and talk. Apparently, however—according to what I have been told—the Minister of State said on this morning's edition of "Today" that two stages were involved: "Surrender some weapons and you get into direct talks with Ministers; to get into the all-party talks, you must surrender a substantial number of weapons."
I must caution those outside the House that involvement in all-party talks will require more than a decision by Her Majesty's Government. It will require a decision by other parties—and we ourselves will have to be satisfied that those taking part in all-party talks are committed to exclusively peaceful methods. The onus will be on those other parties to satisfy us of that.
Following the differing statements of two Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, I have been informed that, in a briefing today, the Government have told the press that they are about to move into bilaterial ministerial talks with the IRA. I hope to hear more about that when the Minister winds up.
I would have liked to explore the matter further, but time prevents me from doing so. I understand that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is anxious to speak.
6.13 pm
Mr. Terry Dicks: Let me reassure my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that I shall support him in the lobby. I feel, however, that, after the confusion caused by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the whole issue could be cleared up for good if he could reassure us—reassure me, in particular—that he will not sit down with any member of Sinn Fein or the rest of the IRA until the IRA has surrendered its weapons.
382
If he cannot give me such a categorical assurance now, I will assume that there has been some slippage in the Government's stance, or that I have completely misunderstood that stance. I am happy to give way to the Secretary of State if he wishes to clarify the position.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I readily take the opportunity offered by my hon. Friend. There has been no slippage. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have said time and again—and it does not rest only with us; the Government as a whole take the same stance—that, before inclusive political talks about future structures in Northern Ireland can take place, substantial progress must be made on the decommissioning of arms.
My hon. Friend may not like that; he may wish that I had put it in another, less realistic way. But that is the way in which the Government, the Prime Minister and—for what it is worth, and it is worth quite a lot—Mr. Bruton have put it. That is what must be achieved in the current exploratory phase of the discussions.
There has been no slippage whatever. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that, and will not go by highly inaccurate accounts in one or two newspapers today.
Mr. Dicks: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. If he were not a lawyer, I would suspect him of being a civil servant. Is he now saying that it is even more essential for the powers that we are discussing to be renewed?
As for exclusion orders, surely the idea is to stop IRA terrorists from coming to this country in the guise of those wanting to take part in discussions, and sending their troops here to be ready if and when things go wrong—ready to take on the British people in all sorts of ways. I suspect that, without exclusion orders—indeed, even with them—we cannot be sure that they have not already taken up their places.
The Opposition have talked of a fundamental review. If introduced now, such a review would only encourage the terrorists in the IRA to believe that what they have achieved so far can be achieved to an even greater extent. They could say, "Look—we have even persuaded the Government to undertake a fundamental review, before putting aside a single gun or anti-tank mortar." I consider it essential to hold back on any such review until we see the colour of their money—until we see how many weapons have been handed over.
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) raised the question of wrongful detention. If we are to talk of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, I should point out that, to my knowledge, no one has been found guilty of either of those crimes, in which people lost their lives. Oddly enough, neither police force is now seeking any of the terrorists who committed those atrocities.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dicks: No; the hon. Gentleman is too close to the IRA.
I find it rather suspicious that both police forces have given up looking for the people who committed those dreadful atrocities. The comparison with a person who has been kept in prison for a few weeks is very poor.
Earlier, I raised with my right hon. and learned Friend the question of Gerry Adams and allegations about recourse to the European Court of Justice or the European

383
Court of Human Rights. I am amazed that Mr. Adams—helped by Liberty, which always seems to want to help murderers and terrorists rather than victims—should have the audacity to take the case to one of those courts to try to obtain compensation for the fact that our exclusion orders prevented Mr. Adams from coming to this country.
As I told my right hon. and learned Friend earlier, rights and obligations are two sides of the same coin. How can Mr. Adams or Mr. McGuinness expect people in this country to recognise their rights when they do not recognise their obligations to the rest of us and act in a decent, humane and democratic fashion?
There would be a public outcry in this country if any indication were given that we would follow the line indicated by the European Court. I am amazed that we should even consider such a possibility, and I was grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's assurance that the Government would pay no compensation and would not recognise the decision of the European Court, if such a decision were made.
I voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985, because I did not want a foreign country to have a say in the affairs of my country. Northern Ireland is still my country; I am a Conservative and unionist Member of Parliament. It seems odd that people cannot stand up and say clearly, "We will stand by our own people in Northern Ireland. We will ensure that they are listened to and that their views will be accepted by the House." I am concerned that any softening of the power will be a weakening of the Government's stance, perhaps giving the wrong message. All of us—some hon. Members anyway—live under the threat of those people. I am being told not to relax and that I should ensure that my security is as high as it was before the talks began. If that is the case, how can people, especially Opposition Members, say, "Christmas was wonderful. Everything is nice. It is all easing off." By God it is not easing off and I have an awful suspicion that, if the IRA does not get its way, it will return to weapons and bombs and we shall be sorry for any leniency and soft approach.
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend and, as I said at the beginning, he will have my support in the Lobby this evening.
6.20 pm
Mr. Seamus Mallon: I appreciate the assurance of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) that the voice of the people from the north of Ireland will be heard. I appreciate the opportunity once again to squeeze in whatever few points I can, as we are approaching the end of the debate, on a matter that is affecting my constituents probably more than any other hon. Member's in Northern Ireland or in Britain.
I strongly disagree, however, with the view that the emergency legislation should be renewed. I believe that enormous change is taking place in the north of Ireland, that the community there is crying out for a new beginning, that the Government have not responded with the vision, the courage or the imagination to create a new dispensation of justice.
384
I believe that that refusal shows the Government's lack of appreciation of the fact that six months of peace and what has gone on within the community have created a radically new context within which the prevention of terrorism Act will work in future. I believe that their refusal to change has made it more difficult to start the essential work of obtaining confidence in and constructive support for a system of justice. It is a uniquely significant opportunity for us to reverse the trend that exists in the north of Ireland, to build a new system of justice that can command support and confidence and can strengthen human rights protection in Northern Ireland and for Irish people in Britain.
I believe that it is essential that a move is made now to create a new system of justice, one that is in tune with the mood of hope and peace. I believe that the political process and justice—we should not forget this point—are not separate entities within Northern Ireland. They are interlocked. They are interdependent, and one cannot be progressed in isolation from the other, as we will learn as we go further down the road. This is an opportunity lost, in my view, because the refusal even to soften the contours of the Act makes our difficult task in Northern Ireland all the more difficult.
Many tributes have been paid to Mr. John Rowe, in relation to his report. I shall try to be honest. I believe that the report is flimsy. It is riddled with contradictions and, indeed, inaccuracies. It is a report on which no Government could base their future thinking. It is something that bears examination.
I make this point strongly. In the context of whatever further examination is to come, I make the plea now, on behalf of good sense, that Mr. John Rowe QC does not carry out that review. His job was to carry out a review of the legislation, yet in effect he has asked the Government, under section 27(6)(b), to review their own legislation. He has refused to do so. The contradictions run right through his entire report.
Let us start at the very beginning. Mr. Rowe tells us:
"a careful assessment must be made of the present situation in N.I. in order to judge the continuing need for the PTA".
He then proceeds to ignore that dictum, going so far as to observe, in the very same paragraph:
"I must reach a view without thinking what its effect might be".
What a luxury; what myopia for someone to have who is reviewing a piece of legislation as stringent and draconian as this. He says:
"I cannot have regard to such things."
Peace is what he is talking about. He also says:
"I must reach a view without thinking what its effect might be"?
He is talking about peace and the changing situation.
Then, of course, on page 10, he tells us:
"However, I am allowed, I am sure, to have regard to current events."
Mr. Howard rose—
Mr. Mallon: I am not giving way. I have been present since the debate began. I shall give way, as I would not like to be accused of pique.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reconsidering. Both he and the hon. Member for Blackburn have misrepresented Mr. Rowe's attitude to the question. On page 2 of the report, when Mr. Rowe says that he cannot have regard to such things, what he is saying, quite clearly, is that he cannot have regard to signals. Those are political matters, and he is not a politician.

385
He does go on the say, as the hon. Gentleman says, that he can have regard to the current state of the situation in Northern Ireland in the context of making an assessment as to the risk and threat from terrorism. There is a clear distinction between those two, and Mr. Rowe has correctly and clearly identified that distinction.
Mr. Mallon: I thank the Secretary of State. I am glad that I gave way to him. The reality of the situation is that, in the very first page of the report, Mr. Rowe contradicts himself twice, and does so twice in the next paragraph as well.
Let us not end there. Let us look at his observations in relation to exclusion orders. Exclusion orders, let us remind ourselves, have been revoked by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Home Secretary says that he will revoke most of his. Even Lord Colville accepted the evidence against exclusion orders, because they are a political decision, made by politicians, without any element of judicial review. They are made without the person concerned knowing the reasons why the decision was made.
Mr. Rowe tells us, in paragraph 27:
"anyone with experience of such applications—
for a judicial review—
"knows what a strain they are"—
oh, dearie me—
"in the sense that the natural rules are not fully in place."
The natural rules of what? The natural rules of justice. The man is talking about a judicial input into the decision-making process in relation to exclusion orders.
He goes further. Because the person's position would not be put, the judge therefore
"would not be hearing both sides: the rules of natural justice would simply be absent."
Those are the word of the man, the QC, who has given his judgment on exclusion orders. If that is his view of judicial input, how can he advocate that exclusion orders, which are based on the decisions of politicians who are advised by civil servants, without any argument against or legal representation, be kept intact, as he has recommended?
In relation to arrest and seven-day detention—section 14—I remind the House that, in 1994, 353 extension orders applied in the north of Ireland. Mr. Rowe tells us that applications for an extension state the ground of arrest. On a substantial number of occasions, especially in Northern Ireland, the reason is described not as evidence or even circumstantial evidence but as "reliable intelligence".
He states:
"The precise details and source of the intelligence are not stated, and I have not seen them."
In paragraph 34 he states:
"I have read the file relating to each one."
He drew the conclusion:
"The second part of the review is, in broad terms, to see if the powers have been fairly and properly exercised. My view is that … they have".
His view is that they have been fairly exercised, but he has not seen the intelligence and does not know the basis on which decisions were made. However, he declares that the powers have been "fairly and properly exercised". Any lawyer would question the validity of that judgment in relation to both those matters.
386
There is suspicion or belief that section 14 of the PTA and sections 17 and 18 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act are being used to trawl for information. Innocent people are arrested and detained for up to seven days in search of information. We should not be surprised by that, because a former Home Secretary, Sir Leon Brittan, told us that that was exactly the case, and he gave the reasons.
He said:
"The use of the powers of detention under the legislation has acted, first, as a deterrent to persons other than the people who have been detained."
The law in this country is being used as a deterrent against people other than those who have been detained. That is sustained and supported by John Rowe QC.
Sir Leon went even further, when he was questioned by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). The right hon. Gentleman said:
"Will the Home Secretary make this point absolutely clear as it is crucial to many of us? Is he saying that it is right in a free society to detain innocent people without charge for the purpose of obtaining information from them?"
The Home Secretary's reply was remarkable. He said:
"It has been made clear not by me but by the courts that that is a legitimate and necessary use of the power."—[Official Report, 24 October 1983; Vol.47, c.55–6.]
That finds favour with John Rowe QC, who has written this review which had garnered so much support and confidence. People in Britain should be asking the question that I am asking, because there are victims of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in this country's legal and judicial system, and its process of justice is one of those victims. People should look carefully at that.
Schedule 5(16) relates to ports and border controls. There is not a word as to how the legislation there may be softened. A person can be held for up to 12 hours without even a reasonable suspicion. People may ask, "Held by whom?" It does not have to he by a police officer. Anyone can lose his liberty for up to 12 hours at the whim, not even on a reasonable suspicion, of someone who is not a police officer.
Mr. Rowe thinks highly of that, because he says:
"The checks on these persons not hitherto known were selective or random steps."
That is again a random trawl for information. Because of the issues that face us, we must look at those salient points, and sincerely and legally question the validity and veracity of the report by John Rowe QC.
The loss of mutual respect between state and citizens cannot be restored by attempts to cling to unjustifiable powers which degrade the individual by making him vulnerable to the arbitrary and capricious exercise of those powers. Those are not my words—they are much too flowery. They are from a legal authority in the North of Ireland.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act is part of the past, and must be consigned to the lumber room of history to gather dust, rather than remain an active factor in shaping the future. The justification for its continued existence, a present and real immediate threat to the life of the nation—an emergency, as it is termed in the European convention on human rights, threatening the life of the nation—having passed, the Act ought not to be reviewed.

387
A new, imaginative approach should be brought to the whole problem. We are sticking in the past, at a time when we should be leading the community in the north of Ireland and in Britain into a future with a new system of justice that will never make the mistakes of the past.
6.35 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: For the first time, the debate on this legislation is taking place in the context of peace in Northern Ireland. It is sad that some Unionist Members and some Back-Bench Tory Members do not seem to recognise the impact that our debates on this issue can have. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister for the way that they responded to peace process developments in Northern Ireland. All hon. Members, including Unionist Members, owe a debt to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. Perhaps we should bear that in mind in the debate.
Every time we look at the Act, we need to remind ourselves that it is a double-edged weapon. The vast majority of people who are picked up under the Act are never charged, let alone convicted—in many years, it is 90 per cent.—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has said, the reason is that the Act is designed to collect information.
That is why it has played into the hands of the terrorists, and why I said to the Home Secretary, through an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), that there has always been an alternative. It was to use the security forces, and that argument is infinitely stronger now that the security forces are not as stretched as they used to be. That applies to MI5 because of the collapse in the cold war, and in Britain because of the lack of the threat of Northern Ireland terror.
The Home Secretary missed an opportunity to respond in the way that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister responded, by making it clear not just that he wished to get rid of the legislation—I can understand that—but that it was his intention. If only he could say, as he avoided saying on the radio this morning, "I want to get rid of this Act, and I will get rid of it if the peace process continues."
The fact that he did not do that has led many people to worry—I put it no higher than that—that he wants to keep it on the statute book as a general Act to use against terrorism from whatever source. I hope that he is not saying that, and that at some stage he will take the opportunity, although not in the middle of my speech as I have only about two minutes left, to make it clear that he intends, whether in one year or five, to get rid of the Act if the peace process continues. That is what we need to hear.
The objections to the legislation by some Opposition Members are sometimes treated as related to a civil liberties issue. Some hon. Members make that mistake. It is not a civil liberties issue. The legislation has always been a fundamental threat to our constitutional assumption of separation of power between the judiciary and the Government.
Currently, a politician can decide whether a person should live in one part of the United Kingdom or in another. Under quite a bit of pressure, not least from me
388
when I gave evidence in writing, that led Lord Colville to say that this was internal exile. It is the first time that it has existed in this country since Henry VIII. A politician should not have that power, not just because of civil rights but because of our constitution.
Similarly, a politician—the Home Secretary—should not have the power to decide that the police can detain a person and question him. A politician decides both those issues, and that is a fundamental assault not just on civil liberties but on our constitution. The danger is that that will become permanent. Again, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh referred to that.
The Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Act 1939 was introduced to deal with a number of acts of terror that died out in 1940. The Act was kept on the statute book until 1954. We are in danger of keeping the Prevention of Terrorism Act on the statute book for a similar length of time. We need to sow confidence in the peace process. The Government have made enormous moves on this matter, and I pay my compliments to them. Why not have trust and confidence in the people of Britain and of Northern Ireland, and say that we can stop using these powers?
The Government have an opportunity today to secure automatic agreement if they stop using exclusion orders and detention powers that are used by a politician to take people in for questioning, and if they give a commitment to review or to end the use of the Act as long as the peace process continues. This is not just about party political agreement, but about many hon. Members' conviction that we in Britain have never had this opportunity before.
Despite all the bombings and killings that took place, in the previous century as a result of Northern Ireland affairs—we forget that there were many of those—the Victorians never introduced internal exile or gave power to a politician to hold people in police stations. They were right not to give that power. Every hon. Member who agrees that this policy is counter-productive, undermines the peace process and, above all, threatens all the things for which the House and this country have stood for hundreds of years will join me and my colleagues in the No Lobby tonight.
6.41 pm
Ms Marjorie Mowlam: I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement of the lifting of 16 of the 56 remaining exclusion orders. We note his willingness to continue to review the remaining exclusion orders on an individual basis.
As he is aware, the exclusion orders deny the right of a United Kingdom citizen to live where they choose. That aspect of the matter was included in the joint framework document, where both the British and Irish Governments pledged to encourage the adoption of a charter or covenant of fundamental rights within their respective jurisdictions, both in the Republic and in Northern Ireland.
A number of fundamental rights were included: the right to freedom of expression of religion, the right to seek constitutional change by peaceful and legitimate means, and the right to live wherever one chooses. We wanted the Home Secretary to acknowledge today the aim of his Government in that joint framework document, and to consider the necessity of the future use of exclusion orders. He and other hon. Members, including the hon.

389
Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), have argued that the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1994 should be renewed in its entirety on the advice of the latest operational audit produced last month by J. J. Rowe QC.
He did so advise, but he also stated that the Act
should be kept under review in the next twelve months."
It is more that a question of timing. The valuable and detailed speeches from the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) pointed out some of the problems in the report. They showed that, if the Home Secretary could have been clearer tonight about his intention, his desire for and his timing on a general review, some of the difficulties that we have had in the House would have been avoided.
The position is uncertain. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, it has always been difficult to strike a balance between understandable and necessary caution and a response to an evolving and changing peace. The Home Secretary said that he did not want to lower his guard. He should not, but he could raise his sights. Occasionally, caution is needed; occasionally, courage is needed too.
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) drew an interesting analogy with what Sir Paul Condon, Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, said yesterday. He stated that terrorism was no longer among the six priorities in his policing plan for the new financial year. The police have ended armed road blocks, and the redeployment of officers from central London has started. Of course, Sir Paul stated that he had kept his anti-terrorist operations intact, saying:
"You don't dismantle anything you might need at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning".
Like Sir Paul, we are asking the Home Secretary to propose a change of priorities. We should have a general, full and independent review of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, consider how one can suspend the power to make exclusion orders under section 27, and introduce a judicial element, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann said, to approve extended prevention orders. In that way, the Home Secretary could acknowledge the changes that are taking place, but keep the process in perspective.
It is not the case. as the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) implied, that Labour Members are opposed to anti-terrorist legislation. In the debate, we have readily acknowledged the need for it. We support proscription, to which the hon. Member for Spelthorne referred. We support the need for anti-terrorist legislation in relation to terrorist funding.
Only last week upstairs, without a Division, we let through an order that was part of the PTA to facilitate seizure of assets. That went through without opposition, and it was approved by us. The changing nature of terrorism legislation is the reason why we want to have a review now. The changes in international terrorism could have been taken into account in the months ahead.
The PTA has been a contentious piece of legislation because it gives powers to politicians, police and courts that go beyond those granted by ordinary law. In the past 20 years, unity has existed among hon. Members on both sides of the House, not only in our utter contempt for people dedicated to the indiscriminate and deliberate killing of innocent people, but in our sympathy for the trauma and pain of individuals and families who have
390
suffered as the maiming and death have continued. They include Robert Bradford, who was not mentioned earlier. Like his friends and family, he will not be forgotten.
At the same time, it is important to give our support and thoughts to the families of people serving in the Army and police, who still suffer the loss of those near to them. We should like readily to acknowledge the efforts of the men and women in the police and the Army over these extremely tense and difficult years to minimise and contain the violence.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, the PTA was introduced by a Labour Government and supported by the Labour party for a number of years. Labour Members' concerns grew because what was initially a temporary measure began to look more and more permanent.
It also became clear year on year that, in a civilised society, it is wrong in principle to detain a suspect for nine days without judicial involvement, and to oblige a man or woman through the use of exclusion orders to live in parts of the country stipulated by politicians. In a civilised society, Governments cannot ignore the rule of law; otherwise, by their very actions, they destroy what they are trying to protect and defend.
Today, hon. Members have acknowledged that last year my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition tried to achieve cross-party co-operation for an independent review. We were unsuccessful.
Lady Olga Maitland: I am not surprised.
Ms Mowlam: I am sorry that the hon. Lady does not find it surprising. Last year and this year, we have done our best to reach an agreement across the House. We supported the Government on the Downing street declaration, and on the framework document. We tried again to achieve bipartisan consensus on this issue. The hon. Lady should acknowledge that this year the position has moved on considerably. We have had more than six months of peace in Northern Ireland. Informal talks are beginning on how that process can move forward.
As we have often done in the House, we acknowledge and applaud what has been done by the Prime Minister, Northern Ireland Members, politicians in Dublin and. above all, the people of Northern Ireland, who deserve the peace process to continue, and who have worked desperately in the past six months to keep it going. We support the efforts of all the politicians and people in the peace process. We will continue to work constructively to try to achieve peace.
I say to hon. Members on the other side of the Chamber that we want a general review by a person of independent and high status, the introduction of judicial approval for detention order extensions, and suspension of the powers to make exclusion orders. Suspension is not possible under section 27. The Government should agree not to use those powers while the peace process continues.
After the vote tonight and in the months ahead, we will continue that policy, because we believe that it is important. Such legitimate demands have wide support in the House this evening. We do not want to divide the House on the order, but we shall do so. I hope that, in the months ahead, we will not have to do so again as the peace process develops.
6.49 pm
Mr. Howard: This debate takes place against a different background from that of recent years, and all hon. Members who have contributed to it have remarked on that fact.
My hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) were robust in their support for the need for these provisions. My hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke and for Spelthorne based their speeches on careful analyses and assessments of the Rowe report. In relation to the matters causing them concern, I commend to my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne and for Hayes and Harlington the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I suggest that they study his words carefully; if they do so, I am sure that they will find that their anxieties are allayed.
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) launched into a diatribe against the order and its provisions, and ended up calling for consensus. I must tell him and the Labour party that, so long as there remains a risk and a threat, there cannot be a consensus based on a suggestion that we should lower our guard, dismantle our defences against terrorism or remove powers that are necessary. That is the truth of the matter, but, of course, Opposition Members do not like to be reminded of it.
The truth is that Opposition Members will vote for the dismantling of all these provisions, and they will vote for the removal even of those powers that they regard as necessary.
Mr. Alun Michael: We have no option.
Mr. Howard: They will vote in that way not because, as the hon. Gentleman just said, they have no option, but because, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) pointed out, their leaders do not have the courage to face out their Back Benchers who will never support this legislation. If people ever want to know how a Labour Government would behave, they should study carefully the Labour party's attitude to this legislation, and they will find no better or more accurate guide.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made a characteristic speech, although it was not always clear to me whether he was supporting the order. I suggest that the order itself is the strongest indication of the Government's determination to protect the security of the people of the United Kingdom—those in Northern Ireland and those in Great Britain. That is what the powers in the order are all about, and that is why I am asking the House to renew its provisions this evening.
The hon. Gentleman raised one issue in particular that I should like to explain. It was in relation to Mr. Rowe's report on the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The hon. Gentleman suggested that my approach was different from that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Secretary. However, my right hon. and learned Friend's answer of 17 February to which the hon. Gentleman referred was about a different report by Mr. Rowe—his separate report on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991—which was substantially completed before the ceasefire. Indeed, that report did not fully take account of the new situation, but
392
the more recently completed review of the PTA emphatically does so. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that explanation on board.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), like the hon. Member for Upper Bann, asked for further consideration to be given to judicial involvement in the detention and exclusion procedures. I understand the concerns that lie behind that request. Both hon. Gentlemen said that they were sure that a way could be found to achieve that, but did not identify that way.
That is the difficulty—a real, practical difficulty—to which no solution has been found by any independent reviewers who have considered such matters in the past. It is easy to say, "A way must be found," but less easy to find and identify it. I have examined the matter myself and come to the conclusion that the difficulties in the path of finding the solution are indeed formidable. I do not believe that they could easily be overcome.
There was great strength in the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). We must always be keen in these matters to avoid confusing form with substance, and I think that there is a considerable danger of our doing so. Mr. Rowe got it right when he talked in his report about the need to avoid a situation in which a procedure was regarded as judicial simply because the person carrying it out was a judge. There is a great deal of force in that observation.
Mr. Trimble: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, especially as time is short. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) was referring to how the problems were avoided in France where there can be a judicial review with extensive detention. To pray in aid what the right hon. Gentleman said in fact points up the fact that there is a solution if only the Home Secretary looks to France.
Mr. Howard: I confess that I understood my right hon. Friend's intervention in an entirely different way. He was pointing out that we have the substance, which achieves the maximum protection of the liberties of the individual by the strict limit—a matter of days—that we place on detention of this kind, whereas other countries may have more of the form. However, if one looks at the substance and finds that someone can be detained for two years in some circumstances, one can but conclude that this country's approach is far superior on every count, including that of protecting the liberties of the individual.
Mr. Mallon: Is it not the case that, where the judgment is being made on intelligence, not evidence, a judicial review will not work, and that, where the judgment is being made on evidence, there is no call for the judicial review? The problem is that people are being held for seven days, not on evidence but on intelligence.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the entire basis for these provisions. If there is evidence, people are taken before a court and convicted, but, in the kind of emergency that we have been facing, one has to take action against people where there is no evidence that would warrant a conviction, but where there is intelligence on which one must act if one wants to save lives. That is the reason that we take action based on intelligence, and that is why it is not susceptible to a judicial process.

393
I was sorry that the hon. Gentleman took the line he did, and that he criticised Mr. Rowe and his report. There was no basis for the strictures that he passed on Mr. Rowe, and I hope that he will reconsider his attitude. I fear that the attitude that he displayed demonstrates just how far there is to go before we have a true meeting of minds on the future of Northern Ireland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his position.
The speech by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was the most muddled to which the House has been treated for a very long time. He was completely unable to explain why he was inviting his party to vote against the measure. He cannot take issue with its provisions, but is inviting his party to vote against it for a reason that has nothing to do with the measure itself, and nothing to do with the powers contained in the order.
He is inviting his party to vote against it because he says that he wants some different kind of review now, rather than at the appropriate time. It was a disgraceful speech, on a fundamental matter affecting the safety and security of the people of this country, and is explicable only on the basis that the leadership of his party is not prepared to face out those Labour Back Benchers who would never vote for legislation of this kind.
It was not without significance that the only contributions from Back-Bench Labour Members were from those who are opposed root and branch to the legislation. That is the truth that lies behind the fine words of Labour Front-Bench Members. We will not be deflected from our determination to take whatever measures are necessary to protect the lives and security of the people of this United Kingdom. That is why I commend the order to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 212.

Division No. 98]

[7.00 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Brandreth, Gyles

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Brazier, Julian

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Bright, Sir Graham

Alton, David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Amess, David

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Arbuthnot, James

Browning, Mrs Angela

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Ashby, David

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Budgen, Nicholas

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Burns, Simon

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Burt, Alistair

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Butcher, John

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Butler, Peter

Baldry, Tony

Butterfill, John

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Bates, Michael

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Batiste, Spencer

Carrington, Matthew

Beggs, Roy

Carttiss, Michael

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Cash, William

Bellingham, Henry

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Bendall, Vivian

Clappison, James

Beresford, Sir Paul

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Booth, Hartley

Coe, Sebastian

Boswell, Tim

Conway, Derek

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Bowls, John

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Couchman, James

394

Cran, James

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Hunter, Andrew

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Day, Stephen

Jack, Michael

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Devlin, Tim

Jenkin, Bernard

Dicks, Terry

Jessel, Toby

Dorrel, Rt Hon Stephen

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dover, Den

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Duncan, Alan

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Dunn, Bob

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Key, Robert

Dykes, Hugh

King, Rt Hon Tom

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Kirkhope, Timothy

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Kirkwood, Archy

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Knapman, Roger

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Evennett, David

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Faber, David

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

Fabricant, Michael

Knox, Sir David

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Fishburn, Dudley

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Forth, Eric

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Foster, Don (Bath)

Legg, Barry

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Leigh, Edward

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

French, Douglas

Lidington, David

Gale, Roger

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Gallie, Phil

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Gardiner, Sir George

Lord, Michael

Garnier, Edward

Luff, Peter

Gill, Christopher

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Gillan, Cheryl

Lynne, Ms Liz

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

McCrea, The Reverend William

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Gorst Sir John

MacKay, Andrew

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Maclean, David

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Maclennan, Robert

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Grylls, Sir Michael

Maddock, Diana

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Madel, Sir David

Hague, William

Maginnis, Ken

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Maitland, Lady Olga

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Major, Rt Hon John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Malone, Gerald

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Mans, Keith

Hannam, Sir John

Marland, Paul

Hargreaves, Andrew

Marlow, Tony

Harris, David

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Harvey, Nick

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Haselhurst, Alan

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Hawksley, Warren

Merchant, Piers

Hayes, Jerry

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Heald, Oliver

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Moate, Sir Roger

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Hendry, Charles

Monro, Sir Hector

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

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)

Hordern, 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

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Page, Richard

395

Paice, James

Stern, Michael

Paisley, The Reverend Ian

Streeter, Gary

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Sumberg, David

Patten, Rt Hon John

Sweeney, Walter

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Sykes, John

Pawsey, James

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Powell, William (Corby)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Rathbone, Tim

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Temple-Morris, Peter

Rendel, David

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Richards, Rod

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Riddick, Graham

Thurnham, Peter

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Robathan, Andrew

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Tracey, Richard

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Tredinnick, David

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Trend, Michael

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Trimble, David

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Tyler, Paul

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Walden, George

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

Sackville, Tom

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Wallace, James

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Waller, Gary

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Waterson, Nigel

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Watts, John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wells, Bowen

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Shersby, Michael

Whitney, Ray

Sims, Roger

Whittingdale, John

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Widdecombe, Ann

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wilkinson, John

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

Willetts, David

Soames, Nicholas

Wilshire, David

Spencer, Sir Derek

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wolfson, Mark

Spink, Dr Robert

Wood, Timothy

Spring, Richard

Yeo, Tim

Sproat, Iain

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Mr. David Lightbown and

Steen, Anthony

Mr. Sydney Chapman.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

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

Adams, Mrs Irene

Burden, Richard

Ainger, Nick

Byers, Stephen

Allen, Graham

Caborn, Richard

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Callaghan, Jim

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Armstrong, Hilary

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Austin-Walker, John

Campbell-Savours, D N

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Canavan, Dennis

Barnes, Harry

Cann, Jamie

Battle, John

Chisholm, Malcolm

Bayley, Hugh

Clapham, Michael

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Bermingham, Gerald

Clelland, David

Berry, Roger

Coffey, Ann

Blair, Rt Hon Tony

Cohen, Harry

Blunkett, David

Connarty, Michael

Boateng, Paul

Corbett, Robin

Boyes, Roland

Corbyn, Jeremy

Bradley, Keith

Corston, Jean

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Cousins, Jim

396

Cox, Tom

McKelvey, William

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Mackinlay, Andrew

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

McLeish, Henry

Dalyell, Tam

McMaster, Gordon

Darling, Alistair

McNamara, Kevin

Davidson, Ian

MacShane, Denis

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

McWilliam, John

Davies, Ron (Caerphily)

Madden, Max

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

Mallon, Seamus

Dewar, Donald

Mandelson, Peter

Dixon, Don

Marek, Dr John

Donohoe, Brian H

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Dowd, Jim

Martlew, Eric

Eagle, Ms Angela

Maxton, John

Eastham, Ken

Meacher, Michael

Enright, Derek

Meale, Alan

Etherington, Bill

Michael, Alun

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Milburn, Alan

Fatchett, Derek

Miller, Andrew

Fisher, Mark

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Flynn, Paul

Morgan, Rhodri

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Morley, Elliot

Foulkes, George

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Fraser, John

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Fyfe, Marie

Mowlam, Marjorie

Galbraith, Sam

Mudie, George

Galloway, George

Mullin, Chris

Gapes, Mike

Murphy, Paul

Gerrard, Neil

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Godman, Dr Noman A

O'Brien, Mike (NW'kshire)

Godsiff, Roger

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Golding, Mrs Llin

O'Hara, Edward

Gordon, Mildred

Olner, Bill

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Parry, Robert

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Pearson, Ian

Grocott, Bruce

Pendry, Tom

Gunnell, John

Pickthall, Colin

Hain, Peter

Pike, Peter L

Hall, Mike

Pope, Greg

Hanson, David

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hardy, Peter

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Henderson, Doug

Primarolo, Dawn

Heppel, John

Purchase, Ken

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hinchliffe, David

Radice, Giles

Hodge, Margaret

Randall, Stuart

Hood, Jimmy

Raynsford, Nick

Hoon, Geoffrey

Redmond, Martin

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Reid, Dr John

Hoyle, Doug

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Hutton, John

Rooney, Terry

Ingram, Adam

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Ruddock, Joan

Jamieson, David

Salmond, Alex

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

Sedgemore, Brian

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Short, Clare

Jowell, Tessa

Simpson, Alan

Keen, Alan

Skinner, Dennis

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Khabra, Piara S

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

Kilfoyle, Peter

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Lewis, Terry

Soley, Clive

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Spearing, Nigel

Litherland, Robert

Spellar, John

Livingstone, ken

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Steinberg, Gerry

Llwyd, Elfyn

Stevenson, George

McAllion, John

Stott, Roger

McAvocy, Thomas

Strang, Dr. Gavin

McCartney, Ian

Straw, Jack

Macdonald, Calum

Sutcliffe, Gerry

McFall, John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

McGracy, Eddie

Timms, Stephen

397

Tipping, Paddy

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Touhig, Don

Wilson, Brian

Turner, Dennis

Wise, Audrey

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Worthington, Tony

Walley, Joan

Wray, Jimmy

Warded, Gareth (Gower)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Wareing, Robert N

Watson, Mike

Tellers for the Noes:

Wigley, Datycld

Mr. Joe Benton and

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'nW)

Mr. Eric Clarke.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 2nd March, be approved.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland)
Madam Speaker: Before we come to motion No. 3, which is also on Northern Ireland, it may be helpful if I make it clear that the debate on the order may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Police and security are the principal excluded subjects.
Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has already been drawn to your attention that there is a serious problem about common visas. I speak as a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation. The initial recommendation that the matter should be debated on the Floor of the House was made, as is very much the case these days, only after very serious consideration. The matter is now—apparently—to be put before the Council of Ministers for decision very shortly.
I see that, by chance, the Home Secretary happens to be in the House; perhaps he would like to contribute on this point of order. We are given to understand that the matter will not to be debated on the Floor of the House until after the decision has been taken. If that is the case, it is riding roughshod over the Committee. Would you, Madam Speaker, be prepared to comment, as it is a very serious question?
Madam Speaker: I am having inquiries made. I was very concerned about the point of order which was raised this morning. I have been in the Chair for most of the day, but I assure the hon. Member and the House that I am having inquiries made. I think that the situation is rather more complicated than that put to me through points of order. That is why I want chapter and verse on the matter and not simply to listen to what is coming across the Floor of the House. I intend to make a ruling on it tomorrow.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): Would it help, Madam Speaker, if I attempted to shed some extra light on this matter? What is for decision at the Council of Ministers tomorrow is simply the format of the visa, a suggestion that there should be a common format for visas. That was described—I speak from memory and think that I have the gist of it, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) will bear with me if I do not reproduce the exact wording of the document to which he referred—in the document as a technical matter, which is, indeed, precisely what it is. It is a matter of design rather than substance. I hope that that will go some way towards allaying my hon. Friend's anxieties.
7.16 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.
The draft order has two purposes. First, it authorises expenditure of £198.2 million in the 1994-95 spring supplementary estimates. That will bring total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departmental services to £6.0221 billion for this financial year. The second purpose is to authorise the vote on account of £2.705 billion for 1995-96. That will enable the services of Northern Ireland Departments to continue until the 1995-96 main estimates are brought before the House later this year.

399
As you have already remarked, Madam Speaker, the draft order does not cover expenditure by the Northern Ireland Office on law and order and other services. Details of the sum sought are given in the estimates booklet and the statement of sums required on account, which, as usual, are available in the Vote Office. I shall now turn to the estimates.
Some of the votes seek token increases only because new pressures have been offset by savings elsewhere in the vote. To give hon. Members the maximum time to speak, I shall refer only to the main areas where supplementary provision is sought. In the Department of Agriculture's vote 1, which covers expenditure on national agriculture and fisheries support measures, a token increase of £1,000 is required. Some £2 million is for additional uptake under the farm and conservation grant scheme. That is offset by savings in other areas.
In the Department's vote 2, covering local support measures, a net increase of £25.2 million is sought. The vote includes £26.5 million for the agricultural development operational programme, as a result of a higher number of claims than was originally anticipated. There is £700,000 for the disease eradication programme, and £1.3 million represents the carry forward of capital and running costs underspends from 1993-94. Those increases are partially offset by reduced requirements in other areas of the vote.
For the Department of Economic Development, increases are sought in three votes. A net increase of some £19 million is sought in vote 1. That includes £4.7 million for the provision of land and buildings by the Industrial Development Board. That is to meet expenditure on factory buildings for recent inward investment projects, and reflects the continuing success of the board in attracting competitive companies to Northern Ireland. There is £17.7 million for selective assistance to industry, mainly for existing inward investment projects. Also in this vote, £6.5 million is required for the Shorts recapitalisation programme. Those increases are offset by increased receipts totalling £8.5 million from the sale of IDB factories and lands.
In vote 2, a token increase of £1,000 is sought. There will he about £600,000 for the Northern Ireland tourist board to enable it to increase its efforts to promote and market Northern Ireland as a tourist destination. That increase is offset by increased receipts elsewhere in the vote.
The Department of Economic Development's vote 4 makes substantive provision for the expenses incurred in the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland. Those costs have been met from the second instalment of payments from the Northern Ireland Electricity share issue.
For the Department of the Environment, a net increase of some £5.4 million is sought in vote 1. That includes about £4.3 million for maintenance of the road network and for additional capital works. Some £800,000 is for the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency. Those increases are partially offset by increased receipts, including those for car parking and ferry services. Also in the vote, more than £47 million is appropriated in respect of the sale of Northern Ireland Airports Ltd.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I have read press reports suggesting that the Government may have to repay
400
to the European Community sums paid to help fund the development of Northern Ireland Airports Ltd. in the past. Can the Minister tell us whether those fears that we may have to repay substantial sums are unfounded or whether they are justified? Is the subject being explored? Indeed, has such a request been made at all?
Sir John Wheeler: As I know, the hon. Gentleman takes an informed interest in Northern Ireland Airports Ltd. I, too, read many things in the newspapers, most of which I do not believe; but if I can give the hon. Gentleman an authoritative answer to his question during the debate, or in correspondence, I shall gladly do so.
In vote 2, covering housing, token provision of £1,000 is sought. The £4.7 million required for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive includes increased resources for maintenance and to offset a fall in rental income from lower than anticipated house sales. Gross housing expenditure in Northern Ireland this year is expected to be about £564 million—£5 million more than in 1993–94.
In vote 4, covering environmental and other services, a net increase of some £3 million is sought. That includes £1.3 million for comprehensive development schemes and various adjustments between programmes. Increased expenditure is partially offset by additional receipts of £2.5 million.
In vote 5, covering office and general accommodation, £5.4 million is for new public building works, alterations and purchases.
For the Department of Education, a net increase of £2.7 million is sought in vote I. That includes about £4.1 million for grants to education and library boards, mainly for maintenance, minor works and equipment. It also provides for accommodation for Kilkeel high school following an arson attack last year. There is £1.7 million for voluntary schools, mainly for health and safety and for equipment. Those increases are offset by savings elsewhere in the vote.
In vote 2, an additional £5.4 million is sought. About £3 million is for mandatory awards and student loans, reflecting increased demand. There is £1.2 million for universities, mainly for essential equipment, and £400,000 for arts and museums, including the adaptation of premises to improve access and facilities for disabled people. Increases are also required for departmental administration, youth services and the Armagh observatory and planetarium.
For the Department of Health and Social Services, a net increase of £12.9 million is sought in vote 1. That includes £9 million for hospital, community health and personal social services and £6.5 million for capital expenditure. It also includes £1 million to provide help for persons disabled by violence. Those increases are offset by increased receipts and a reduction of £3.4 million in loans provision to trusts.
In vote 3, additional net provision of £2.1 million is required. That includes about £7 million for administration costs caused by increased work loads and capital expenditure. Those increases are offset by reductions elsewhere and by a net increase in receipts of some £4.9 million, mainly from the Department of Social Security for administering the Belfast benefit centre and the Belfast Child Support Agency centre.
Finally, in vote 4, which covers social security, £80.5 million is sought, mainly because of a greater than anticipated demand for income support and disability

401
benefits, especially attendance and disability living allowances. That is offset by a decrease in income support and family credit.
In my opening remarks I have drawn attention to the main provisions of the order. I hope that, in replying to the debate, I shall be able to do my best to respond to the points raised by hon. Members. If I cannot reply tonight, I shall ensure that the hon. Members concerned receive a response in writing. I commend the order to the House.
7.29 pm
Mr. John Spellar: It is unfortunate that tonight's debate has been curtailed by the Government. Last year, the corresponding debate went from 4.30 pm to 11.30 pm, whereas today's debate will last for less than three hours. Do the Government think that the concerns of Northern Ireland have decreased so much in the past year? The welcome changes brought about by the peace process mean that we should be devoting more time to discussing the issues, rather than less.
Front-Bench Members must now restrict their remarks so that the elected representatives from Northern Ireland—and other Members who take a keen interest in Northern Ireland affairs—can speak. We note that, during a debate on day-to-day matters of importance to the people of Northern Ireland, there is a remarkable lack of Conservative Back Benchers compared with Opposition Members.
The Government's behaviour in restricting the debate is frankly shabby, and would seem to be motivated more by petty considerations of who was in what Lobby last week than by the serious interests of the Province. In the brief time available, I shall address the order and its implications for the people of Northern Ireland.
Sir John Wheeler: I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman's remark to stand on the record. There is no question of this debate being curtailed because of the voting habits of any hon. Member. Such a proposition would be outrageous, and I strongly deny it.
Mr. Spellar: Perhaps in his closing remarks the Minister will he able to tell the House why the Government have curtailed the debate. He will have had adequate time to get an answer to that question.
We must look at what the order means to the people of Northern Ireland, and what the so-called peace dividend will mean. Planted headlines in the Tory-supporting press may claim that
"Ulster people share £160 million peace bonus",
but there is not much to suggest that in the figures.
If Northern Ireland's building employers are to be believed, they are facing a peace deficit. The employers' state of trade survey at the end of 1994 makes for grim reading. There has been a 15 per cent. reduction in construction activity through 1994, and inquiry levels for new work remain below the level required to maintain any significant recovery. The employers estimate that proposed expenditure on new capital projects in the next financial year, 1995-96, will be £427 million.
That represents a fall in cash terms of some £28 million, and a fall in real terms of 8 per cent. It would seem that, far from balancing out the reduction in construction activity arising from the decline in violence, the Government are accentuating it.
402
We welcome the Minister's recent action—following lobbying not only from builders but from representatives of Northern Ireland's political parties—to try to ensure a more regular flow of work to the construction industry, but that in itself cannot resolve the problem of the reduction in the overall volume of work coming from central Government.
Although it is likely that more private investment will follow the cessation of violence—it appears from the Minister's statement that there are welcome developments there—it now appears that, in the short term, there will be a decline. We recognise that the building industry lives in the short term. Once again, the Government—in their adherence to dogma—seem to be reinforcing the economic cycle, rather than evening it out. Ironically, the Government's actions in the construction industry run counter to their objective of reducing the levels of disadvantage between the communities, as construction has one of the highest levels of employment in the Catholic work force.
The Government have demonstrated once again their inability and unwillingness to plan, and that they have a mental block that prevents them from properly integrating their efforts with funds from outside, such as from the EU structural fund, the EU initiative for peace fund and the International Fund for Ireland. It is clear that people in Northern Ireland are concerned about the lack of any clear strategic plan from the Government to co-ordinate the way in which additional funding could be used. Earlier in the year, local councillors had cause to complain about cuts in the rate support grant which weakened their ability to provide matching funds for European programmes. That shows a lack of understanding of the realities of the financial opportunities which are available.
As the UK experienced in 1945, the major adjustments required by a shift to peace need a planned approach if major dislocation is to be avoided and investment is to be effective. Heaven knows, that investment is needed. Unemployment in Northern Ireland, as has been said many times from this Dispatch Box and elsewhere, is still—despite the recent welcome decline—12.1 per cent. of the work force, compared with 8.4 per cent. in Britain.
Of the 90,000 unemployed, well over half have been unemployed for more than one year. That compares only with the real unemployment black spots of Britain. In some areas, the figures are dramatically worse. In Derry—where I was on Monday—there is 23 per cent. male unemployment, and there are similar figures in Newry and Strabane. We will press the Government strongly to remove the restrictions on targeting investment on the long-term unemployed.
There is no doubt about the need for investment. If we take the vital area of communications, the amount of freight traffic on Northern Ireland's roads is growing by 7 per cent. a year. On the Belfast to Dublin route, it is growing by 20 per cent. a year. The Comptroller and Auditor-General has identified a road maintenance backlog of some £60 million, and the Government's own report on the condition of roads stated that much of Northern Ireland's road network was constructed in the 1960s and is close to the end of its desired life. The Minister rightly stressed the attractions that are needed for inward investment, and an adequate communications infrastructure is vital.

403
On housing, the Government are at last responding, but that is against a background of a slump in the completion of low-cost houses from 4,572 in 1983 to 1,473 in 1993, and in the face of a rising housing list which now stands at 22,740. Quite frankly, the Government would be better served by letting the Housing Executive get on with the job rather than trying to hive off work into agencies and by compulsory competitive tendering.
On energy, the Government should stop being blinded by their rhetoric, and should recognise that many companies are facing steep increases in their electricity bills. The Government should abandon their attempts to set up an electricity pool, which would make matters worse. They should consider whether the Scottish interconnector will create or cost jobs in Northern Ireland. The Government should have a major rethink about an energy policy, and should recognise that they need a policy in the first place. They cannot leave it all to a mythical and non-existent market.
On water, rather than wasting money on expensive consultants' reports which tell them how to hive off each and every water authority activity, the Government should look for investment to reduce the 28 per cent. loss of water caused by leakage from reservoirs through to the consumers. They should take note of the widespread opposition across parties and communities—including the trade unions representing the work force—to the threats to privatise the water industry after the next general election, and also to the potential introduction of water metering as part of a review of the charging procedures.
The Minister may say that all I have discussed up to now involves the public sector and that the Government rightly wish to take the opportunity presented by the peace process to obtain a shift in the balance with the private sector, while recognising that the public sector plays a far larger part in the economy of Northern Ireland than in the United Kingdom as a whole. We endorse that objective, although we point out that the Government do not seem to have an effective short-term strategy for evening out the temporary dislocations of that shift.
What of that main objective to achieve the economic regeneration of Northern Ireland through the private sector? It is very clear that there is a window of opportunity, on which we must capitalise. In the words of the latest respected Coopers and Lybrand report, "Review and Prospects", which is produced each year:
"Every effort should he made to maximise the opportunities that may arise from the international goodwill displayed towards the Province."
It describes a
"window of opportunity over the next 12 months to build a foundation for future inward investment."
We all welcomed the investment conference in Belfast in December and we look forward to the conference in Washington in May and hope that it will help to attract inward investment. What the Minister had to say about advance factories was also welcome. The Government must recognise, however, that in the cut-throat and competitive world of inward investment a very strong and positive Government contribution is vital. They should be not merely considering new inward investment, important though that is, but studying the impact of Government
404
measures and assistance on existing industry, which will provide most of any work force increase that helps to cut the horrific unemployment figures.
The Government should be asking the Ministry of Defence whether its ordering programme is helping or hindering the progress of Shorts as a world-class competitor. They should also be talking to the Department of Trade and Industry and asking it what backing it and other Departments will give, given the exciting developments in oil exploration away from the continental shelf into the Atlantic, to ensure that Harland and Wolff gets the contracts for the floating production vessels. What pressure will the Government bring to bear to ensure that the new generation of work comes to Belfast? It will be work not merely for that field but for a whole new generation of oil production developments around the world.
What are the Government doing for the mass of small firms in Northern Ireland to ensure adequate sources of finance to fund expansion? Again, one can see from the Coopers and Lybrand report that constraints on internal finance are one of the main reasons why firms in Northern Ireland have constraints on future investment.
What of the new industries, such as international communications-related industries, which are starting to spring up and to provide employment? The fundamental question is whether the Government will persuade the banks to invest some of the money in Northern Ireland industry that they are throwing away in the casinos of the derivatives market.
There is no doubt that the views of ordinary people in Northern Ireland hover between optimism and apprehension and that they welcome the return to normality and pray for it to become the norm. They recognise the unfinished agenda of jobs, homes, roads, water and energy. They—and we—need positive answers from the Minister tonight, to convince us that the order will begin to deal with those needs. If not, frankly, the Government should give way to a party that will.
7.42 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs: Department of the Environment vote 1 deals with transport and harbour services. I was pleased to have the opportunity this morning to welcome the Secretary of State for Transport to Larne harbour in my constituency, as he was able to see for himself recent developments which have been completed at a cost of £7 million, assisted by a 50 per cent. European regional development fund grant, under the Department of the Environment's Northern Ireland transport programme.
Larne harbour is well established as the second busiest ferry port in the United Kingdom. Last year, 1,870,751 passengers—nearly 2 million—445,885 cars and caravans and 376,680 commercial vehicles used the modernised port facilities. Those figures represent significant increases in all sectors and reflect the efficiency and reliability of the services which have made Larne Ireland's busiest ro-ro and ferry port, catering for 36 ferry arrivals and departures daily to Ardrossan, Cairnryan, Stranraer and Fleetwood.
Despite all that expenditure and further planned expenditure, however, strong rumours are circulating that the long association of Stena Sealink with the harbour may be severed in the near future and that the company

405
may relocate its conventional ferry service to Belfast. A few weeks ago I was advised by Stena Sealink that a decision regarding the company's future use of Larne will be made at the end of this month. It has already been announced that Stena Sealink plans to launch a new high speed super-ferry service between Belfast and Stranraer in the spring of 1996.
The developments at the ports of Warrenpoint, Londonderry, Belfast and Lame have all helped to mitigate the peripherality and disadvantages of Northern Ireland, and the substantial investment and European Union grants to the ports have helped Northern Ireland firms quickly to access European markets and have helped to increase tourism to Northern Ireland. The objectives of the grants for port and harbour modernisation have been realised and we now have reliable, economic and efficient services for shipowners, importers and exporters.
I am concerned that one of the key elements of the Department of the Environment's transport development strategy, in giving Larne harbour a complementary role to Belfast as Northern Ireland's principal ro-ro and passenger port, may be thwarted if the rumoured move of Stena Sealink becomes a reality. That concern is widely shared by employees and their families, whose livelihoods depend on employment provided at Larne harbour. Businesses have relocated to Belfast in the past, but after a time the same businesses returned to Larne. If the rumoured relocation of Stena Sealink to Belfast becomes a reality, it will have damaging consequences for the future prosperity of Larne and East Antrim, where hoteliers are currently planning to increase accommodation to cope with an expected upsurge in tourism if the present peace becomes permanent.
I call on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and on Ministers responsible for environment and economic development to initiate inquiries urgently to determine whether the higher average level of European assistance—up to 75 per cent. in the case of trust ports and Belfast port, compared with the 50 per cent. European Union assistance at Larne—has led to, or is leading to, distortions in competition.
Secondly, could business be attracted to ports prior to privatisation through very low tariff charges, perhaps made possible by cross-subsidy, with benefit expected to come on stream after privatisation, to the benefit of the new owners? Will Ministers investigate such charges and whether any inducement is being offered by any Northern Ireland port?
I also call on the Secretary of State and Northern Ireland Ministers to monitor the impact on Northern Ireland ports of the vast sums of money being pumped into the Irish Republic—estimated to be running at the rate of £1 million per day for the next six years—especially when Interreg assistance for maritime links between Wales and the Irish Republic, combined with the profits from duty free sales on ferries, could cause further distortion and competition. Will Belfast harbour privatisation result in the clawback of some European Union grants?
Part II of the Department of the Environment vote 1 deals with roads. On previous occasions, I have mentioned the necessity of upgrading the Larne to Belfast road and I urge the Minister to endeavour to advance the start date for extending the dual carriageway from Gingles corner, Larne, and to follow the example set by the Secretary of State for Transport here and to plan thereafter
406
a succession of phased road developments until we have a dual carriageway all the way between Larne and Belfast. A start is required earlier than the 1997 date that has been promised.
I again appeal for priority to be given to the Carrickfergus to Belfast road project and for genuine sympathy, consideration and compromise to be shown by officials when negotiating with the frontagers whose homes will be severely affected by the necessary road works. The recent and current severe weather conditions in Northern Ireland have highlighted the total inadequacy of the Department of the Environment's road gritting programme in frosty conditions. I therefore ask for a reappraisal of the funding allocated and the inclusion of all school bus routes in regular salt and gritting schedules. Additional funding should be provided for the Department's road maintenance programme and future expenditure plans.
Does the Minister accept that Northern Ireland still has the lowest quality of early-years educational provision in the United Kingdom? Does he agree that children who have access to early-years nursery education or pre-school care and education are likely to achieve higher educational performance, less likely to be become involved in criminal activity in later life, less likely to have contact with welfare agencies, less likely to experience marital breakdown in adult life, and less likely as teenagers to get pregnant and become single parents?
Will the Minister confirm that the promised classroom assistants for Northern Ireland primary schools will be in post by September 1995? Will he confirm that the time allocation to each school will be based on the number of primary-one children of compulsory school age only enrolled at the school? Have the Departments of Finance and Personnel, of Health and Social Services and of Education reached interdepartmental agreement on the future funding of the Northern Ireland Preschool Playgroups Association yet? Can we be assured of equality of funding across Northern Ireland? Is it not disgraceful that in 1994 parents contributed £1 to £2.50 per day while health boards contributed only from 35p a day per child in the generous Eastern board area to as little as 10.4p per day in the Northern board area? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Shame, indeed.
How can funding for pre-school play groups in Northern Ireland continue to be kept lower than that received by most groups in England, Scotland and Wales? I hope that the Minister recognises the value of those groups and, in the absence of adequate nursery school provision, will better fund the Northern Ireland Preschool Playgroups Association while seeking to increase nursery school places in Northern Ireland.
I have strong reservations about the system of allocating extra funds to a school's budget for the purpose of targeting social deprivation and educational disadvantage. On what evidence was the decision made to allocate funds to schools based on the number of pupils receiving free meals in those schools? That funding is directing vast sums of money to maintained schools and significantly lesser sums to controlled schools, and is clearly perceived to be discriminating against the controlled sector. I wholeheartedly support the concept of targeting need fairly and equitably, but a more selective method of assessing entitlement to extra funds for social deprivation and educational disadvantage must be quickly found.

407
Construction costs in Northern Ireland have increased significantly of late, with the result that tender prices being returned to education and library boards for capital projects are higher than the present permitted spend level. Will the Minister carry out an early review and raise the ceiling at which education boards can accept tender prices and award contracts? At the same time, could any future moratorium on public spending in the Department of Education be lifted sufficiently early in the financial year to enable permitted expenditure to be incurred?
I pay tribute to the Minister responsible for education for his assistance in enabling Newtownabbey community college to become established smoothly and for providing the necessary funding to meet the needs of pupils and staff of the former Hopefield and Rathcoole high schools when they came together in the newly opened Newtownabbey community college. Will the Minister assure us that, where rationalisation or amalgamation of schools has been agreed by education boards, parents and teachers, he will in future seek to provide the necessary funding for permanent accommodation to be in place at the time of the amalgamation, merger or rationalisation? Such an assurance helps teachers, parents and boards to reach agreement more easily when decisions involving school closures have to be made.
I was amazed recently when, despite the sound advice of principal teachers in Larne and the Carrickfergus area, the needs of a small number of parents resulted in discrimination against the vast majority of the population. The Minister proceeded to announce that there would be another new integrated post-primary schools in east Antrim. The existing schools require substantial capital investment. All existing secondary schools have a measure of voluntary integration at pupil and staff level, which has been developing steadily, slowly and effectively.
The decision to create a new integrated school in an area where a voluntary grammar school, two Roman Catholic maintained schools and a controlled secondary school have closed in the past 10 years, and where more than 600 secondary school places are already vacant, is irresponsible. The decision will threaten the stability of the remaining post-primary schools, whether they be grammar schools, controlled secondary schools or Roman Catholic maintained secondary schools.
The reality, which should not go unnoticed, is that the percentage of Roman Catholic children in the Carrickfergus area is 6.5 per cent. and in the Larne area the total maintained primary school population is 16 per cent. of the school population. So there simply are not enough children to produce an integrated secondary school.
Is the Minister determined to lower enrolment for a viable integrated school, and does the Department of Education expect area boards or the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools to maintain the same standard? From where will the children be bussed to that new school? Is the Minister prepared to sacrifice the voluntary integration that has already occurred? Will he assure me that the established needs of existing post-primary schools in east Antrim will receive the capital funding they need before money is released for a new integrated post-primary school?
408
It may be of interest to the House to know, and the Minister should seriously note, how matters are developing. Just the other day, the Braidside integrated primary school in the Ballymena area advertised for a teacher to teach Roman Catholic religious education in an integrated school. I understood that there had been agreement in all the main Churches that there was to be a common religious education curriculum. I do not think that that will be well looked on in Roman Catholic maintained schools, where children would already be having their religious education.
When does the Minister intend to audit the cost to the education service of Northern Ireland of providing free transport beyond the nearest appropriate school? I believe that the Minister will be shocked at the escalating transport costs when he carries out such an audit.
I note that in part II the sum of £416,000 is authorised for expenditure by the Office of Electricity Regulation. In answer to a recent question, I was informed that the transitional relief scheme was introduced to give industry time to adjust to the application of cost-reflective pricing following privatisation, and that it will have served its purpose by the time it ends on 31 March 1996. There is only a year to go, and there is no hope of achieving that.
I must tell the Minister that consumers, whether they be domestic or industrial, are very worried about electricity prices in Northern Ireland and would like greater intervention by the regulator, so if there is not to be an extension of transitional relief to take account of the high costs of electricity in Northern Ireland, perhaps the regulator can find a way.
I urge the Minister to consider carefully and sympathetically the application being made by Nigen for a non-fossil fuel obligation tranche in respect of its energy-from-waste project for Belfast West. The project, when operational at the Belfast West plant, would provide better environmental solutions to the Northern Ireland problem of how best to deal with waste disposal. Approval would also obviate any need for a super-dump at Magheramorne in my constituency and could make possible a major environmental and recreational project for which millennium funding will be sought.
The Prime Minister's investment forum held in Belfast was a credit to all involved in the organisation and to all who participated. We have just lost a further 100 jobs in Larne in my constituency, and my constituents and I are keen to know whether there has been any positive sign that there has been, or is likely to be, additional inward investment as a result of that conference. We in Larne and in East Antrim would like to share in that, as no doubt would other areas of the Province.
Finally, I am sure that other Members present in the Chamber would welcome an explanation of schedule part I, Department of Economic Development, paragraph 4. A sum of £1,000 has been granted, but in the appropriations-in-aid column there is a figure representing an increase of £186,131,000. I should be pleased, as I am sure would others, to know what that has to do with the privatisation of the electricity industry in Northern Ireland.
8.3 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I was disappointed by the Minister's introduction of the estimates. I thought that he might have discussed the new

409
economic position in which we might be involved with the advent of peace in Northern Ireland. He might have discussed not only the advent of peace being the absence of violence and therefore giving confidence for economic and commercial development, but the announcement of the various additional fundings that may, and hopefully will, be available for economic development in Northern Ireland; 300 million ecu for 1996, 1997 and 1998, the International Fund for Ireland, structural funds from the EEC in addition to those that already exist and the inward transfer of money from the security budget to other departmental budgets.
I should have thought that the debate was an opportunity to make a statement about the future economic development of Northern Ireland in that new context of peace and of substantial additional funding. It appears to me that Departments of Government, the Industrial Development Board and, to a lesser extent, the Local Enterprise Development Unit and the tourist board, which are the primary job creators in Northern Ireland in the public sector, have no new plans whatsoever regarding that new dimension—that new dispensation. I find that not only surprising but very alarming, because there are about to be made available to us those very substantial fundings, which can be dissipated in short-term, poor projects or wisely invested and garnered to create long-term economic regeneration and more permanent job creation.
Tourism has already taken a distinct upward turn in the past six months. I continue to find it startling that the tourist board does not appear to have restructured its policy and agenda to take advantage of that. We need a regeneration of our tourist infrastructure and a renewal of facilities. Had the Minister done that, it would have been a useful contribution to the debate tonight, but my response to it would have been somewhat different. I would have asked, "Who will share in the economic regeneration?"
The history of the past 25, if not the past 70, years of administration shows that the area that I and others represent—south-east Ulster, roughly the local government districts of Banbridge, Down and Newry and Mourne—has suffered blatant economic discrimination. I wish to know whether the Government, at this very late stage, will take account of that.
When I make that statement, it is often said that I exaggerate the position. I do not begrudge the inward investment in Belfast, the Antrims and Derry, and I wish those people well in their new prosperity, but something more direct and positive must be done for an area that has endemic social and economic deprivation and endemic high unemployment, such as the parts of south-east Ulster that I have named.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on that subject, because there is greater endemic unemployment in Belfast than in south-east Ulster. Does he accept that, in the latest figures for chairmen and directors, the director of Norbrooke Laboratories leads the list, with a salary of about £750,000 a year? Is that a reflection of poverty in the area?
Mr. McGrady: I do not know whether I welcome the hon. Gentleman's question, because it has confused me. The salary of the chairman of Norbrooke Laboratories is the pay and salary, exorbitant and disgraceful as it is. of one person, not of his employees in the town of Newry.
410
The area that I am referring to is rural, and when there is not sufficient concentration to allow one to see the consequences of unemployment and social deprivation, one tends to think that they do not exist. However, the problems are simply scattered. The numbers are there, the people are there and the suffering is there.
I shall give an example of what has happened in my constituency. I welcome the recent announcements about inward investment, and I hope that those who will benefit from that investment will have long, successful and happy lives. In 1989-90, less than 1.5 per cent. of the total number of potential investors who visited Northern Ireland, visited south-east Ulster. In 1991, the figure was less than 1.5 per cent. and in 1991-92 it was less than 1 per cent. Under the aegis of the IDB or the Local Enterprise Development Unit, the entire area received less than 1 per cent. of visits from inward investors. The last figure that I have is for 1992–93, when there was an "enormous improvement" of 3 per cent. of visits by inward investors for the whole of south-east Ulster. To me, that represents deprivation.
The Industrial Development Board and the Department of Economic Development tell me constantly that they are striving to correct that situation. In his opening remarks tonight, the Minister referred to the sale of industrial development sites. However, no such sites have been provided in the district town of Downpatrick, in spite of much dithering in the past four or five years. According to an advertisement that I saw a few weeks ago, industrial sites are being sold in Newcastle, Ballynahinch, Kilkeel, Warrenpoint and Downpatrick. How can we have economic development if we are losing all the areas that have been designated for that development?
According to the latest information that I have received, the Department of Economic Development and the planning division are playing ping pong with the issue. They cannot sit around the table and work out which industrial sites should be allocated for inward investment.
The Department of Economic Development and the IDB say that they cannot bring investors to the area that I represent because we are too far away from the ports. It is 10 miles from the northern part of my constituency to the centre of Belfast, the biggest port—apart from Larne—in Ireland. There is also a port at Warrenpoint in the south. So that excuse is null and void.
Another excuse that I am given is a valid one. I am told that the road structure is such that it would not encourage inward investors to consider investing in my area. The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), who has just made his speech, spoke about completing work on dual carriageways and building new roads in his constituency. He should be thankful that there are dual carriageways in his constituency. We hardly have one single carriageway that is capable of carrying an articulated truck. How can we attract inward investment to areas of deprivation unless we have a programme of infrastructure development to go with it?
I refer specifically to the A7 from Belfast to the district town of Downpatrick and the B8 from there to the port of Warrenpoint. Not one pound of capital moneys has been spent on new road infrastructure in the entire area to which I have referred in the past 14 years. The same was true for many years before that. That is another sign of the lack of commitment on the part of Governments and agencies to the area that I represent.

411
The fishing industry is concentrated in my area, and we all know what is happening to that. Various European Community regulations, the Hague preference, the total allowable catch and the days at sea provision are depressing the fishing industry and are affecting not only the fishermen but the food producers who are dependent on the fish harvest.
Kilkeel in my constituency is the biggest fishing town in Northern Ireland, but the fishermen cannot get in and out of the harbour because the Northern Ireland Harbour Authority will not provide a groyne to keep the boats safe. I welcome the expenditure of £6 million on another part of Northern Ireland for pleasure purposes, but I think that £3 million could be provided to establish a groyne for the economic fishing base in the harbour and the port of Kilkeel.
That development has not taken place because the Government will not finance the Northern Ireland Harbour Authority to carry out that work. The authority proposes to levy the fishermen to pay for the project, but their income is running down rapidly and they cannot afford to pay. I witnessed a good fishing boat being burnt on a beach in County Down because the owners could no longer afford to run it. That is the extent of the deprivation in that community.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sure that he will recall that when the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs visited Kilkeel—the hon. Gentleman organised that visit, as the local Member—Committee members were appalled to learn that, because of the difficulties at the harbour, the fishermen were losing more than £200,000 in revenue each year.
Mr. McGrady: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree with what he says, but in fact the losses are much greater than that if the fishermen are prevented from going to sea for weeks on end.
I see that you are watching the clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as my time is running out, so I shall conclude my remarks. We can see the same pattern of non-funding in other areas. It was announced last week that some £63 million will be spent on school rehabilitation programmes, but not a penny will go to my entire area£except the money which the Minister announced tonight for the rehabilitation of a Kilkeel school which suffered an arson attack.
Because of the time constraints, I cannot comment in detail about hospitals and the provision of social services. New hospitals have been built in Antrim, Moyle, Derry, Belfast and Coleraine, yet the hospitals which serve my area have been in a queue for funding for 30 years. They have not yet received a penny, in spite of many promises. That pattern of non-funding cannot be denied. I would supply other evidence of lack of funding, but time does not permit me to do so.
The people of my area have strived to live together and we have worked hard. We have cast out from our community the men of violence and those who espouse the cause of violence for political purposes. We have accepted, by and large—there are always hiccups in every community—the diversity of political opinion and religious belief, and we have lived together. If we had
412
blown one another apart, money would be flowing into the area, but because we have lived together like ordinary, decent people, supported one another and kept out the men of violence, we are ignored and neglected.
I will make one final request of the Minister and abandon the rest of what I had hoped to say. Will he take a message back to the Departments of the Northern Ireland Office–because he has overall charge of finance and personnel–and ask them to set up a task force for economic regeneration similar to the ones that are set up when jobs are lost in other areas? Our area never had the jobs in the first place. We would love to be facing the loss of 100 jobs; we do not have 100 jobs to lose. We want a fair share of the cake and of the development and the funding that will accompany the new era of peace and economic development. If the Minister can provide that, we shall be able to fulfil our commitment to provide jobs, reasonable wages and an adequate standard of living for the people of Down and south-east Ulster.
8.18 pm
Rev. William McCrea: I can understand much of the frustration expressed by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) about the lack of industrial investment and of Government finance in his area. If the hon. Gentleman believes that he has problems, he had better listen to me because there are plenty in the constituency which I have had the honour of representing in this place for the past 12 years.
I shall develop some of the important themes on which hon. Members have already touched. The vote on the Department of Economic Development certainly involves matters that must be considered and attended to.
The first vote concerns the Department of Agriculture. I come from and represent not only a farming home but a farming constituency. The farming community has been the backbone of Ulster's economy and prosperity over the years. It has been through rather difficult times and still faces grave difficulties—for example, grave concern has been expressed to me recently on behalf of pig farmers, especially those with farms of smaller unit size, about the viability of their units in future.
The matter has been raised in Europe. The European Commissioner has money to assist pig farmers, but I am told that he has stated that they must depend on market forces. I have heard that before. Having said that farmers must depend on market forces and take their place at the whim of the market, in the next breath the Commissioner tells us that those same farmers are not permitted to buy cereals on the world market, but must buy dearer cereals from Europe. Farmers in the Province find those cereal prices exorbitant and colossal, and they add to the burden placed on the agricultural sector of our community.
The same vote applies to the fishing industry. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members have received numerous representations on behalf of the fishing industry which is under threat, particularly from the recent decision taken in the House and another place concerning the Spanish fleet.
As that decision was taken in Europe, will the Minister assure the House tonight that the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for the Department of Agriculture will seek to gain extra money from Europe to permit appropriate decommissioning of fishing vessels without taking money out of the fishing budget? I am led to

413
believe that there is a limited budget and that the money that should go into the fishing industry will be used for schemes such as that mentioned by the hon. Member for South Down–the harbour in Kilkeel. That is essential money which should be provided.
The fishermen face one of the greatest challenges they have ever faced. They have to cope with depleting stocks and financial problems as they try to keep their families. It is disgraceful and despicable that inadequate provision is made for the Kilkeel fishermen and the harbours. I join the hon. Member for South Down in asking the Minister to provide that money.
It is appropriate to say that the present Minister with responsibility for agriculture is one of the first Ministers to have gone to Europe to fight for the position of farmers in Northern Ireland; it must be placed on record that that is appreciated. It would be remiss of me to say that there is a need for assistance but no representations are being made; the noble Lady certainly fights our corner. I hope she knows that right hon. and hon. Members will back her if she continues to fight for appropriate finances to meet the needs of the fishing industry, bearing in mind the serious challenges that it faces.
Under the same agricultural budget, I should mention the changes that have been recommended at Loughery agricultural college, in my constituency. I attended a deputation to the Minister but, unfortunately, it seems that the decision has been taken. I genuinely feel that that decision is detrimental to the interest of the Cookstown area, which has the second highest unemployment rate in the United Kingdom. The decision is regarded as a blow not only to teaching staff but to ancillary staff and local services. Many small businesses relied on Loughery agricultural college and its vibrant college campus as a means of income.
Moving on to the Department of Economic Development, I have listened to much of the talk about the peace dividend. There seems to be plenty of verbiage and witty talk and it all sounds good. It is wonderful to hear so many wonderful promises. If I believed in all the amounts of money that are supposed to be rolling into Ulster, I would not know what road to keep off, as so many tonnes of pounds and punts would be arriving—perhaps we will not get punts; they are getting them in rather than giving them out, but there would be dollars and all the rest coming in because of the so-called peace dividend.
Who will enjoy this so-called new prosperity? I have already said that I understand the fears and frustrations of the hon. Member for South Down, but, in some ways, he has to thank his own party leader, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), for the current position. When the hon. Gentleman goes to America, although he leads a particular party, he is very good at mentioning a certain part of Foyle, but he is not so helpful or good at assisting his colleagues when it comes to investment. We have listened to plenty of media coverage about how many jobs are coming from America to the Province, especially through the efforts of the hon. Member for Foyle. Perhaps the hon. Member for South Down should tap his hon. Friend on the shoulder and tell him not be so selfish.
Mr. McGrady: I should like to endorse the hon. Gentleman's magnificent tribute to the leader of my party for his great endeavours in raising funds in America and spearheading the Trojan fund in Europe. He should take
414
on board the point that these funds are paid through Government Departments and the International Fund for Ireland and are not at the personal disposal of any individual Member of Parliament.
Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Perhaps he should wait for the rest of the comments before he starts thanking and congratulating his hon. Friend. After all these trips to America, we are still told by the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), representing Her Majesty's Opposition, about the vast and terrible unemployment of what he called the Derry area; it is actually Londonderry. Perhaps the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman needs some extra education about the part of the country he is in.
The hon. Member for Foyle has been promising plenty, but it is all promises. In actual fact, there has been little substance. Earlier in the debate, we discussed the difference between substance and the rest, but here we are told that the hon. Member for Foyle has brought in a certain number of jobs. Strabane is in the same constituency. The Bogside area of Londonderry would have a chance of getting some benefit, but Strabane has little of the prosperity from America or anywhere else, never mind places as far down the country as South Down, where there are problems that the hon. Member for South Down needs to talk over with his hon. Friend the Member for Foyle.
In the debate in July 1994 on economic development, I raised a matter concerning Omagh. I received a letter from the Minister after the debate pointing out that IBB had recently acquired a 26-acre site at Doogary. When will a factory be completed on the site, and when is it hoped that its occupant will commence operations, thus giving gainful employment to local people?
What steps is the Department of Economic Development taking to enhance employment in the Cookstown area? I attended a meeting with the divisional planning officer and one of my constituents just over a week ago, requesting the development of land near Killymoon. Surely the Government must show an active interest in getting industrial development into the area. How many major firms have shown an interest in moving into that region of high unemployment?
Education standards in the Cookstown area are among the highest in the Province. Young people are able, ready and willing to rise to the challenge, but the town desperately needs hope because of its high unemployment. The Castlederg area, for instance, continues to worry me. Previous Ministers spoke in glowing terms about new possibilities for the area; a special report was commissioned, and civil servants were deputed to examine the area's needs. My constituents, however, want not promises but action.
What has happened since we last discussed these matters? What industrial developments have taken place in Omagh, Cookstown and Castlederg? The Government must bear some responsibility for the sense of hopelessness felt by a number of people. Instead of adding to employment, the Government have caused the closure of Omagh's maternity unit, thus removing jobs from the area. They have not given the signal that they are backing industrial investment and development in the area and ensuring that essential services are in place. The maternity

415
unit was excellent, but the Government have closed it. They have also run down in-patient mental health institutional treatment by cutting staff numbers.
Since our last debate, the Department has decided to remove Cookstown's rates office. Rather than assisting employment in the area, it has moved civil servants away from an unemployment black spot. Councillor William Larmour and I had a meeting with the senior officer, Mr. Gallagher, who expressed grave concern; but this appears to be Government policy.
We made a suggestion at that time, because we had heard that housing benefit administration was being centralised. There is excellent office accommodation in Cookstown, which will now be left empty; that could have been used. Geographically, Cookstown is the centre of the Province, so such action could not have been described as isolationist. After I raised the matter, however, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), wrote me a letter including the following statement:
"As for Housing Benefit, Mr. Gallagher assures me that Cookstown was, indeed, one of the locations considered for the proposed centralised office. However"—
the first part always cheers one up, but the next bit tramps one down into the ground—
"a detailed assessment of the pros and cons of siting in a provincial town, rather than Belfast, has concluded that Belfast offered more advantages, especially in terms of availability of staff with Housing Benefit experience, proximity to the main body of claimants in the greater Belfast area, communication and greater flexibility in the efficient management and use of staff."
I am told on the highest authority that there is no reason why the housing benefit office could not be centralised in the accommodation in Cookstown, which has just been upgraded. It seems, however, that it must be in Belfast. When it suits the Government, they will remove civil servants from Belfast and send them to Londonderry; if they can move them as far from Belfast as that, why can they not move them to excellent accommodation in Cookstown, in the centre of the Province?
The Government's action gives the wrong signal to incoming industrialists. If they are not interested in retaining services—and civil servants—in the area, what encouragement does that give to those who look for Government commitment? What have the Government kept in that area? Instead of showing commitment by introducing jobs, they are withdrawing them. That does not give the green light for prosperity; it gives the red light to industrialists, telling them to keep away.
That is a serious mistake by the Government. I appeal to the Minister of State to ask his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to look afresh at the centralisation of housing benefit arrangements: excellent accommodation is available for staff to walk into. The Government tell us how sad they are that the Cookstown area has the second highest unemployment rate in the Province, but they are taking jobs away and adding to its problems.
I have mentioned Castlederg. It was announced yesterday that Derg Valley hospital was to be closed. Again, rather than offering encouragement to an area with employment problems, the Government offer hopelessness. The hospital serves elderly people who provided the backbone in the creation of the health service, bringing prosperity to the Province: they paid
416
their taxes and national insurance, and were told that the state would look after them in the later days of their lives. Now state provision in Castlederg has been withdrawn from elderly people, and is being handed over to the voluntary or the private sector.
I have no objection to the voluntary sector, which should be encouraged to become vibrant; nor do I object to the private sector. I do not believe, however, that the Government have the right to withdraw from their responsibility to look after the old and the sick. Again, the Government commissioned special reports on Castlederg's needs; I wonder what they cost. In the end, rather than sending a message that they were backing the hospital and those who were willing to put their money where their mouth was, the Government withdrew the services that it provided.
Economic development and the Bann are connected issues. As has been said, we need an infrastructure programme. We need roads. I understand the feelings of the hon. Member for South Down, who sees motorways, dual carriageways and a mass of lit-up roundabouts in other parts of the Province. All that is wonderful; perhaps part of the rest of the Province can enjoy some of it, too. Perhaps we can ensure that the industries that come to Mid-Ulster can get their goods to the ports quickly.
Remember, Cookstown is a central part of the Province. There is a bottleneck in Cookstown because it needs a bypass. Magherafelt needs a bypass. Why is the money that is rolling in not used to remove the bottlenecks in Magherafelt, Cookstown and Omagh, allowing the industries that come out to the west of the Bann to get their goods to the ports as quickly as possible? The Omagh area badly needs stage 3 of the through-pass, yet I am told that it is not on the priority list.
I appreciate the progress that has been made in stages 1 and 2, but without stage 3 it is ineffective. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) used his influence in another place to have the road recognised as a trans-European highway. I mentioned that in the previous debate and I shall keep mentioning it. It is lovely to get the trans-European highway. It sounds good, but it must be able to carry the vehicles. It must be capable of encouraging industries to come into the area. Without stage 3 in Omagh, the commercial and agricultural life of the Tyrone county town will be strangled.
Another by-product of not having that through-pass is that land earmarked on the 2002 plan cannot be developed. It is landlocked. Without the development of the third stage of the through-pass, it will continue to be landlocked. House prices are unacceptably high in Omagh town. I urge the Minister to treat the matter with urgency and seriousness and to place stage 3 on the Department's priority list so that work can commence at the completion of stage 2. It is vital that Cookstown gets a bypass and that it follows on to the bypass in Magherafelt. A small area of the road network needs help to assist the industrial development of our area.
I must press one other matter, which is outside my particular area, but it does follow on. There is an excellent road from Londonderry to Castledawson roundabout and on to Toome. Unfortunately, there is a bottleneck at Toomebridge. A dual carriageway is needed from Toomebridge to the M2. I genuinely believe that that

417
would be of great assistance. If all this money means anything, let it be put into something productive, which would help the industrial development of our community.
In Omagh recently, Queen's university announced that it would operate a faculty unit in the technology centre. I urge the Minister earnestly to consider allowing the Department of Education to take over the former Tyrone and Fermanagh hospital. It has 3,000 sq m of excellent buildings, which have recently been refurbished to a high standard. It is an historic building. It is situated in a mature campus ground of more than 300 acres, with student accommodation, recreation halls, outdoor sports facilities and other excellent amenities. It is sitting there for the university to take up. Surely it should be considered as a campus site at a European level. That would be a great advancement educationally and economically for the western area.
My constituents face many problems. I believe that it is vital that the House gives due consideration to them. We must ensure that there is less rigid planning in the countryside. The farming community is not able to allow its sons and daughters to build in the countryside, and we need to consider that.
Pre-school nursery education has been mentioned. There is a tremendous lack of it within the community.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) mentioned the extra funds that were allocated between the maintained and the controlled sector.
We were told that we had to put up Irish signs so that people could read in Irish as well as English. I read something very interesting in the paper today. I read that this person, Adams, the Sinn Fein president, went to the Arran Islands at the weekend. The article says:
"He opened his address to the crowded hall in Irish but then, admitting that his knowledge of the first tongue wasn't the best, switched to English."
And he has the audacity and the front, which the Government drank hook, line and sinker, to say that we should spend public money, at a time of great restriction, and put up Irish signs, which fewer than about 3 per cent. of the people can read. Even Adams himself, who is paraded all around America as the great hero, cannot read Irish. He started his speech in Irish and then had to apologise that he knew nothing about it. That is not the only thing that he knows nothing about.
There is a great need for expenditure in the Province. My constituency needs it, as do other hon. Members' constituencies. I am not saying that mine should get more than others, but I do believe that, in the past, my constituency has not had its fair share. I believe that we have a right to demand that it does.
8.46 pm
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I hesitate to talk about the roads and new industry that I have in my constituency. Perhaps I should mention them briefly, as time is going on.
The policy on the sale of Housing Executive houses is good; people like to own their own homes. But it has created a difficulty, as the houses that are sold are beside Housing Executive houses that have not been sold. Unfortunately, the Housing Executive does not keep the area in a good condition. That, unfortunately, means that people who have bought their own homes live in a "through-other" area, as we say in Northern Ireland and
418
cannot sell their homes. That is extremely unfair on those house owners. It is about time that the Housing Executive got its act together and did something about that.
The Housing Executive should also look at some of the objectionable neighbours that it puts into its houses. Perhaps I should explain what I mean by that. Unfortunately, we have in Northern Ireland what are known as "druggies" houses, where people dispense drugs. The people who live in them fortify their houses in such a way that, if they are suspected of having drugs and the police arrive, by the time the police get into the house the drugs have been burnt–in a fire that is always burning, both winter and summer.
It is also known that certain flats contain animals that are not supposed to be kept. We know of flats in which two large rottweilers are kept in the one flat, simply to keep out the law, if it happened to come along. It is time that the Housing Executive, the police and the Northern Ireland Office got together to see whether some way can be found to sort out that problem, because it is very serious in certain areas.
A more mundane but no less important matter is that the coal advisory service is changing, because of the privatisation of British Coal. How will the solid fuel boilers and flues and so on be looked after? I hope that that matter will be looked at quickly and seriously.
Northern Ireland still has giro drops, which do not seem to be understood in some circles, and they must be investigated. If legislation is required, it should be introduced. I would accept a letter from the Minister, as well as a few remarks in reply at the end of the debate. Perhaps he could have a look at why grants are processed so slowly. I think that it takes about 12 months to get a Housing Executive grant.
A Bill relating to pensions is currently in the House of Lords. Part of that Bill will not apply to Northern Ireland and I assume that the legislation will be brought in by order. Perhaps the Minister will let me know whether that is so. An important aspect of that Bill is how trustees are selected to represent pensioners. I should like the legislation changed so that pensioners can democratically elect their trustee rather than have one appointed.
In the past I have had some knowledge of water privatisation, and I am rather concerned that it is still being visualised for Northern Ireland. Of course, there may be a change of Government and it may fall by the wayside. I am quite sure that, if the Opposition become the Government, they will not privatise. Northern Ireland has an excellent water system. Belfast water commissioners were renowned throughout the world and, usually, the operation was run by local councillors. That was an excellent idea and it would be a great pity if the system were changed. We, of course, oppose the privatisation of water in Northern Ireland.
The Department of the Environment vote 1 deals with roads. I support the aim of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) to complete the dual carriageway to Lame. I was rather afraid to mention that, because colleagues have different views on roads in Northern Ireland. I should certainly like to see the dual carriageway finished. Perhaps I could make a local plea for the A26 between Antrim and Ballymena.
I was interested in a letter from the Minister with responsibility for the environment in Northern Ireland to my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr.

419
Ross). It referred to EC funding for unadopted roads. I have several times mentioned such roads in the House and I hope that they are being looked at, because the issue needs to be sorted out. I hesitate to get into mundane matters such as those involving travellers and gipsies camping on lay-bys. However, in a year in which the resource element to councils has been cut, it is not right to have 40 or 50 caravans parking on a DoE lay-by and then leaving. I estimate that the cost of clearing up and putting right the damage to the site would probably be about £600, and that does not include farmers' fencing and so on that was badly damaged and burned. It is time that that was examined and perhaps an effort made to make sure that only those with a legitimate reason for parking for a short time are looked after.
I spoke about councils. Ratepayers are complaining because, no matter what percentage the councils put on the rate, the regional portion is always much greater. For instance, if the council adds 3 per cent., the regional rate is generally about 9 per cent. and is portrayed as 6 per cent. Councillors have to carry the can for that 6 per cent. when they put on only 3 per cent. That is most unfair to councillors, most of whom do a good job with what they have.
I am pleased at the number of new industries that have come to my area. I congratulate the Industrial Development Board on its good work along those lines. I hope that difficulties that have been mentioned in the newspapers about other projects are overcome and that new industries will come to the Province as quickly as possible.
I am a bit concerned about vote 2 of the Department of Economic Development, because the tourist grants, to which we are now paying much attention, seem to be causing difficulty. I had a couple of cases in which the grants seemed to take a long time to come through. There seems to be an inclination to give grants for hotels and other projects coming into Northern Ireland rather than to the entrepreneurs in the Province who are trying to start up their own hotels and the like.
In the context of the privatisation of Belfast international airport, we are opposed to the privatisation of air traffic control. There was a suggestion to that effect, although I think that the idea has been deferred. We support those in the rest of the United Kingdom who are totally opposed to the privatisation of the air traffic control system. It is essential to have confidence in those systems, and they should remain as they are.
I have a criticism related to tourism which involves an airport outside Northern Ireland. I hope that I am not ruled out of order for mentioning it. We have an excellent new airline which started last week and uses Stansted airport. I had the unfortunate experience of sitting for hours in a plane on an apron at Stansted because it appeared that the proper de-icing equipment, or enough of it, was not available. There certainly did not seem to be enough snow clearing equipment and there was only I in of snow on the runway. Perhaps the Minister would speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about that.
Sir John Wheeler: I may be responsible for what happens to every blade of grass in Northern Ireland, but I
420
am not responsible for Stansted airport. However, I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
Mr. Forsythe: I thank the Minister for that. The spirit of co-operation would be helped if we had more tourists coming through Stansted to Northern Ireland.
I had intended to make a few comments about the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland, but I shall restrict them. One of them is about family credit, which does not seem to be taken up because of the large amount of paperwork involved. People who send in pay slips, as they are supposed to do, find that they either get lost, are out of date or are the wrong ones. They do the same thing again. I know people who, even though they need the money, stop trying to get it. If the benefit is there, it is only right that people who deserve to receive it should do so. The fact that it may be difficult for some people should be considered.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) wants to discuss health matters. It has been reported to me that, in certain parts of Northern Ireland, people over 75 years of age are being directed to geriatric-type hospitals instead of to normal hospitals. Apparently, those people do not have much going for them. I am sure that the Minister will draw attention to that.
The National Playing Fields Association is issuing information on a multi-game wall where one plays all sorts of games. If one has a small area, one can put up such a wall and kick a ball against it, or play basketball and cricket. That is a good idea. If there is no room for a proper sports ground, erecting such a wall should be considered. I remember as a boy kicking a ball against a wall. It did me no harm. I recommend that to the Minister.
9 pm
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I am conscious of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) on Northern Irish colleagues' time allocation in this debate, so I shall be brief.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) concentrated on agriculture for a large part of his speech. The Minister mentioned that the Government are seeking to spend only £1,000 extra in the agriculture sector.
Within the past couple of months, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs has taken evidence in public from the Ulster Farmers Union and the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland. One point emerged: the importance of agricultural employment in Northern Ireland.
As the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster said, that has been a backbone of Northern Ireland's economy. There has been a drop in employment in that sector. Although that drop is mirrored throughout Europe, it is considerable. For instance, in the early 1970s, 10 per cent. of civil employment was due to agriculture; now it is 6.4 per cent.
Agriculture is still a considerable source of employment, but the position could still be better. When we were taking evidence in public from the Department of Agriculture in Northern ireland, one of the points I asked about was the capacity for developing the principle of co-operation in farming.

421
There are a large number of one-person or two-person farms in Northern Ireland, so surely the capacity is there to bring the farming communities back together in co-operative ventures. They may have all sorts of names and undertake all sorts of activities in various aspects of farming, but the potential is to develop that principle of co-operation. At one point, it was mentioned that the Northern Ireland farming community seemed to be apprehensive about co-operative ventures, but other organisations in the farming community did not accept that.
I also asked whether co-operation was valued as a principle by DANI. It is a hard world. Commitment to a particular principle is a measure of how much of DANI's allocation for its activities has been devoted to developing the principle of co-operation in the farming community.
The answer I received was that £300,000 per year was allocated for the development of co-operative ventures in the farming community. That is not a lot. I should like the Minister to take on board the view that, if co-operation can improve efficiency—that is what the modern world is all about—I for one would like greater priority given to encouraging co-operative ventures in Northern Ireland.
I have picked up some concerns in relation to the Department of Economic Development. Some of them might just be perceptions, as is often the case in Northern Ireland, but perceptions must be dealt with.
We are all in favour of inward investment. We have to listen only to our colleagues from Northern Ireland to see how much that is needed, but a feeling exists that, in the drive and enthusiasm to encourage such investment, somehow the indigenous companies are being left out on a limb and ignored. That is not being done in a deliberate or culpable way, but those companies are being left to wither on the vine.
All hon. Members should agree that, if an indigenous company is operating and a competitor comes in that is supported by the public purse, that surely gives the competitor an unfair advantage over the indigenous company. We all should be in favour of, and should encourage, inward investment, but we should be careful to ensure that we do not endanger the secure basis of the indigenous companies in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster and my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) mentioned Kilkeel fishing village. In an intervention on my hon. Friend, I mentioned that the Kilkeel fleet was tied up because of the harbour entrance, and that more than —200,000 would be lost to the local economy. I am not sure whether I said £200,000 a year, but the briefing is clear that the loss would be £200,000 a week. Kilkeel loses a massive amount of money per week because of that.
It was extremely generous of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster to support my hon. Friend the Member for South Down in mentioning it. Generous gestures can sometimes be thin on the ground in Northern Ireland, because, obviously, rivalry exists between constituency Members of Parliament. It is to the hon. Gentleman's credit that he mentioned that.
The position at Kilkeel impressed me greatly. Here were successful people and who were willing to work, to get on with it and, through their own efforts, to get on in the world and to contribute to the Province, yet the harbour at Kilkeel left a lot to be desired.
422
I have another document on port spending by the Department of the Environment. I am not complaining about any expenditure, because clearly more expenditure is required. I saw what was happening at Kilkeel and then saw the spending of the port section of the Department of the Environment on the royal harbour at Donaghadee and on Newry harbour, and the assistance to Moyle district council for ports at Rathlin and Ballycastle harbours and elsewhere.
Although Kilkeel is certainly pressing its own case, and rightly so, I have still not received a satisfactory answer as to why it has been left. In view of the all-party support for Kilkeel, I should like to hear from the Minister at some point how Kilkeel harbour is regarded by the Government.
I am conscious of the lack of time available to Northern Irish colleagues on the Floor of the House, so I conclude my remarks at this point.
9.8 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) and think that the Minister will confirm that I, too, feel strongly that the promotion of home-based industry is best. Home-based industries are tied to the place, and do not pick up their belongings and leave when the going gets difficult. In that context, I support what the hon. Gentleman said. Some might offer reasons why Portavogie and Kilkeel, as fishing ports, have not been properly looked after.
Roads have been mentioned, and I could spend some time talking about a generous letter I received from the Minister responsible since I raised the matter of traffic flow in Belfast. In his letter, he tells me that the inner Belfast box is now scheduled to open in 1999, providing funds are available. It has been going on since the early 1970s and is not yet completed. We are talking about the capital of Northern Ireland, with the emphasis in the Great Victoria street area on attracting people with an outstanding hotel complex at the Europa, while, a little way down the road, there is land that has been vacant for years.
Vote 2 deals with the Department of Education, and I shall refer to a particular constituency issue. It has been brought to my attention that the Sports Council for Northern Ireland, which is headquartered in my constituency, is to be reorganised. Will the Minister tell me now, or later in writing, what will be the duties of the four sub-committees and the duty of the main committee?
It seems that someone has been charged with reorganising the Sports Council on the grounds that it was in a mess, although I had not heard that description of it hitherto. The suggestion that it has to work in a particular way or there would be no funding especially concerns me, because it was made in the context of the Special Olympics. Those who know the work that people such as Evelyn Greer have done with Mencap over the years will understand my concern.
Will the Minister assure us that young people will he encouraged to take part in the Special Olympics, and perhaps explain why there has been a breakdown in communications? It seems that people with disabilities in Northern Ireland prefer to take part in the wider United Kingdom games.

423
I refer now to the Department of Health and Social Services, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) said, is my more familiar subject of interest.
I have several concerns about vote 1. I understand, for example, that money from the national lottery intended for community purposes is to be held and distributed by NICVA, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Authorities. What safeguards are in place to ensure that small charities will get their fair share, and that members of NICVA do not favour their pet projects? I ask that deliberately because I know that there have been difficulties in the past. If funds are now being channelled through NICVA, I want a clear understanding that distribution will be equitable.
In the past year, and indeed before, there has been much discussion in the House about changes in the health service and the increase in the number of GP fundholders. It was argued that they would become strong players in the purchasing of services, but I wonder how far the concept has spread in Northern Ireland. Is there any significant evidence that it is spreading?
A few weeks ago, I was invited to visit a practice in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker). It was an inner-city practice, where the doctors were completely sold on the concept of fundholding.
They made bold to claim that in their practice, they had no real waiting lists. They said that they had been able to break the stranglehold that some consultants had on the choice of patients. On occasions, they had made choices not simply on clinical grounds, but on other grounds.
I was fascinated to discover this, because one of the arguments propounded in the House is that fundholding does not work in inner cities. The doctors in this practice, in an inner-city area of deprivation which crosses the community, asked me to put on record their experience of fundholding.
From the answers to my parliamentary question of 2 March, I see that trauma and orthopaedic operations in the Musgrave Park hospital showed a marked decrease of 300 cases between 1992 and 1993. However, between 1993 and 1994, there was a dramatic increase of more than 400 cases.
Is there a reason for the fluctuations? Is it the heralded power of the GP fundholders, or does the increase reflect the hospital's ability to attract patients from elsewhere in Northern Ireland—and even, because of the skills of the staff there, from other parts of the United Kingdom? Is the hospital dealing with matter efficiently enough to bring down the waiting list in orthopaedics?
Still on vote 1, can the Minister say whether the Causeway hospital at Coleraine will be affected by the finances set aside for capital expenditure? There is some concern that the demands of Belfast trust hospitals will have an adverse impact on the Causeway development. A laboratory site has been provided. I would not like to think that there would be no further development for some years while capital funding was diverted to Belfast because the Causeway hospital was in the queue much earlier.
I have two concerns about vote 4. The first is a mobility allowance for under-fives. I appreciate that this is an aspect of the social security system in Great Britain. It is
424
fascinating that, when I send a letter on social security policy to the Social Security Department here—I normally send a copy to the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland—I get a note from the Great Britain Department to the effect that this is a matter for the Northern Ireland Department. The Department passes the shuttlecock over. I therefore have no hesitation in raising the matter in a Northern Ireland appropriation debate.
Many in the House may not be aware of the Government's bizarre rule that disabled children under five are not entitled to the mobility allowance available to those over five years of age. The argument has been that children under five cannot get the allowance because, until they are over five, one cannot be sure whether they will walk.
Parents with disabled children under five have enough problems to cope with, without being denied financial support, especially when it is denied because, according to the Government, it cannot be proved before that age whether a child will walk. I urge the Government and the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services, if it is a matter for that Department, to take the lead and to cease discrimination on such petty grounds. The inability to walk is not set forth as the only ground for mobility allowance.
My second point was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe)—the time taken before people receive housing grants and social security payments. Often some time elapses before people come before a tribunal. They then go through the agonising period of wondering what will happen. There is also a tendency not to look ahead during the review process.
Recently, a constituent went to cash his cheque. He knew that his book was finished, but he then discovered that it could not be renewed, and that instead, he would be paid by giro until he went again before a medical assessment board. The man was fair-aged. The law of averages says that, far from improving over the age of 70, people are inclined to go downhill.
I could not understand why the administration had not booked him in earlier for that medical review, so I raised the issue with the Department. The review is not to take place until at least the end of March, yet the man has not received his cheques for January and February.
We all know that, after a tribunal or a medical review, it takes time to write up the notes and for those notes to get back to the administrative executive. Indeed, the internal postal system is even worse than the postal system from which at times we suffer in Westminster. Meanwhile, people are left high and dry without their proper benefits. It is not enough to say that they will be paid in due course, for people on low incomes have to pay their bills promptly. Only large businesses can afford not to pay bills on time. The ordinary person has to pay the bill, or there will be a row. Will attention be given to that matter?
Before I sum up, I have one concern over vote 5, which involves the costs of funerals. The Minister may be aware of the increasing costs of burial, not only in Northern Ireland but throughout Great Britain. I question whether the available grant covers the cost of a decent funeral. I hope that we shall not return to the pauper's burial.
Mr. McGrady: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the circumstances of burial in Northern Ireland are quite

425
different from those in England and Wales, and that, potentially under the new rules, burials will be more expensive? Around 84 per cent. of funerals in Northern Ireland are interments, and only 14 per cent. are cremations. There are only two crematoria in Northern Ireland, so long distances have to be travelled and much expense incurred by many people. There is an additional problem in the north.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the hon. Member's intervention and thank him for it, as it was perhaps more helpful than my intervention in his speech. Although I am arguing about the Northern Ireland appropriation order, increasing costs of burial also affect people in the nation as a whole. I certainly concur, however, that there are added expenses in Northern Ireland.
On a more general note, I welcome the publication of the chief medical officer's report. In that document, she highlights areas of concern, and I shall comment on two of them.
It is alarming that 20 per cent. of patients fail to keep their hospital out-patient appointments, which incurs a subsequent loss in the Departments. Is there a communication problem? Are the patients not aware of their appointments? I know that patients are sometimes told of their appointments a long time in advance, but I wonder whether there is a chance that, just as for in-patients, people get their appointments at the last minute and that they are out on business on the day that they are supposed to report to hospital.
Could it be, however, that many out-patients arrive on time for their appointments but get fed up and go home when the department is running an hour or more behind schedule? Despite improvements in the system, I have faced that scenario myself. Certainly, the inability to connect a patient with his or her clinic is a substantial waste of health service resources. What efforts have been made to find out why that is happening, and to sort the problem out?
Also in the chief medical officer's report, there is evidence that asthma is the main cause of ill health in children and young people. The Minister will be aware that air pollution is considered a major contributory factor in asthma, which is one of the fastest growing diseases in children. Will the Minister ensure that finance is set aside and research encouraged so that the causes of the increases are identified and eradicated? It is not good enough to say that the cause of asthma is unknown and that there are many exacerbating factors in the environment. We need more detailed research.
9.24 pm
Mr. Spellar: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate, which has been wide-ranging and has covered many issues. As I said in my opening speech, one of the opportunities that the peace process has created has been a move towards the normalisation of political life and issues in Northern Ireland, allowing us to debate issues of common concern which relate in many ways to Members of Parliament from Scotland, Wales and England, too.
Many of the themes which have arisen in the debate have been familiar to Members from other areas of the country. As we have repeated several times, including in the debate earlier today, we support the Government's
426
efforts in the peace process, but on the economic and social issues we are as divided from them in Northern Ireland as elsewhere.
The debate, which unfortunately has been short, has highlighted several such issues. Indeed, when I was listening to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) talking about objectionable neighbours, drug addicts, giro drops and travellers, I thought that he could have been any Member of Parliament from the midlands conurbation, all of whom are facing similar problems to an equal or even a greater degree.
All of us, especially in urban areas, face such problems, which are common throughout western society. We need to try to achieve practical and realistic solutions to them all and to ensure that, especially in cases such as those that the hon. Gentleman described, the broad majority of the population are protected from an offensive and objectionable minority.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South would be well served if he considered the action taken by several midlands councils on precisely the sort of common nuisances that he described–action which has often been tough and effective. He may have read reports in the papers recently about Coventry council taking to court some individuals who were causing havoc on council estates and getting them barred from those estates.
The hon. Gentleman may also have read that, when individuals who have been using their premises for drug dealing are convicted, that is treated as a breach of their tenancy agreement and eviction proceedings are taken against them. That is greatly welcomed by the vast majority of residents on an estate, and especially by parents who are concerned that their children may be dragged into a life of drug use, which we know leads quickly to a life of crime. Lessons learned in other areas could well be applied throughout the country to reduce such problems and keep them in hand before they move way out of control.
The hon. Gentleman also expressed surprise that people over 75 are being referred to geriatric hospitals rather than ordinary hospitals. That causes concern and fear in my constituency, too. I have had correspondence from pensioners who are approaching the age of 75 but who are in full possession of their mental and physical faculties and who are terrified at the prospect that, if they have an accident or fall prey to an illness, they may be shunted off to a geriatric hospital and, as they would see it, written off, as people who have finished their useful life. That fills them with fear and trepidation, and the hon. Gentleman was right to raise the matter. Health boards and health authorities should be alert to the problem and should take account of the fears and wishes of the people concerned.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about water privatisation, and I hope that the Minister took note of the general opposition to that idea. Indeed, opposition to it is all that we hear, not only from politicians representing constituencies in Northern Ireland but from the community in Northern Ireland and, as I said earlier, from the people who represent the work force in the water industry. The Government have said that they will not introduce water privatisation this side of a general election, but the people of Northern Ireland fear that creeping privatisation is taking place. They have seen the Capita report on attempts to hive off a series of functions

427
of the water industry, and they are also concerned that the change in the charging regime for water will be a prelude to privatisation.
A common issue across the country—it is not just a matter related to Stansted airport—is the question of air traffic control. The Select Committee on Transport has stated that the privatisation of air traffic control would not be in the interests of air travellers, or in the interests of Britain's reputation as a safe and secure air traffic centre. The Minister ought to take note of those concerns within Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
I shall move to some of the issues raised by hon. Members. I am sorry to have concentrated on the remarks of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe), but he raised a considerable number of relevant and widely applicable issues.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) raised the issues of Larne harbour and the road transport system. I said in my opening remarks that the need for quick and effective communications to attract industry into Northern Ireland is paramount. The road system is important because many companies use containers to move goods to ports and then into the European transport system. That is a vital part of their economic success. The hon. Member for Antrim, East rightly identified the problems facing his constituency in respect of the variability of European Community grants, and all Members will have faced such difficulties.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) drew attention to a problem that is forgotten by many of us who represent substantially urban constituencies. I have one small farm with about two fields in the whole of my constituency. The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that unemployment and poverty—even if they are widely spread in a rural area—still cause great feelings of hopelessness. We should not forget the poverty of people in rural and semi-rural areas.
The hon. Gentleman also identified problems with roads in his constituency. The effect of the peace dividend on those areas which have managed to avoid violence was a strong point very well made by the hon. Gentleman, and it should give us all pause for thought.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about the problems in his constituency associated with the decommissioning of the fishing fleets, and that point was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy). Fishing communities around the country are concerned about the loss of employment which is a result of the unsatisfactory deal arrived at with regard to the Irish box. That obviously has implications for employment and, frankly, additional funds will not solve the problem. At the very least, however, an increase in the money available to assist the process of decommissioning is not only desirable but extremely necessary.
A further aspect of European Community policy was raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who talked about the vagaries of the common agricultural policy and how it affects livestock producers who are faced with one regime when selling their produce and another regime when buying their raw materials. We need to ensure that the Government are representing the interests of farmers in all parts of the United Kingdom as
428
effectively as some other European Governments represent their farmers. I am sure that he found much common ground in the Chamber with his comments on the common agricultural policy.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen mentioned co-operative ventures in farming—that is not surprising, given his strong links with the co-operative movement and his history—and the inadequate amounts of money available for that, especially as the agricultural community moves into difficult times.
We are also considering the significant importance of agriculture to the Northern Ireland economy, in terms not only of primary production but of manufacturing and production based on agriculture. That is extremely important throughout the community, especially when we take in the argument of the hon. Member for South Down about the need to maintain employment and activity in rural areas. I am sure that the Minister took on board those arguments in relation to the need for assistance to the co-operative sector of agriculture.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) referred to the problem of children under five who cannot get mobility allowance. That is a nationwide problem, which has been raised by a number of Members of Parliament, and we have found the responses to be fairly unsatisfactory, especially when one takes into account the difficulties facing parents if their children are not only unable to walk but genuinely immobile and also becoming larger and heavier—for example, when trying to get them from the clinic to the car. The authorities should be more flexible and understanding. I hope that the Minister has taken those arguments on board.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South rightly stressed the fact that, while applications for grants have to be properly checked and assessed, unnecessary delay can cause considerable hardship. I am sure that we have all had people in our surgeries and advice bureaux who have got themselves into fearful difficulties as a result of gaps in income. While expenditure continues, they get into debt and incur the charges of those who are trying to recover the debt, whether it be the local council, the electricity board or some other organisation. They get into a spiral of debt and difficulty. I hope that the Minister recognises that problem and will convey to the proper authorities the need to ensure proper speed when processing claims.
I shall conclude shortly so as to allow the Minister time to answer the many questions raised in the debate, which is a welcome return to discussing the main, normal issues which face people day in and day out—the ordinary problems of getting by in life, earning a living, bringing up children and ensuring that they have a decent life with some hope for the future. The peace process has given some hope for the future. We need to ensure that people are able to fulfil those hopes and aspirations in their economic and social life. This debate will be part of a long series as we press the Government to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have the future and the prosperity that they deserve.
9.37 pm
Sir John Wheeler: This has been a detailed debate on the "Northern Ireland Spring Supplementary Estimates 1994-95". It reminds me somewhat of autumn, in as much as I am obliged to deliver at the outset a rather tedious speech, in which I announce the spending estimates and

429
priorities for the coming period. That enables many hon. Members to raise very detailed matters, and I am placed in the position of responding to the autumn leaves falling—they are so many, varied and numerous—but, during the time allowed to me, I shall endeavour to reply to as many of them as I am able.
All the points made by hon. Members from Northern Ireland who contributed to the debate will be carefully considered by Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office and, where possible or appropriate, if I cannot refer to any of the issues that they raised this evening, they will receive a reply. Five hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies have been able to speak during the course of this debate: the hon. Members for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs); for South Down (Mr. McGrady); for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea); for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe); and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). I am particularly anxious to put their constituencies on record because they are all, in various ways, doughty champions of their constituents' interests. They have endeavoured to speak for others who could not participate in tonight's debate in so many of the important issues that concern the people of Northern Ireland.
In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) mentioned expenditure in Northern Ireland. May I tell him about the positive developments that have taken place and the substantial resources that are available? During 1994–95, the Government will make available no less than £7.5 billion to maintain the services at a high level and promote a range of developments and activities.
Those include—some of these points were touched on by hon. Members—expenditure on education services this year, which will be £1,301 million, an increase of 4 per cent. over 1993-94; and expenditure on health and personal social services, which will be £1,433 million, an increase of 7.3 per cent. over 1993-94. Over the past 15 years, spending on education rose by 35 per cent. in real terms and on health and personal social services by 52 per cent. Those impressive achievements illustrate the impact of the Government's policies on matters that are important to everyone in Northern Ireland.
In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Warley, West, suggested that, were he in government, there would be substantial additional expenditure over and above that which I have just described to the House. What he did not say, however, is whether that additional expenditure would be found from increased taxation on the citizens of the United Kingdom as a whole, or whether other Government services and activities would be reduced. He owes an explanation to the public in due course about that.
The hon. Member for Warley, West said in his closing remarks that the Government had failed in their negotiations over the fishing issue. I strongly refute that. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food fought vigorously for British interests and produced the best deal for the UK fishermen. Had he not succeeded, fishermen would have been worse off and would not have had the arrangements in respect of the Irish box.
Rev. Martin Smyth: During the debate it was suggested that more funds should have been made available for decommissioning. Was not that the position taken by the Government of the Republic of Ireland,
430
giving fishermen in the Republic more money for decommissioning, which is why they were reasonably satisfied?
Sir John Wheeler: Yes, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Northern Ireland fishermen have benefited from the decommissioning schemes, with the removal of 43 vessels under the 1993 and 1994 schemes. The additional £28 million earmarked for decommissioning over the next three years highlights the Government's commitment to giving assistance to rationalise the capacity of the UK fleet towards a level which fish stocks can sustain. I hope that the hon. Gentleman found that helpful.
Mr. McGrady: A matter requiring clarification has just arisen regarding the deal that was done at the Essen conference. As the Minister has now said, 43 boats are bound to be decommissioned, but 40 boats from the Spanish fleet will be permitted to enter the Irish box. Can the Minister explain whether that refers to 40 specific vessels or 40 vessels at any one time—in other words, the entire Spanish fleet by rotation?
Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman will understand that that goes somewhat outwith the Northern Ireland supplementary spring estimates and outside my jurisdiction as a Minister for Northern Ireland, but I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food considers the hon. Gentleman's question and gives him as much help as he can by way of explanation.
I wish to respond to the brief intervention by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who is in his place, about Belfast international airport. The hon. Gentleman asked about the possible clawback of EC funds for Belfast international airport. On 16 August 1994, the Commission requested information about the terms and conditions relating to the sale of Belfast international airport and details of all the European regional development fund aid paid to the airport. That was to enable the Commission to consider whether clawback of ERDF aid would be appropriate. That information was sent to the Commission by the Government on 26 September 1994, but to date nothing has been heard from the Commission. I hope that the hon. Gentleman found that helpful.
The hon. Member for Warley, West was very selective in his references to surveys of the Northern Ireland economy. Almost without exception, those have been reported as showing growing confidence and success, and were a theme of the debate this afternoon. The Northern Ireland economy has grown faster than the national economy. Seasonally adjusted unemployment has decreased in 10 of the past 12 months. Put another way, in the year to September 1994, the number of employees in employment in Northern Ireland increased by 6,300, to reach 553,720. That represents an all-time high for employees in employment in Northern Ireland as a whole.
Mr. Spellar: Will the Minister tell us the breakdown in that increase between full-time and part-time jobs?
Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman may know the answer, but I would say that jobs in Northern Ireland are welcome, whether they are called full-time or part-time, and the Government are in the business of encouraging the economy of Northern Ireland to find more jobs. I shall now press on. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for

431
Warley, West may care to ignore the facts, but the fact is that the Government's policies are strengthening the Northern Ireland economy and targeting social need, and are making significant improvements for all sections of the Northern Ireland community.
The hon. Member for Warley, West mentioned several other matters. I can confirm that the routine metering of purely domestic water supplies is not under consideration. Expenditure on roads maintenance, which has been referred to by several hon. Members from Northern Ireland, will be £41 million in 1995–96—evidence of the priority that the Government give the roads programme.
I know, as a result of travelling throughout Northern Ireland and meeting councils and others, that everyone wants his specific road priority scheme to be dealt with this year, if not sooner. I understand the enthusiasm of the councils, the hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies and others to see the road system improved as often as possible.
The hon. Member for Warley, West also referred to assistance for the long-term unemployed. The Government recognise fully the problems faced by the long-term unemployed, who are unlikely to gain employment unless their skills are updated and their motivation is improved. The Government have a radical new approach, which aims to put a large percentage of the long-term unemployed back to work.
We propose to introduce a pilot scheme which we shall call the community work programme. It aims to provide the long-term unemployed with opportunities to obtain useful work to allow them to rebuild their skills and regain their confidence. The pilot scheme will provide for at least 1,000 places in 1995-96 and, if it is successful, it will eventually provide up to 2,000 places. I am sure that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies will be particularly glad to hear that.
Mr. Beggs: I assure the Minister that we all welcome the prospect of the creation of additional jobs. However, will he assure the House that areas beyond Belfast and Londonderry will benefit from those jobs?
Sir John Wheeler: A theme of tonight's debate has been the determination and enthusiasm of the five hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies in championing the causes of their constituents. I understand, and sympathise with, their aims. Of course, serious pockets of unemployment—often long-term unemployment—can be found all over Northern Ireland. They occur for different reasons. The Government's new scheme is intended to benefit, and to provide hope and opportunities to, people throughout Northern Ireland. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, when the scheme is applied, the responsible Minister will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's concerns and interests are taken into account.
One way of helping the unemployed is by sustaining and encouraging small businesses. The Government's programme of support for the small business community is provided mainly through the Local Enterprise Development Unit—LEDU—which operates either directly or through an extensive network of some 40 local enterprise agencies. That organisation has an annual budget of more than £30 million. It seeks to assist small
432
manufacturing businesses through a wide range of schemes and initiatives which aim to improve competitiveness and to stimulate increased sales, particularly export sales. LEDU, in liaison with the local enterprise agency network, provides support to individuals who wish to become self-employed and stair up new businesses.
The hon. Member for Warley, West and others also referred to housing expenditure. The Government's public expenditure contribution to housing is some £224 million in 1994-95. When supplemented by rental income and capital receipts, gross resources for housing should amount to £564 million. Those substantial resources will enable the Housing Executive to spend £33 million on building new houses.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the difficulties experienced by some of those in the contracting industry. They will welcome that additional expenditure because it means an opportunity for jobs for their employees. In addition, £96 million will be spent on repairs and maintenance, which will offer further work opportunities to building contractors. Some £73 million will be spent the rehabilitation and improvement of the existing housing stock. Expenditure on grants to private house owners is likely to be some £33 million and gross expenditure by the housing associations will amount to £45 million. All that expenditure is designed not only to improve the housing stock, but to feed back into the opportunities for employment.
Contrary to the claim by the hon. Member for Warley, West, the Government have a clear energy policy, which was set out in the Department of the Environment document, "Energy for the nineties and beyond". It includes energy efficiency, the clean provision and use of energies, lower cost and the provision of consumer interests, diversion of energy supply and security of supply.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East raised a large number of points and I shall endeavour to deal with as many as I can. I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about the relocation of the Stena Sealink from Larne harbour to Belfast. It is, of course, solely a matter for the commercial judgment of Stena Sealink what services it operates and on what routes. The Government are not in any way involved in that process. No European Union assistance will be available for any move of Stena Sealink's conventional ferries from Larne to Belfast. I understand that Stena Sealink will announce next month that it is relocating its Stranraer service from Larne to Belfast.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to roads serving Larne port, particularly the Belfast to Larne road, in which I know that he has a great deal of interest. About one third of the Belfast to Larne road is of motorway or dual-carriageway standard. As he says, the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland plans to bring forward a scheme to dual the remaining single-carriageway section. The first stage is scheduled to start in 1997–98. The remaining stages will be taken forward as funding permits and I know his desire to see that process speeded up will be well understood by my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for these matters.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to capital spending on schools. Capital provision for education and library boards in 1994–95 is some £47 million, of which almost

433
£15 million will be spent on major building works and some £17 million on minor capital works, school buses, site purchases and equipment. The remainder of the budget is for earmarked provision and includes £11 million for capital projects associated with education reform. I note the hon. Gentleman's point about the capital moratorium, and will draw it to the attention of my hon. Friend who is responsible for these matters so that he may give it further consideration.
Reference was also made to nursery education. I recognise, and am an enthusiast for, the value of nursery education in the development of pre-school age children, particularly in areas of social need, so I noted the hon. Gentleman's point with much interest and support.
The policy statement on early years provision for Northern Ireland, which was published jointly by the Departments of Education, of Health and of Social Services in September 1994, affirms the Government's long-term commitment to providing one full year's nursery education for all children, while focusing initially on areas of greatest need. It also provides a framework within which future services for young children will be developed.
The statement raises a number of issues which the Department wishes to take forward. Initial discussions with education and library boards and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools have already taken place, and it is intended to have further discussions shortly and I shall respond to the hon. Member's other points on education by way of correspondence.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned electricity prices. I note his concern, but as I believe he knows, it is more expensive to produce and distribute electricity in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain because power stations are smaller, the reserve margin is higher and customers, on
434
average, are more dispersed. He also referred to the possible extension of the transitional relief fund scheme. That scheme was introduced to give industry time to adjust to the application of cost-reflected pricing following privatisation. It will have served that purpose by the time it ends, on 31 March 1996.
It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion, pursuant to Order [3 March].
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.

PETITION

  Quarry Application (Heywood)
  10 pm
  Mr. Jim Callaghan: I wish to present a petition from the residents of Heywood, in my constituency. It has 3,863 signatures.
  The Petition of Residents of Heywood
  Declares that the plans for land at Gort Sandpit and Wilderness Quarry are premature to the UDP Inquiry to be held by the inspector in May 1995. They are contrary to the current Heywood Local Plan and the residents are concerned that all the strategic issues were not fully considered by the Local Planning Authority when they reached this decision.
  Therefore the Petitioners request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State to call in the planning application for consideration at a Planning Inquiry.
  And the Petitioners remain
  Colin Thompson, 41 Vicarage Road, North Rochdale.
  To lie upon the Table.

Television (Invasion of Privacy)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--/Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
10.1 pm
Sir Michael Marshall: My reason for raising the invasion of privacy by television programmes stems directly from the experience of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Desmond Squire. I am authorised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) to say that it also stems from the experience of his constituents, Mr. and Mrs. David McAllister, and that of their son Duncan. My right hon. Friend is present; let me take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude for all he has done in pursuing the interests of both families, despite ministerial constraints. I believe that his presence tonight speaks for itself, as does the work that he has done in his constituency capacity.
I am also grateful for the interest of other hon. Members. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who is also present, will know that in many senses the matter to which I refer results from the tragedy affecting the Province of Northern Ireland.
The complaints and remedies that I wish to advance in the short time available to me stem from the commissioning, production and screening of a film entitled "Beyond Reason" by Carlton (UK) Television Ltd. and Kensington Films and Television in prime time on 20 February 1995. The film related to the killing of my constituents' daughter—Penny McAllister, a young army officer's wife—by a woman soldier in Northern Ireland in 1991.
Let me say immediately that my concern—while inevitably concentrating on what I see as the invasion of the privacy of my constituents and those of my right hon. Friend—is not confined to that one film or to commercial television; similar concerns currently apply to the BBC. I shall point to other examples of objectionable television "faction", as it is described, and to documentaries in relation to which the relevant regulatory authorities have accepted complaints about invasion of privacy.
In assessing the extent of suffering that is caused to innocent victims of crime, particularly to families, I have been greatly assisted by a number of individual representations and, in particular, by the widespread evidence that was given to me by Victim Support. Its work shows many instances in which it has felt it right to question whether the retelling of sensational cases is in the public interest. Clearly, it feels that it is not. It sees cases where such retelling is deeply hurtful to the families and to friends of the parties involved, and where it delays the recovery from the ordeal from which many of them have already suffered.
At this stage, let me put the film "Beyond Reason" in the context of the 1994 report of the chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. He said:
"We continue to be concerned by crime reconstructions particularly when they are based on cases which have occurred in the recent past. We feel it is very important that in the making of such programmes consideration is given to the position of the relatives of the victim."
It is precisely that area—the position of the immediate families—that I wish to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister tonight. The detailed complaint that I have submitted on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Squire, and that
436
which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Export Trade has submitted on behalf of Mr. Duncan McAllister, have gone directly to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, and we look to it to adjudicate.
I shall therefore endeavour tonight to avoid the detail of that particular complaint, and, indeed, much of the emotion that one feels about it, because I want to discuss some broad principles arising from such cases—conscious that my hon. Friend cannot be held responsible for the actions of the programme makers, but conscious, too, of the concern that he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage have expressed publicly on these issues. Above all, I want to take this opportunity to draw attention to the way in which the dice are loaded against families in such situations.
Let me first describe the situation that could apply to any family who becomes aware of a projected television programme, whether drama documentary or straight documentary, covering a crime reconstruction that involves a member of their family. If they object, what can they do?
There are, I believe, four relevant organisations with a regulatory role. First, there is the Independent Television Commission, which, under the Broadcasting Act 1990, operates general provisions which include the following terms:
"that nothing is included in its programmes which offends against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite crime or lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling."
Secondly, in the case with which I am concerned in commercial television, there is the influence that is exercised by the ITV network, which effectively books programmes for prime time viewing. It is required by the Act to regulate in advance the content of programmes. It has confirmed to me, however, in the most straightforward way, that in practice that means reviewing a script, which is usually put to it some 18 months before transmission, and it has little or no say in what emerges in the final version.
Thirdly, as regards complaints, there is the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, which can look at representations made either directly by those affected or by those acting with their authority in cases of unjust or unfair treatment and unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Finally, there is the Broadcasting Standards Council, which can look into complaints about excessive sex or violence and general matters of taste.
But the problem with all those organisations, so far as my constituents and others in their situation are concerned, is that they are all—they admit freely—powerless to exercise any real influence until the programme has been shown and, in many cases, the damage done. That was the position faced by the Squire and McAllister families, as well as my right hon. Friend the Minister and myself in acting on their behalf.
In seeking to prevent the broadcasting of a programme such as I have described, there seem to be only two remedies, one of which is to seek an injunction to prevent the programme from going ahead. My advice is that that would require a case to be made showing either libel or defamation. Quite apart from the cost implication and the fact that legal aid is not available in bringing actions of that kind, common sense says that it would be well nigh impossible to prove such a case without access to the script or to a preview of the film, both of which were denied to my constituents and the McAllisters.

437
There remains only the option of appealing to the film makers. The families affected by the making of "Beyond Reason" did so on many occasions. Their letters and the accounts of their meetings with the television executives concerned in the period from April 1994 to the eve of screening two and a half weeks ago, make heart-rending reading. They begged the film makers to cancel the project, and were fully supported by my right hon. Friend and by me.
What was the effect of all those representations? Obviously, the programme went ahead, and perhaps the best way for me to stand back from my feelings on the subject is to relate what some of those who were directly concerned in a professional capacity had to say. I turn to what can only be summarised as a barrage of criticism such as I have never seen before from those in the press who would be naturally inclined to support the argument for freedom of expression.
The Guardian said that this was
"the latest dubious recreation of a real recent crime. There was no good reason to use real names or for us to repeat them."
The Independent commented in an introductory disclaimer, adding:
"This is what passes for ethics in real life drama."
The Times stated:
"The real question is should this film have been made at all? I would say no, if only because of the objections of Penny McAllister's parents."
The Daily Telegraph said:
"We were in the ethically highly questionable world of 'faction'".
The writer in The Daily Express said:
"Beyond Reason was heralded by its publicity as impressive, compelling and a real-life story of a tragic affair leading to a fatal attraction murder".
She added:
"Well how about these for a few meaty adjectives to beef up the credits: disgusting, cynical, repellent, obscene, nauseating, cruel, heartless and twisted. Oh I watched it all right with mounting anger at the pain it would have caused Penny McAllister's parents."
Innocent victims of crimes, such as my constituents, were put through the whole process of aggravated suffering, with massive pre-television and press publicity, with the bringing back to life of their dead daughter, as well as the portrayal of themselves by look-alike actors. This offence is compounded by the re-creation of hairstyles, clothes and all the details that were required, whatever disclaimers are made, to give a calculated impression of total reality.
Again one asks, what can they and others in such situations do, and what remedies are open to them? As I have said, complaints have been submitted by my right hon. Friend and by me to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, the Independent Television Commission, the Independent Television network and the Broadcasting Standards Council. They have all been made aware of the terms of those complaints, but they are all severely hampered in any action that they can take.
I am not prejudging what may happen, but I am aware that the serious thought which went into the latest revision of the ITC programme code as recently as last month shows the concern within that organisation. Plainly, the revised code still allows the programme makers to proceed without taking a blind bit of notice of the families concerned.
On the positive side, I am aware from correspondence with the ITV network that its commissioning policy is moving away from crime reconstruction, and I understand that, in some instances, that has been supported by those who are responsible for making programmes applying a self-denying ordinance. There is also evidence of real concern by TV industry leaders such as Mr. Michael Grade, and we should open up this debate.
The Broadcasting Complaints Commission provides the immediate opportunity for complaints in this case. It has upheld a number of relevant complaints, including, for example, that made against Granada Television for the dramatic reconstruction of a murder case in Scotland which was broadcast in 1993. Significantly, when "Beyond Reason" was shown on 20 February, it was preceded by an announcement on the screen giving the terms of a commission finding on another programme, when it upheld a complaint of invasion of privacy against "World in Action" from the parents of a murdered child.
That points directly to the fundamental weakness and lack of sanctions that are open to regulatory authorities such as the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. All that happens after such criticisms have been upheld is that there is a requirement for the commission's announcement to be published in the "TV Times", and to be shown briefly on the television screen.
As a sanction, that can be seen only as the merest slap on the wrist. There is no obligation on the broadcaster to indicate whether the criticism has been accepted, or whether it will lead to a change in policy. Above all, there is no requirement to apologise to the aggrieved party.
Under those circumstances, what can Her Majesty's Government and the House do to right what is clearly the manifest weakness and injustice in our systems? First, my understanding is that the Broadcasting Act 1990 must be reviewed in 1997-98. Removal of the old independent broadcasting authorities' right to view programmes before transmission, and the reliance on self-regulation no longer seems appropriate.
I urge the Government, therefore, to consider providing the Independent Television Commission with the power—where it has good reason to suspect that an intended programme may be in breach of either the spirit or letter of the code—to call for a screening of that programme before transmission and, if necessary, to order its withdrawal. A similar power should be extended to the ITV network.
Taken together, those proposals would provide the possible sanction and deterrent against sensationalism and the "ratings at all costs" approach, which underlies some of the problems that I have described. They would go a long way to ensuring that programmes were truly receptive to the views of families.
Secondly, I understand that Her Majesty's Government are considering the possible merger of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission with the Broadcasting Standards Council. I urge that that should take place in the near future. It is clear that problems exist for people who make complaints, because they are put from one organisation to the other. There is necessarily a close interrelationship between unfair and unjust treatment, invasions of privacy, and judgments of taste in relation to such matters as sex and violence.
Thirdly, the situation that I have outlined is an additional reason for giving urgent consideration to introducing legislation that would cover the statutory right to privacy. In that sense. I support the thrust of the 1990 Calcutt report and of the most recent of his reports, which puts forward the idea of a new tort of invasion of privacy.
I have noted that that last proposal has attracted the support of the Select Committee on National Heritage in its fourth report on privacy and media intrusion, to which the Government are due to respond. That Committee's concern, and that of Calcutt, were primarily with regard to the press, but those same principles should apply in considering ways in which the people affected by television could be covered.
I cannot end without adding that I have tried, as far as possible, to stick to arguments of principle, despite deep feelings on this matter. Much might be said about a position that has clearly appalled even insiders in the industry. Having seen the ways in which programme makers can ride roughshod over the wishes of the families concerned—so that, as one family member has said,
"they are playing God with our lives"—
I am clear where the public interest lies in these matters. It must surely be in providing real checks and balances, and real deterrents and ways in which the sufferings of constituents, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North and myself may be avoided for others.
10.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) on the persistence that has resulted in his getting a debate on this deeply serious and tragic subject. I have listened carefully to his concerns about the difficult and important subject of media intrusion into private lives.
As so many individual cases have shown, the line between a legitimate public interest in the issues involved, and the rights of individuals to privacy and fair treatment, is not a clear and definite one. That must be more so when the issues are presented as scripted drama, with the tensions of that genre highlighting individual circumstances, involving particular and identifiable people.
It is not for the Government to comment on the artistic merits of the drama "Beyond Reason". My hon. Friend will understand the long established convention that Government do not normally become involved in individual production or programming decisions. What the Government have done is to establish the independent Broadcasting Complaints Commission precisely to deal with the sort of problems raised tonight about this play.
The adjudicatory approach of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission allows persons affected by a broadcast, where they feel that they have suffered unfair treatment or an invasion of privacy, to make a complaint and receive a full hearing, legally represented if they choose. If their complaint is upheld, a summary will be published in the appropriate television programme guide, as my hon. Friend said, and the findings broadcast in a prominent position in an evening schedule.
My hon. Friend described this as a mere slap on the wrist, and I can well understand why he so described it, but the Government's intention was that the thorough
440
adjudication process should leave both sides with a better understanding for the future of where the boundaries lie.
Broadcasters have, I believe, generally shown respect for issues of privacy. Of the 13 complaints made to the commission between April 1993 and March 1994, only one was fully upheld, and four were upheld in part. In the current year, the commission has dealt with 23 complaints of unwarranted invasion of privacy, of which three were upheld and one upheld in part.
The general programme code published by the Independent Television Commission, the BBC's producer guidelines and the Broadcasting Standards Council's code of practice all provide a sound framework within which the broadcasters consider to what extent they are entitled to use material that identifies individuals, or incidents from the recent past.
I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government intend at the earliest opportunity to merge the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. The Government, too, recognise the close relationship between their functions and believe that members of the public will appreciate the clarity that the merger will bring.
My hon. Friend suggested that it may be preferable to allow the regulatory bodies to preview controversial programmes. It is a very interesting idea, and I shall look at it closely. He may wish to have a meeting with me on the subject, so that we can pursue these matters at greater length than is possible during an Adjournment debate.
The Government usually take the view that, in a mature society, censorship or prior restraint is undesirable and contrary to the right of free expression enshrined in the European convention on human rights. The approach adopted in this country—that of self-regulation by the broadcasters against a framework of guidelines and codes of practice—has always been considered the best way to balance the right to freedom of expression with considerations of taste, decency, privacy and fair representation. Viewers then have every opportunity to express their opinions on particular programmes, and can be seen to be influencing programming decisions themselves.
If a commercial broadcaster persists in flouting the ITC's code—section 3.7 deals specifically with drama documentaries—the commission may impose financial sanctions, and ultimately withdraw the broadcaster's licence. The BBC is responsible, under the royal charter, for responding to similar complaints.
The Government are absolutely not complacent where issues of privacy are involved. As with the portrayal of sex and violence on television, we are currently looking closely into the matter of privacy. It is under review at the moment, as we recognise it to be an area of great concern across all forms of media production, written and audio-visual. We shall, before long, be publishing a White Paper on privacy and media intrusion, and it is, of course, possible in the light of this that the regulatory bodies may be prompted to clarify further, strengthen or otherwise change existing guidelines and codes of practice.
I noted my hon. Friend's observation that it is time for the enactment of a statutory right of privacy. In the light of the forthcoming White Paper, I cannot comment on that this evening, beyond what I have already said, but I have noted my hon. Friend's views. As I said, I should be extremely

441
keen to discuss the matter further with him and, indeed, with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Export Trade if he so wishes, given his close interest in the matter.
My hon. Friend has spoken eloquently on behalf of his constituents, whose daughter was depicted in the drama "Beyond Reason". I am told—indeed, my hon. Friend mentioned this in his speech—that the makers of the play, which I have not yet seen, in their introductory script, were acutely conscious of the topicality of the play's subject matter, of the need to take into account whether publication was in the public interest, and of the need for care and sensitivity in the treatment of the reconstruction
442
of the crime. However, having heard my hon. Friend's comments, I have asked my officials to get me a video of the film so that I can see it before I have the meeting, which I hope I shall have, with my hon. Friend.
I know that my hon. Friend has made a complaint on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Squire to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, and that the commission has entertained his complaint. I can do no more tonight than to take note of his concerns, and to await that adjudication.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Ten o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Permanent Secretaries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which permanent secretaries have left his Department's employment in the last five years, and which public positions they have been appointed to subsequently.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No permanent secretary has left the Lord Chancellor's Department's employment in the last five years.

  Career Breaks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many men and women applied for career breaks in his Department; and how many have had their employment terminated in the last five years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Details of how many men and women applied for a career break within the last five years were not recorded centrally until July 1994. Since then 20 applications have been made, two of which were refused. None of the 20 have had their employment terminated.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Service (Market Testing)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what evidence he has in support of the conclusion of the White Paper on the future of the civil service that market testing has created savings.

  Mr. Horam
  The evidence can he found in the "Market Testing Bulletin Special Report", published in January, which is available in the Library. The report includes full details of the results of the "Competing for Quality" programme—including market testing— to September 1994 and shows that Departments have now identified annual cost savings of over £400 million from a programme covering over £2 billion of Government services.

  Permanent Secretaries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which permanent secretaries have left his Department's employment in the last five years; and which public positions they have been appointed to subsequently.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In the five years from 1 March 1990, Sir Peter Kemp KCB, has left this Department's174
  employment as a permanent secretary, and Sir Peter Graham KCB QC and Sir Constant Henry de Waal, KCB, QC have left as first parliamentary counsels.

  Sir Peter Kemp has been subsequently appointed as a part-time commissioner with the Audit Commission.

  Women's Unit
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many staff are employed in the development unit for women in science and engineering located within the office of Science and Technology; what are its aims and objectives; and for how many years its funding is guaranteed.

  Mr. Horam
  The development unit on women in science, engineering and technology has a staff of two plus administrative support; its aims and objectives are outlined in the Government's response to the "Rising Tide" report; and its future will be reviewed after an initial period of two years.

  Technology Foresight
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what practical benefits to British industry have arisen from the technology foresight initiative.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Many—in particular in the medium to longer term.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  BBC
  Mr. Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the current calculation of the amount of money that the BBC will reallocate to the regions and what percentage that will be of the present level of spending on network productions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The BBC last year published plans for a gradual reallocation of expenditure on network production to regions outside London and south east England. This will be worth an additional £75 million a year by 1997–98, and represents an increase of 48 per cent. over 1993-94 expenditure of £155 million.

  Historic Government Buildings
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to improve the care of historic Government buildings.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government committed themselves in 1992 to a nine-point plan for the care of historic buildings on their own estate. This provides for regular inspection and maintenance of these buildings and an annual report by my Department's conservation unit on their condition. I am today publishing, for the first time, the conservation unit's report.

  I am also issuing today new guidance to Departments on the disposal of surplus historic buildings. This follows from the "Efficiency Scrutiny of the Management of the Government Estate," published last year, which identified the need for guidance on the particular considerations arising in respect of the disposal of historic properties,

  175
  over and above those applying to disposals generally. The main emphasis of the guidance is that "best price" should not be the overriding concern when considering the disposal of a building. Rather, Departments should aim to obtain the best return for the taxpayer that is consistent with Government policies for the protection of historic buildings and areas.

  I am placing copies of both documents in the Library.

  Pink Pound
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the significance of the pink pound to Britain's tourism and leisure industry.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None.

  Permanent Secretaries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which permanent secretaries have left his Department's employment in the last three years; and which public positions they have been appointed to subsequently.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Mr. Hayden Phillips was appointed as permanent secretary to my Department when it was created in April 1992. Mr. Phillips is still in post.

  ITV Companies
  Mr. Graham Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what information he collects on the amounts ITV companies are spending on new British programmes and on dividends to shareholders.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Such information is not collected by Government. These are commercial matters for ITV companies, acting within the terms of their licences.

  Planning and Management Systems
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what system of planning and management information systems is currently in place in his Department; and what documents pertaining to it are available to(a) hon. Members and (b) the public.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department prepares internal business and forward management plans, and the many bodies which my Department funds produce business and strategic plans, some of which are published. The DNH annual report, containing the Department's expenditure plans, is prepared each year as part of the series of departmental reports presented to Parliament. It is published and available to the public through HMSO bookshops.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what changes he is making to his Department's planning and management information systems in the light of the fundamental expenditure review of the Department and the recommendations of the multi-departmental efficiency scrutiny of such systems.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Neither of these reviews has yet reported. I will consider any action I wish to take when they do so.

  Children's Play
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he intends to announce plans for a national framework for children's play.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Eltham, (Mr. Bottomley) on 2 March,Official Report, column 640.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to fund the National Voluntary Council for Children's Play in 1995–96.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department currently has no budget for children's play. I understand that the NVCCP has submitted an application to the Sports Council's Trust Company for an extension of its present grant into the 1995–96. In relation to funding for children's play from October 1995, I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 2 March,Official Report, column 640.

  National Lottery
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much money will be made available from national lottery funds to sports clubs, including football clubs.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 7 March 1995]: Twenty per cent. of the net proceeds from the national lottery will be made available to sport and distributed through the four national sports councils. This amount currently stands at around £48 million. It will be for the sports councils themselves to decide which projects should receive funding, based on the applications they receive.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which listed buildings in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland are deemed eligible for financial assistance towards the cost of renovation by Historic Scotland from moneys obtained from the national lottery; what criteria are used to assess such applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 6 March 1995]: Repairs to historic buildings throughout the United Kingdom are eligible for lottery funding directly from the National Heritage Memorial fund—NHMF—if they fulfil the criteria set down within the "Guidelines for Applicants to the Heritage Lottery Fund" published by the trustees of the NHMF, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Repairs to historic buildings within the care of Historic Scotland itself are similarly eligible for lottery funding from the NHMF.

  Scratch Lottery
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made on the impact of the income of football pools and society lotteries on the introduction by Camelot of a scratch lottery.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 7 March 1995]: National lottery instant win games have not yet been introduced. It will be for the football pools companies and the promoters of society lotteries, in the first instance, to assess any impact which the introduction of such games may have on their income.

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what items of correspondence were received by Ministers in his Department from Messrs Ian Greer Associates in the last month.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 28 February 1995]: In the last month Ministers in my Department have received one such item of correspondence.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the items for which the issuing of export licences was withheld on the recommendation of the reviewing committee on the export of works of art during the half year ended 31 December, specifying in each case the valuation and whether any item was exported or retained, with particulars in the latter event of the acquiring institution; and if he will list any items for which licences have been withheld but the final disposal of which is not yet decided, specifying in each case(a) the valuation and (b) the relevant time limit.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 19 January 1995]: The information is as Follows:-

  Description of item

  Valuation £

  Outcome

  A drawing, 'Two Horsemen Fighting' dated 1620–30 by Giovanni Francesco Barbieri, called II Guercino

  147,807

  Export licence granted.

  The Narcissus Washstand designed by William Burges c.1865–67

  250,000

  Acquired by the Cecil Higgins Trust.

  An autograph working manuscript of 21 keyboard pieces, by Henry Purcell, c. 1680–1690

  281,137.50

  Acquired by the Trustees of the British Library.

  A Ceremonial bronze dirk, middle Bonze Age 1500–1350 BC, From Oxborough, Norfolk

  52,050

  Acquired by the Trustees of the British Museum.

  A carved Narwhal ivory horn from the mid 12th century

  448,762.50

  Decision Further deferred until after 18 March 1995.

  A painting, 'The Painter's Room', by Lucien Freud, dated 1943

  515,812.50

  Decision deferred until after 1 April 1995.

  An arithmetical Rotula

  46,462.50

  Under consideration by the Secretary of State.

  The Stanhope Calculator

  247,612.50

  Under consideration by the Secretary of State.

  Materials relating to Stanhope's Demonstrator

  46,462.50

  Under consideration by the Secretary of State.

  A sculpture by Henry Moore, 'Head and Shoulders' (1927–28)

  475,000

  Decision deferred until after 6 April 1995.

  A bust of Thomas Hollis by Joseph Wilton, c. 1700

  400,000

  Export licence granted.

  A painting, 'Daniel and Cyrus before the Idol Bel' by Rembrandt dated 1633

  4,800,000

  Export licence granted.

  178

  Description of item

  Valuation £

  Outcome

  A drawing, 'Samson and Delilah' by Giovanni Francesco Barbieri, called II Guercino

  76,425.82

  Export licence granted.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Permanent Secretaries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which permanent secretaries have left his Department's employment in the last five years; and which public positions they have been appointed to subsequently.

  Mr. Howard
  Sir Clive Whitmore retired from the Home Office as permanent secretary within the period covered by the question. He has not been appointed to any position by Ministers.

  Mr. John Shaw
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to respond to Mr. John Shaw of 33 Bellpit close, Worsley in the matter of pension entitlement from Crown service overseas.

  Mr. Howard
  It has not been possible to trace any correspondence from Mr. John Shaw on the matter of pension entitlement from Crown service overseas. I have asked my officials to write to Mr. Shaw asking him to write in again, or to send a copy of his original letter, and the matter will then receive early attention.

  Offenders in the Community
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to publish the 1995 "National Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community".

  Mr. Howard
  I shall publish tomorrow the 1995 "National Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community" jointly with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Wales and simultaneously will place copies in the Library.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total annual cost to public funds of housing in detention all those seeking asylum.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The available information does not identify separately those costs which relate to asylum seekers.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the cost per detainee per year for each of the establishments in which those who are seeking asylum in the United Kingdom are detained.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The overall cost of detaining a person in detention accommodation for which the Immigration Service is responsible is currently estimated at £540 per week including full Immigration Service staffing costs. This would equate to £28,080 in a year but
  179
  detention for this period would be most unusual. Figures for individual centres are not kept separately. Some people are detained under powers in the Immigration Act 1971 in Prison Service establishments, where the average cost per place in 1993–94 was £411 per week–£21,372 per year–but these figures exclude headquarters staffing costs.

  Ethnic Minorities (Police)
  Mr. Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the relationship between black people and the police; and what plans he has to improve it.

  Mr. Maclean
  The police service and the Government are committed to developing positive relationships between the police and all sections of the community, including minority ethnic groups. Measures taken to meet the needs of these communities include a statutory requirement for consultation with the community; the introduction of ethnic monitoring of police activity; the establishment of the inter-departmental racial attacks group and other activities in police forces to deal with racial violence; provision of a range of training in community and race relations; force recruitment campaigns aimed at encouraging ethnic minority candidates to apply to join the police; and improved grievance procedures against allegations of discrimination within police forces.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many court reports were completed by the north east London probation service during 1992 and 1993;

  (2) how many offenders were supervised by the north east London probation service on 30 June 1994.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) on 28 February 1995 (column 539).

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are employed and at what grade by the north east London probation service on 30 June 1992, 30 June 1993 and 30 June 1994.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on 6 March 1995 at column 31.

  Combat 18
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what evidence he has of the activities of Combat 18 amongst supporters of Chelsea football club;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the role of the British National party and Combat 18 in the disturbances in Bruges on 27 and 28 February.

  Mr. Maclean
  Responsibility for gathering information about extremist organisations and their members, and for the investigation of specific criminal offences, rests with the police. I understand from the police that there is no evidence that Combat 18 is itself involved amongst the supporters of Chelsea football club, although some of those who associate with the supporters may have sympathies with this group. Neither is there evidence to suggest that the BNP or Combat 18 were involved in the disturbances in Bruges on 27 and 28 February.

  Dangerous Dogs Act
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Dangerous Dogs Act is kept under continuing review in the light of how it works, including consideration of the points made in the private Peer's Bill currently before another place.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the section 11 allocations made for each local authority in 1994–95.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Allocations to individual authorities are subject to adjustment from time to time in the light of a change in circumstances—for example, when a school or college opts to set up a separate project. The following table shows the current allocations for the 1994–95 financial year.

  Authority

  Home Office cash allocations

  Avon

  615,251

  Barking and Dagenham

  230,860

  Barnet

  748,243

  Bedfordshire

  2,361,022

  Berkshire

  1,053,875

  Bexley

  100,138

  Birmingham

  4,035,694

  Blackburn

  49,539

  Bolton

  880,505

  Bradford

  4,204,150

  Brent

  1,742,385

  Buckinghamshire

  1,095,250

  Burnley

  18,774

  Bury

  354,547

  Calderdale

  853,361

  Cambridgeshire

  976,563

  Camden

  1,111,346

  Cardiff

  7,888

  Cheshire

  73,862

  Cleveland

  479,638

  Coventry

  2,108,375

  Croydon

  949,775

  Derbyshire

  1,046,415

  Devon

  11,949

  Doncaster

  100,338

  Dudley

  877,198

  Durham

  119,090

  Ealing

  2,615,675

  East Sussex

  139,412

  Enfield

  1,058,164

  Essex

  25,755

  Gateshead

  22,732

  Gloucester

  28,983

  Gloucestershire

  265,008

  Greenwich

  1,329,673

  Gwent

  192,662

  Hackney

  3,147,620

  Hammersmith

  713,289

  Hampshire

  558,367

  Haringey

  2,604,874

  Harrow

  556,992

  Havering

  36,169

  Hereford and Worcester

  175,235

  Hertfordshire

  1,492,311

  Hillingdon

  317,055

  Hounslow

  1,389,502

  Humberside

  275,863

  Hyndburn

  17,860

  181

  Authority

  Home Office cash allocations

  Islington

  1,434,673

  Kensington and Chelsea

  899,845

  Kent

  1,095,957

  Kingston

  105,071

  Kirklees

  2,394,143

  Lambeth

  1,085,102

  Lancashire

  4,629,966

  Leeds

  1,725,338

  Leicester

  115,597

  Leicestershire

  3,013,512

  Lewisham

  1,637,467

  Lincolnshire

  61,319

  Liverpool

  165,185

  London Boroughs Grants Unit

  123,071

  Manchester

  2,222,999

  Merton

  490,246

  Newcastle

  303,140

  Newham

  2,181,976

  Norfolk

  68,285

  Northamptonshire

  663,758

  North Tyneside

  115,586

  North Yorkshire

  49,312

  Nottingham

  61,435

  Nottinghamshire

  1,519,199

  Oldham

  1,909,961

  Oxford

  3,322

  Oxfordshire

  684,260

  Preston

  12,834

  Redbridge

  918,005

  Redditch

  12,971

  Richmond

  56,225

  Rochdale

  1,193,213

  Rotherham

  327,313

  St. Albans

  18,105

  St. Helens

  14,043

  Salford

  47,498

  Sandwell

  1,228,775

  Scunthorpe

  16,103

  Sheffield

  1,697,662

  Number of Prosecutions and convictions under the Intoxicating Substances (Supply)Act 19851, 1985–1993

  England and Wales

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Prosecutions

  —

  6

  15

  7

  12

  7

  8

  5

  5

  Convictions

  —

  2

  11

  4

  9

  4

  6

  3

  3

  1 Came into force August 1985.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish the compliance cost assessment for the draft data protection directive as it applies to the United Kingdom(a) as regards the 1992 draft and (b) the draft agreed at the latest Council of Minsters meeting;

  (2) if he will state the categories of paper records to which the draft data protection directive now applies; and what estimate he has made of the costs which this provision will impose on British businesses.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  A paper showing the results of a survey of the estimated cost of implementing the 1992 draft of the directive in the United Kingdom has been made publicly available. A copy of this paper was placed in the Library of the House last year. We have as yet made no estimate of the cost of implementing the present
  182

  Authority

  Home Office cash allocations

  Shropshire

  84,104

  Southampton

  11,422

  Southwark

  1,955,157

  South Glamorgan

  444,978

  South Yorkshire FCDA

  12,751

  Staffordshire

  924,043

  Stockport

  76,079

  Suffolk

  237,235

  Sunderland

  87,284

  Surrey

  291,845

  Sutton

  46,902

  Tameside

  585,940

  Tower Hamlets

  6,826,782

  Trafford

  242,981

  Wakefield

  296,729

  Walsall

  1,579,939

  Waltham Forest

  1,585,015

  Wandsworth

  1,369,800

  Warwickshire

  785,021

  West Midlands FCDA

  65,241

  Westminster

  1,498,548

  West Sussex

  212,623

  West Yorkshire FCDA

  95,651

  Wigan

  44,078

  Wiltshire

  121,565

  Wirral

  75,839

  Wolverhampton

  1,575,008

  Intoxicating Substances
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought in each year since the passing of the Intoxicating Substances Supply Act 1985; and how many have been successful.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1985 to 1993 is given in the table. 1994 data will not be available until the autumn 1995.

  draft of the directive, although the improvements made to the directive, as set out in my reply to my hon. Friend on 23 February at column 332, mean that the costs involved are now likely to be significantly lower.

  In its application to paper records, the draft directive covers personal data which form or are intended to form part of a filing system. Within certain parameters, it is for member states to decide what constitutes a filing system for the purposes of applying the directive. Determining the precise definition to use, in consultation with business and other interests which will be affected, will be an important part of the process of implementing the directive.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy
  183
  of the good practice guidelines to local authorities and police authorities on the use of closed circuit television in public places.

  Mr. Maclean
  A copy of the Home Office publication "CCTV—Looking Out for You" has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the home Department if he will list(a) all local authorities and (b) all police authorities, indicating joint ventures, operating closed circuit television schemes in public places and give the total capital cost per scheme and annual operating cost per scheme.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected centrally. A list of some towns believed to be operating

  Research Project/Publication

  Institution/Research body/Author

  Cost

  Date of completion

  The Impact of Closed Circuit Television on Crime in the London Underground—Home Office Research Study No. 49

  Home Office; Research and Planning Unit

  Not available

  1978

  Close Circuit Television in Public Places—Crime Prevention Unit Paper No. 35

  T. Honess and E. Charman of Michael and Associates, Cardiff, for the Home Office Police Research Group

  £48,376

  Summer 1992

  Before and after research into the effectiveness of CCTV within Birmingham city centre

  T. Honess and E. Charman of Michael and Associates, Cardiff, for the Home Office Police Research Group

  £20,536

  results to be published Summer 1995

  Understanding public car parks, crime and CCTV: evaluation lessons from Safer Cities— Crime Prevention Unit Paper No. 42

  Nick Tilley of Nottingham University, consultant to the Home Office Crime Prevention Unit

  £12,000

  1993

  Town centre CCTV schemes: four case studies

  Home Office Police Research Group

  £ 10,000

  Summer 1995

  Effectiveness of CCTV security systems

  Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch

  £200,000 over 5 years

  April 1997

  Overseas Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions take place when an overseas prisoner sentenced for crimes committed in the United Kingdom is returned to his country of origin to complete the remainder of his sentence as to the date of the release of such a person from prison.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 8 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the consultation that takes place concerning prisoners' release dates when prisoners are returned to their country of origin to complete their sentences.
  The transfer of prisoners between the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions is governed by the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 and international agreements. These require that both jurisdictions concerned and the prisoner seeking repatriation, consent to any transfer. In considering repatriation requests made by prisoners here, the foreign jurisdiction is required to provide information as to how the remaining balance of a prisoner's sentence would be administered and release determined following transfer. If both jurisdictions then consent to the prisoner's transfer, this information is communicated to the prisoner in seeking his or her consent. A prisoner transferred to a foreign jurisdiction receives full credit for
  184
  CCTV schemes is included at appendix 2 to the Home Office guidance booklet "CCTV— Looking Out for You", but it is not necessarily comprehensive. Costs are a matter for the individual operators. I have arranged for a copy of the booklet to be sent to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of all Home Office research projects examining the effectiveness of CCTV in public places in reducing crime levels indicating the institution, research body or individual responsible for the project, the cost per project and date of completion or expected date of completion.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is contained in the following table.

  all time spent in custody here relating to completion of sentence prior to the transfer, including any remand time. Following transfer, the remaining balance of time to serve attracts the early release arrangements of the foreign jurisdiction.

  Videos
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the sale of videos giving instructions on the use of explosives and on techniques for killing humans; and what response he has given.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received three letters from Members of Parliament and two letters from the public in the last 12 months about the supply of instructional videos that show the use of explosives and criminal techniques. Under the Video Recordings Act 1984 these works were exempt from classification by the British Board of Film Classification—BBFC—and their unclassified supply was not therefore unlawful. We have, however, taken action in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to ensure that all video works which depict techniques likely to be useful in the commission of offences or, which to any significant extent, depict criminal activity which is likely to any significant extent to stimulate or encourage the commission of offences, are subject to classification by the BBFC. The BBFC may of course withhold a
  185
  classification certificate should it consider it appropriate to do so, particularly bearing in mind the statutory criteria set out in the Act which the board has to take into account when classifying works. Once the relevant provisions come into force anyone supplying a work in respect of which a certificate has been refused would be liable to prosecution.

  Private Clegg
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, column 223, if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which a journalist interviewed Private Clegg at Wakefield prison using an assumed name; and what actions he is taking to prevent such incidents taking place.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 8 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what action has been taken following the interview of Private Lee Clegg at Wakefield prison by a journalist.
  Mr. Clegg's visitors are now required to produce satisfactory evidence of their identity before they are allowed to visit him.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of the market testing exercise in connection with his Department's data processing work.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The estimated cost of conducting the market test of the Home Office's administrative information technology services division was £1,565,000. Estimated average annual savings arising from this market test are about £4.8 million or a saving of about 30 per cent. of the cost of comparable IT services under the former arrangements.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to privatise the police national computer; if he will list those bodies with whom he has recently discussed this topic; and what assessment he has made of(a) the advantages and (b) the disadvantages of privatising the computer.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are no plans for the privatisation of the police national computer— PNC2—which is housed at the Hendon data centre. But the Government continue to believe that it will in the longer term be beneficial to market test the operation of the police national computer service, with a view to contracting out its delivery while maintaining the ownership, control, and use of the records it contains in the hands of the police service. For the reasons given in my reply to a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) on 8 February at columns 254–55, the current market test of the Hendon data centre will not proceed to competitive tendering at present. The position will be reviewed in about 18 months' time, when the requirement for the third generation computer—PNC3—which will eventually replace the current installation, becomes clearer.
  186
  Recent discussions on these matters have been held with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland), and the local authority associations under the aegis of the tripartite Police Information Services Board, which is the management board for the police national computer; and further discussions with the Hendon data centre trade union side have been arranged.

  Data Processing
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the ongoing cost to his Department of monitoring the current costs relating to the contract for his Department's data processing work.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The total costs of managing the contract for information technology services provided by Sema Group plc are about £420,000 a year. They reflect the separation of purchaser and provider roles in the Department and would have been incurred whoever had won the market test for information technology services. Estimated average annual savings arising from this market test are about £4.8 million or a saving of about 30 per cent. of the cost of comparable IT services under the former arrangements.

  Warwickshire Police Authority
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria were used by him to assess the suitability of members of the new Warwickshire police authority when he considered the deletion of names from the list supplied to him.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: I exercised my judgment as to who were the best candidates for appointment using the criteria of the qualities listed in the information for applicants for these appointments: good communication and financial skills; the ability to challenge accepted views in a constructive way; the ability to represent a wide range of people in the community and have an understanding of their policing needs and the pressure and challenges which face the police themselves; and possession of skills and experience which would broaden the expertise available to the police authority.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many names he himself deleted from the list supplied by the local nominating panel for the new Warwickshire police authority.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: Ten.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with whom he consulted about deleting any of the names supplied by the nominating panel for the new Warwickshire police authority; and with which hon. Members he held discussions about the nominations to the Warwickshire police authority.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: The Home Office Whip was consulted. Ministers did not hold discussions with any hon. Members.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many names were supplied to him by the nominating panel for the new Warwickshire police authority; and how many he deleted from the list.
  187
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 27 February 1995]: The selection panel for Warwickshire police authority supplied 20 names to me, which I reduced to ten for further consideration by the councillor and magistrate members of the authority.

  Police Statistics
  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) each constabulary in the east midlands; and how many were serving in 1979.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 7 March 1995]: Information on those police forces in which I understand the hon. Member is interested is set out in the table. Information on England and Wales was given in the reply to his question on 1 March at column 575.

  I Police officer strength

  Forces

  11979

  11994

  Derbyshire

  1,757

  1,793

  Leicestershire

  1,701

  1,838

  Lincolnshire

  1,167

  1,208

  Northamptonshire

  926

  1,171

  Nottinghamshire

  2,125

  2,331

  1 As at 31 December.

  II Civilian staff strength

  Forces

  11979

  11994

  Derbyshire

  646

  624

  Leicestershire

  362

  687

  Lincolnshire

  312

  504

  Northamptonshire

  249

  464

  Nottinghamshire

  535

  870

  1 As at 31 December.

ENVIRONMENT

  Birds
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the number of applications his Department received for the sale of birds listed in appendix 1 of CITES and appendix C I of EC regulation 3626/82, and how many such birds were sold in the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) what estimate his Department has made of the number of bird species and the number of individual birds currently held in captivity in the United Kingdom which are listed in appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, and appendix CI of EC regulation 3626/82.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In 1994 my Department received 1,276 individual applications to sell specimens of bird species listed on appendix I of CITES, or annex C1 of EC regulation 3626/82. Exemptions were subsequently issued permitting the sale of 1,958 birds. My Department has no estimate of the number of species or specimens in this category which are currently held in captivity.

  Westminster City Council
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he last met the officers and the 188
  councillors of Westminster city council to discuss the district auditor's interim report.

  (2) when he or any of his predecessors have met the hon. member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) and the right hon. member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) to discuss (a) Westminster city council's designated sales policy and (b) the district auditor's report on the designated sales policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  So far as I am aware, no such meetings have taken place. These are matters for the local authority and their appointed auditor.

  Stellar's Sea Eagle
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the number of licences his Department has issued in each of the past two years for the importation of Stellar's sea eagle; if he will indicate the countries of origin and whether the birds were captive-bred; and if he will list the criteria that have to be met before a licence can be issued for the importation of Stellar's sea eagle.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In the last two years my Department has issued one permit allowing the import of two specimens of Stellar's sea eagle. The birds were taken from the wild in Russia.

  The criteria that have to be satisfied before an import permit can be issued are set out in article III of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and are that:
  the import will be for purposes which are not detrimental to the survival of the species involved;
  the proposed recipient of a living specimen is suitably equipped to house and care for it; and
  the specimen is not to be used for primarily commercial purposes.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he expects the case of Southport to be referred to and considered by the Local Government Commission;

  (2) when he expects those metropolitan areas which have expressed a strong desire for a change in the structure of local government to be referred to and considered by the Local Government Commission.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We intend to consider directing the commission to conduct boundary reviews of metropolitan areas alongside, and in the light of, any individual district structure reviews that may be required following my right hon. Friend's announcement on 2 March,Official Report, col. 1183.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money was allocated to the educational components of the single regeneration budget in the successful local authority bids; and what he estimates to be the change in level of funding for section type projects transferred to the single regeneration budget.

  Mr. Curry
  Some 135 of the 201 approved bids from successful single regeneration budget partnerships are expected to include educational components. The SRB provides flexible financial support towards the overall
  189
  cost of approved schemes. The amount of money likely to be spent on particular components, of what are generally multi-faceted bids, is therefore not available.

  The Government are providing £83 million in 1995–96 across the country for new and existing schemes under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 which assist minority ethnic communities overcome linguistic and cultural barriers. All the projects transferred to the single regeneration budget will continue to be funded for their planned lifetimes.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make an announcement about the spending plans of his Department, Ordnance Survey and the Office of Water Services for the years 1995–96 to 1997–98.

  Mr. Gummer
  Yes. I have today published the Department of the Environment's annual report for 1995. This sets out in detail the outcome of the public expenditure survey announced in the November 1994 Budget Statement as it affects the areas of my responsibility. The report provides an overview of how my Department, Ordnance Survey and Ofwat have discharged their functions over the past year. It provides background to each spending programme and sets out our plans for the future.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will set out the amounts of the council tax which are currently owing to the Harrogate borough council and each of the other district councils in North Yorkshire.

  (2) if he will set out the amounts of community charge which are currently owing to the Harrogate borough council and each of the other district councils in North Yorkshire.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Information on uncollected community charge and council tax for each local authority

  Table 1—Interest rates and control totals

  Interest receipts element in the All Other Services block

  Interest receipts element in the Capital Financing block

  Notional interest rate Per cent.

  National control total £million

  Notional interest rate Per cent.

  National control total £ million

  1993–94

  10.4

  –525.8

  9.9

  –301.0

  1994–95

  5.9

  –432.4

  9.2

  222.0

  1995–96

  5.4

  –351.0

  9.1

  –237.0

  The interest rate used for the interest receipts element in the all other services block is the average LIBOR short-term interest rate. The rate used for the capital

  Table 2: Interest receipt SSA elements for County Councils

  All other services block

  Capital Financing block

  Local Authority

  1993–94 £Million

  1994–95£million

  1995–96 £million

  1993–94£million

  1994–95£million

  1995–96£million

  Avon

  -7.410

  -6.027

  -4.446

  -0.757

  -0.840

  -0.865

  Bedfordshire

  -4.761

  -3.881

  -2.844

  -0.470

  -0.513

  -0.525

  Berkshire

  -6.176

  -5.054

  -3.786

  -0.760

  -0.828

  -0.859

  Buckinghamshire

  -5.419

  -4.486

  -3.248

  -0.847

  -0.920

  -0.934

  190
  is not available centrally. However, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy regularly publish estimates for individual authorities: figures for 31 March 1994 are available in its "Revenue Collection Statistics 1993–94" publication and are as follows:

  Community charge arrears (£000)

  Council tax arrears (£)

  Craven

  752

  302

  Hambleton

  618

  467

  Harrogate

  4,288

  1,261

  Richmondshire

  1,234

  254

  Ryedale

  671

  413

  Scarborough

  2,144

  2,811

  Selby

  n/a

  n/a

  York

  2,783

  866

  The figures for Selby were not published by CIPFA.

  Mr. Rendell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the assumed rate of interest for 1995–96 in respect of local authorities' assumed interest receipts; and what were the corresponding figures for 1993–94 and 1994–95;

  (2) what is the control total for the interest receipts element of the standard spending assessments for 1995–96;

  (3) what is the assumed amount of interest receipts for each county council for 1995– 96; and what were the corresponding figures for 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 6 March 1995]: Interest receipts appear in both the all other services and the capital financing SSA elements. The former element includes allowance for interest which local authorities might earn on cash balances, reserves and usable receipts; the latter an allowance for interest which could be earned on reserved receipts–the portion of a capital receipt which has to be set aside as provision for credit liabilities.

  Table 1 shows the interest rates used for each SSA element for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96, together with the national control totals. Table 2 shows the assumed amounts for each county council.

  financing element is an average of short and long-term interest rates.
  191

  Table 2: Interest receipt SSA elements for County Councils

  All other services block

  Capital Financing block

  Local Authority

  1993–94£million

  1994–95£million

  1995–96£million

  1993–94£million

  1994–95£million

  1995–96£million

  Cambridgeshire

  -5.084

  -4.221

  -3.165

  -0.694

  -0.772

  -0.797

  Cheshire

  -7.498

  -6.160

  -4.597

  -0.947

  -1.058

  -1.128

  Clevelire

  -5.272

  -4.262

  -3.125

  -0.661

  -0.730

  -0.761

  Cornwall

  -3.664

  -3.040

  -2.308

  -0.586

  -0.643

  -0.658

  Cumbria

  -3.945

  -3.221

  -2.365

  -0.531

  -0.595

  -0.619

  Derbyshire

  -7.040

  -5.831

  -4.340

  -1.010

  -1.116

  -1.114

  Devon

  -7.944

  -6.526

  -4.947

  -0.986

  -1.096

  -1.132

  Dorset

  -4.797

  -3.943

  -2.995

  -0.612

  -0.678

  -0.689

  Durham

  -4.844

  -4.072

  -2.995

  -0.595

  -0.667

  -0.684

  East Sussex

  -5.524

  -4.529

  -3.421

  -0.768

  -0.853

  -0.910

  Essex

  -12.594

  -10.523

  -7.729

  -1.559

  -1.697

  -1.745

  Gloucestershire

  -4.050

  -3.289

  -2.482

  -0.563

  0.627

  -0.657

  Hampshire

  -12.037

  -9.909

  -7.285

  -1.529

  -1.697

  -1.795

  Hereford and Worcester

  -5.040

  -4.151

  -3.105

  -0.569

  -0.621

  -0.633

  Herefordshire

  -7.978

  -6.658

  -5.164

  -0.843

  -0.915

  -0.930

  Kent

  -7.400

  -5.998

  -4.439

  -0.985

  -1.086

  -1.106

  Lancashire

  -12.842

  -10.590

  -7.852

  -1.772

  -2.010

  -2.221

  Leicestershire

  -11.543

  -9.466

  -7.017

  -1.615

  -1.765

  -1.816

  Lincolnshire

  -7.348

  -5.942

  -4.428

  -0.969

  -1.052

  -1.068

  Norfolk

  -4.723

  -3.868

  -2.868

  -0.599

  -0.671

  -0.711

  Northamptonshire

  -5.713

  -4.724

  -3.503

  -0.669

  -0.749

  -0.781

  Northumberland

  -4.792

  -3.843

  -2.875

  -0.667

  -0.720

  -0.729

  North Yorkshire

  -2.327

  -1.958

  -1.582

  -0.319

  -0.362

  -0.389

  Nottinghamshire

  -5.251

  -4.336

  -3.282

  -0.690

  -0.776

  -0.915

  Oxfordshire

  -8.342

  -6.741

  -4.986

  -0.821

  -0.909

  -0.915

  Shropshire

  -4.272

  -3.557

  -2.633

  -0.421

  -0.476

  -0.503

  Somerset

  -3.156

  -2.590

  -1.949

  -0.499

  -0.557

  -0.581

  Staffordshire

  -3.535

  -2.907

  -2.147

  -0.486

  -0.541

  -0.558

  Suffolk

  -7.997

  -6.571

  -4.867

  -1.015

  -1.105

  -1.111

  Surrey

  -4.852

  -3.925

  -2.794

  -0.731

  -0.812

  -0.851

  Warwickshire

  -7.143

  -5.935

  -4.524

  -0.882

  -1.018

  -1.097

  West Sussex

  -3.637

  -2.977

  -2.197

  -0.361

  -0.401

  -0.413

  Wiltshire

  -5.324

  -4.480

  -3.361

  -0.596

  -0.642

  -0.651

  Isle of Wight CC

  -4.319

  -3.547

  -2.613

  -0.539

  -0.583

  -0.590

  Isle of Wight Council

  -1.014

  -0.843

  —

  -0.177

  -0.200

  —

  —

  —

  -0.969

  —

  —

  -0.882

  The 1995–96 figures do not include interest receipts in respect of shire police authorities. However, the figures for 1993–94 and 1994–95 for all shire countries, except Northumberland, contain an element in respect of police services since the SSA elements for police-related expenditure formed part of the county council SSA in those years.

  The figures for the Isle of Wight Council cover the whole Isle of Wight area.

  The interest receipts element in the capital financing block assumes that all reserved receipts are set aside to repay debt, ie no part of such receipts is used to repay debt early.

  Climate Change Programme
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the implications of the Department of Trade and Industry's new energy projections for the United Kingdom climate change programme.

  Mr. Gummer
  The new projections, announced today by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy, show that we can be confident of meeting our commitment under the climate change convention and that we now expect to exceed it, with emissions of carbon dioxide by the year 2001 significantly below 1990 levels.

  This achievement reflects the impact of the United Kingdom climate change programme which was published in January last year.

  In some areas we have exceeded our earlier expectations. In particular there has been a significant reduction in the carbon intensity of fuels used for electricity generation, through increased investment in combined cycle gas turbines and through improved performance of nuclear generation. This reflects the success of our policies of privatisation and continuing deregulation of the electricity and gas industries.
  192
  Some parts of the programme are not now expected to deliver as much as originally envisaged. In part this reflects the lower carbon intensity of the electricity displaced by some energy saving measures as a result of the success of the supply side changes. On VAT on domestic fuel and power, the 8 per cent. rate is now expected to contribute about 0.4 million tonnes of carbon—MtC—compared with the original estimate of I.5MtC at the full rate of VAT. In addition, the Energy Saving Trust is currently reviewing its plans. It estimates that the programme of activities already established and financed and will save about 0.3MtC. This compares with an assumption in the new projections that the EST would deliver I 6MtC by 2000, based on full delivery of the original target of 2.5MtC, adjusted for changes in carbon intensity of electricity displaced. The trust's further schemes will make additional contributions to the programme but are not yet established.

  Overall, it would be reasonable to adjust the projections by about 1 MtC to reflect these changes in the trust's plans, suggesting that carbon dioxide emissions will he 6–13 MtC below 1990 levels by 2000. This represents

  193
  savings of 16–24 MtC against the projections of which the climate change programme was based.

  While there have been some changes in the relative contributions expected from the various elements of the programme, the Government continue to be fully committed to the package of measures set out in the UK climate change programme, and will continue to seek further cost effective ways of reducing carbon emissions. My Department will publish an update to the CO2 chapter of the climate change programme as soon as possible, reporting progress on each of the measures.

  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new commitments on greenhouse gas emissions for the period beyond 2000 he will be proposing at the first conference of parties to the climate change convention.

  Mr. Gummer
  In our national programme under the climate change convention we made clear the need to begin now to look beyond 2000 at further steps which may need to be taken to combat the risk of climate change. We held a national conference last year to discuss the way ahead. This will be an important issue at the first conference of the parties to the convention, which takes place in Berlin at the end of this month.

  The countries of the European Union have led the way in calling for a decision at Berlin to begin negotiations on new commitments beyond 2000. We have said that Berlin should set in hand the negotiation of a protocol which should strengthen and extend the existing commitments.

  The EU has called on all developed country parties to take measures aimed at stabilising CO2 emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 and to work towards further steps to limit and reduce emissions of all greenhouse gases.

  At Berlin I shall therefore be calling on all OECD countries to accept this challenge recognising that, in order to encourage others to demonstrate their commitment to the convention, these countries must continue to take the lead. We cannot wait until the end of the century before deciding what to do next. Negotiations must start in Berlin towards agreeing new commitments which, using a comprehensive or "basket" approach, would aim at beginning to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions in developed countries below 1990 levels.

  Local Authority

  Allocation 1995–96(£000s)

  Related Units (1994–95)

  Allocation 1995–96(£00s)

  Related Units(1995–96)

  Barnsley

  1,445

  59

  875

  33

  Beverley

  812

  20

  409

  11

  Boothferry

  708

  25

  295

  12

  Bradford

  8,373

  280

  5,438

  212

  Calderdale

  3,067

  92

  1,206

  47

  Cleethorpes

  867

  31

  367

  17

  Craven

  711

  28

  187

  7

  Doncaster

  2,878

  122

  1,585

  70

  East Yorkshire

  1,149

  42

  425

  25

  Glanford

  609

  31

  305

  16

  Great Grimsby

  2,047

  88

  1,108

  51

  Hambleton

  520

  27

  382

  16

  Harrogate

  1.851

  79

  815

  31

  Holderness

  368

  28

  252

  15

  Kingston upon Hull

  3,959

  145

  1,843

  87

  Kirklees

  6,950

  231

  3,126

  116

  Leeds

  9,877

  461

  4,708

  231

  Richmondshire

  530

  26

  249

  11

  Rotherham

  1,076

  45

  578

  30

  Ryedale

  821

  38

  444

  22

  Scarborough

  1,851

  86

  553

  23

  Scunthorpe

  –

  –

  155

  10

  194
  The Government believe that developed countries should agree a new objective for the year 2010 to guide their commitment to adopt appropriate policies and measures. Agreement on a figure for total greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the range of 5 to 10 per cent. below 1990 levels would seem to be a credible and achievable next step for these countries to take, within the framework of the convention.

  This would represent a challenge set against the projections of likely growth in our economies over the next 15 years. But the UK would undertake to set in hand work on implementing policies and measures needed to achieve such an objective, assuming others could agree to do the same. The prompt and successful implementation of our existing commitments, and the continuing effects of the measures we have already taken, will put us in an excellent position to do so.

  Water and Sewerage Companies
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the director of the Office of Water Services about the pay and perks of directors and executives of the North West, Severn Trent and Yorkshire water and sewerage companies.

  Mr. Atkins
  None.

  Housing
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the sums(a) pledged to and (b) provided for housing associations to build new homes for rent in each local authority area in Yorkshire and Humberside in the latest available year, together with the number of such homes which will be built in 1995–96 and the number of applications on current housing lists in each area.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Allocations made to housing associations from the Housing Corporation's approved development programme at the start of 1994–95, and those for 1995–96, to build new homes for rent in Yorkshire and Humberside are as listed by local authority area.
  195

  Local Authority

  Allocation 1994–95(£000s)

  Related Units (1994–95)

  Allocation 1995–96(£000s)

  Related Units(1995–96)

  Selby

  743

  41

  370

  40

  Sheffield

  7,444

  291

  2,786

  121

  Wakefield

  2,861

  117

  1,126

  52

  York

  1,497

  72

  672

  42

  The number of households on local authority housing waiting lists in Yorkshire and Humberside on I April 1994 is given in section B of the "1994 HIP I All Items Print", a copy of which is in the Library.Data on housing associations waiting lists are not collected centrally.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the names of the authorities to be included in the programme for housing transfers by councils in 1995–96; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I am today announcing the names of the II authorities who will be able to proceed, on a voluntary basis and subject to the approval of their tenants, with proposals to transfers their housing stock to housing associations in 1995–96.

  I am pleased that it has been possible to include 11 authorities on the 1995–96 programme of large scale voluntary transfers which comprises nearly 47,000 dwellings valued at over £500 million.

  This is part of the Government's commitment to a continuing programme of transfers as means of generating private finance to repair and improve the condition of social housing and to increase the diversity and choice for tenants.

  The 11 authorities which have successfully gained a place on the 1995–96 programme, together with 12 recipient housing associations, are as follows:
  East Hampshire District Council (4,300 dwellings) to East Hampshire Housing Association;Eastleigh District Council (4,682 dwellings) to Eastleigh Housing Association;Hastings Borough Council (4,662 dwellings) to the Hastings and St Leonards Housing Associations;Kennet District Council (4,996 dwellings) to Sarsen Housing Association;Manchester City Council (1,460 dwellings) to Manchester and District Housing Association;North Wiltshire District Council (6,300 dwellings) to the North Wiltshire Housing Association;Purbeck District Council (1,860 dwellings) to Purbeck Housing Association;Rushmoor District Council (5,000 dwellings) to Rushmoor Housing Association;Spelthorne District Council (4,291 dwellings) to Spelthorne Housing Association;The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (3,236 dwellings) to Windsor and District Housing Association.The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (2,981 dwellings) to Maidenhead and District Housing Association;Wyre Borough Council (3,036 dwellings) to Wyre Housing Association.
  To date, 37 authorities have disposed of all or part of their stock to new landlords and three more are due to do so by the end of this financial year. I know that, in addition to the 11 authorities listed, other authorities are working up proposals to transfer. There will be opportunities to add these authorities to the 1995–96 programme if they make good progress with their proposals in the coming months.

  The Government's policy is that transfers should be housing associations which are registered with the Housing Corporation and which are independent of the council. Authorities owning more than 5,000 dwellings
  196
  will normally be required to split these between two or more new landlords. Transfers are to be wholly funded by private sector sources and the Secretary of State will consent to transfers only where the majority of tenants are not opposed to the idea.

  Permanent Secretaries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which permanent secretaries have left his Department's employment in the last five years; and which public positions they have been appointed to subsequently.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Sir Terry Heiser and Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield have retired as permanent secretaries in this Department in the five years from 1 March 1990. Ministers have appointed them to the following positions:

  Sir Terry Heiser to the trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum; Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield to continue as chairman of the sponsoring committee for the construction of the international cross channel gas interconnector. Sir Geoffrey has also carried out two internal management reviews; of the senior staffing of the Health and Safety Executive and of finance, planning and policy arrangements of the Royal Fine Arts Commission.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution the United Kingdom Government intend to make to the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. David Davis
  The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. It has established an international norm against the spread of nuclear weapons and provides for effective International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards to verify compliance. We are working hard to secure the treaty's indefinite and unconditional extension at he review and extension conference in April and May.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the achievement of an international agreement to eliminate all nuclear weapons is an objective of the United Kingdom Government.

  Mr. David Davis
  We are committed to article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, whereby we undertake to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
  197
  For our part, we have made a number of important changes to our nuclear forces: we have announced the elimination of our land and surface maritime tactical nuclear capability; we have substantially reduced the number of nuclear bombs carried by our aircraft, and we have decided that Trident will carry fewer warheads than originally envisaged. The overall effect of these changes will be that, when Trident is fully in service, the explosive power of the United Kingdom's entire operational nuclear inventory will have been reduced by more than 25 per cent. since 1990.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Indonesia about the arrest and subsequent treatment of East Timorese leader Xanana Gusmao; and when he next intends to raise this case with the Government of Indonesia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  With our EU partners, we made representations to the Government of Indonesia during the course of Xanana Gusmao's trial in 1993. We have urged the Indonesian Government to allow representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross regular access to him, and will continue to monitor developments in his case.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Indonesia about the arrest and subsequent treatment of Mr. Muchtar Pakpahan and Amosi Telaumbanua, of the Indonesian Welfare Labour Union; and when he next intends to raise these cases with the Government of Indonesia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The European Union expressed concern in a public statement on 22 November 1994 about Mr. Pakpahan's conviction and sentencing on 13 February 1995 about the increased sentences given to him and Mr. Telaumbanua on appeal. With other EU embassies in Jakarta, we will continue to monitor their situation.

  Harjit Singh
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the report of the hearing on 28 January into the case of Harjit Singh has now been prepared by his officers in the high commission in New Delhi.

  Mr. Baldry
  At the 28 January hearing in the Harjit Singh case, a deputy superintendent of the Punjab police gave evidence. A senior police superintendent has since given evidence at hearings on 10 February and 3 March. The next hearing is due to take place on 11 March, when the police lawyer will give evidence. The case continues.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will press 198
  for restrictions on the international transportation of nuclear waste in discussions on the future of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. David Davis
  No. The international transport of nuclear waste resulting from civil nuclear activities is a matter for the commercial utilities. Provided that strict adherence is paid to international regulations governing safety of material and transportation, we would not interfere.

  East Timor
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 1994,Official Report, column 172, what were the exact dates that staff attached to the Jakarta embassy visited East Timor in November 1991.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The dates were 14 to 19 November.

  Vietnamese Refugees
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many refugees from Vietnam are still in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are currently 1,696 refugees from Vietnam in Hong Kong, as well as 21,802 Vietnamese migrants who have been screened out as non-refugees, and 120 Vietnamese migrants awaiting screening.

  Fee-paying Schools
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many officials in his Department have(a) children in fee-paying schools for whom Her Majesty's Government meet the bill because the officials are posted abroad and (b) children in fee-paying schools for whom Her Majesty's Government meet the bill after the officials have returned because their children remain in the school; and if he will detail the cost for the last three years for each of these two categories.

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1994–95(a) 278 officers serving overseas and (b) 184 officers serving in the United Kingdom, have children at fee-paying schools in the United Kingdom. Costs in these categories are as follows:

  £million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  a)

  3.97

  3.95

  4.13

  b)

  3.76

  3.93

  4.04

  The FCO does not meet the whole bill for each child. It makes a contribution towards basic fees but up to a ceiling based on the average fees of schools in the headmasters' conference.

  Permanent Secretaries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which permanent secretaries
  199
  have left his Department's employment in the last five years; and which public positions they have been appointed to subsequently.

  Mr. Baldry
  Lord Wright, Sir David Gillmore and Tim Lankester—ODA—have left this Department in the last five years from 1 March 1990. Ministers have not offered them any public appointments.

  Mr. Nick Leeson
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the German authorities in respect of denying access by the media to Mr. Nick Leeson.

  Mr. Baldry
  None. The German authorities have not denied access to Mr. Leeson by the media. Access is a matter for Mr. Leeson, his lawyer and the German police authorities.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent actions have been taken to promote the referendum on the future of the Western Sahara.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 6 March 1995]: The United Nations' identification commission is continuing the work of drawing up the voting list for the referendum in Western Sahara. UN Security Council resolution 973, adopted on 13 January this year, provided for an increase in the size of the identification commission. The UN sent a multi-disciplinary technical team to the area in February to plan the return of refugees, as provided for under the UN's settlement plan.

  Mexico
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings are held between representatives of Her Majesty's Government and different political parties in Mexico; and what monitoring is undertaken of human rights in the Chiapas region.

  Mr. David Davis
  [holding answer 6 March 1995]: Our embassy in Mexico City maintains close contact with the ruling political party and the main opposition parties of Mexico. They monitor human rights observance in the whole country, with particular attention to Chiapas at present.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are currently on invalidity benefit in Northern Ireland; what percentage of the population this represents; what the figures were in(a) 1979, (b) 1983 and (c) 1987; and if he will make a statement.
  200
  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is as follows:

  Invalidity Benefit Statistics

  Year

  Recipients

  Percentage Of Year Population

  1979

  29,330

  1.9

  1983

  33,935

  2.2

  1987

  40,840

  2.6

  1994

  71,275

  4.4

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce mobility allowance for those under the age of five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moss
  On 1 April 1992 mobility allowance was replaced by the mobility component of disability living allowance. There are no plans to extend the payment to children under five at present.

  Permanent Secretaries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which permanent secretaries have left his Department's employment in the last five years; and which public positions they have been appointed to subsequently.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Sir John Blelloch and Sir Kenneth Bloomfield have retired as permanent secretaries in the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments in the five years from I March 1990. Ministers have subsequently appointed them to the following positions:

  Sir John Blelloch
  Chairman of the Committee for Monitoring Tobacco Advertising and Sponsoring
  Chairman of the GB Committee of the NI Partnership.
  Member of the Prime Minister's Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.
  Member of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Public Records.
  Trustee of the RAF Museum.

  Sir Kenneth Bloomfield
  Member of Queen's University Senate.
  Member of the Law Reform Advisory Committee for NI.
  Non-Executive Director of Green Park Health and Social Services Trust.
  Chairman of NI Higher Education Council.

  Social Fund
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further adjustments he will make to the discretionary social fund budget in the current financial year.

  Mr. Moss
  The Northern Ireland social fund discretionary budget for 1994–95 will be increased as a result of continuing better than expected loan recoveries by the Social Security Agency and adjustments will he made to take account of pressures and easements in the budgets of a number of the agency's 11 districts.
  201
  The overall budget for loans will be increased by £230,000 while the budget for grants will be increased by £20,000, increasing the original allocations to£20,693,600 and £9,756,400 respectively. There will also be a small internal adjustment to the grants budgets for

  Social fund budget 1994–95: proposed revised allocations

  Loans

  Grants

  District

  Current allocation

  Additional February 1995

  Revised total

  Current allocation

  Reduction

  Additional February 1995

  Revised total

  Belfast North

  1,943,032

  25,000

  1,968,032

  959,544

  —

  —

  959,544

  Belfast south And Down

  1,813,183

  —

  1,813,183

  813,294

  —

  —

  813,294

  Belfast west

  2,349,324

  90,000

  2,439,324

  957,128

  —

  —

  957,128

  Central

  1,874,063

  55,000

  1,929,063

  920,545

  —

  20,000

  940,545

  East

  1,551,236

  —

  1,551,236

  790,586

  —

  —

  790,586

  Laganbann

  1,656,630

  —

  1,656,630

  974,053

  —

  —

  974,053

  Mourne

  1,666,609

  —

  1,666,609

  827,611

  —

  —

  827,611

  North east

  1,681,632

  —

  1,681,632

  795,930

  30,000

  —

  765,930

  North west

  2,379,068

  30,000

  2,409,068

  925,935

  —

  —

  925,935

  South east Antrim

  1,735,170

  30,000

  1,765,170

  805,300

  —

  —

  805,300

  West

  1,813,653

  —

  1,813,653

  966,474

  —

  30,000

  996,474

  Total

  20,463,600

  230,000

  20,693,600

  9,736,400

  30,000

  50,000

  9,756,400

TRANSPORT

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many domestic properties are currently owned(a) by his Department, (b) by his Department's agencies and (c) by contractors working under his Department's directions; and what is the estimated value of this stock.

  Mr. Watts
  All domestic properties acquired in connection with my Department's activities are owned in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Day-to-day responsibility for properties purchased in connection with the trunk roads programme rests with the chief executive of the Highways Agency. At 1 March 1995 there were 4,038 such properties. The stock of properties held by the HA is being revalued on 1 April 1995 and I will write to my hon. Friend with this information as soon as it is available.

  A further eight domestic properties are held, in the name of the Secretary of State, by the Coastguard Agency. These properties are currently being valued as part of an overall asset valuation being undertaken by the agency and expected to be concluded in April.

  No properties are purchased by contractors on behalf of the Secretary of State.

  Driving Licences
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when and what measures he intends to introduce to give effect to the Council directive—91/439/EEC—on driving licences adopted in July 1991 to give effect to a separate theory testing as part of the driving test.

  Mr. Norris
  We shall he making an announcement shortly.
  202
  several districts to reflect variations in demand for assistance from the fund at local level.

  Details of the revised budgets have been placed in the Library.

  Light Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the LGV accident record on the Isle of Man following the introduction of the new law for instructors three years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has carried out in the last five years into the relationship between the HGV accident rate and the number of hours driven immediately before an accident.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department has commissioned research from the Transport Research Laboratory on sleep and driving. A composite report covering the accident involvement of heavy goods vehicle drivers in relation to sleep, together with sleepiness among male car drivers, is expected to be published by late May.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reduce the limit on the maximum length of working day permitted for HGV drivers.

  Mr. Norris
  European Community regulations set limits on HGV driving time and minimum requirements for daily and weekly rest periods which effectively limit the length of the driver's working day. Currently, we do not anticipate further changes.

  Permanent Secretaries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which permanent secretaries have left his Department's employment in the last five years; and which public positions they have been appointed to subsequently.
  203
  Mr. Norris
  Sir Alan Bailey retired as permanent secretary in this Department on 25 June 1991. He was appointed as a part-time member of the London Transport Board in December 1991.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish his consultation document on the future of the proposed east London river crossing.

  Mr. Norris
  Soon after Easter.

  Road Construction
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all major road construction projects carried out by(a) local authorities and (b) his Department in each year since 1979, giving their costs at 1995 prices.

  Mr. Watts
  My Department does not hold information requested on major road construction undertaken by local authorities.

  Details of all national road programme schemes completed since 1979 by the Department and the Highways Agency, are contained in roads White Papers and departmental reports which are held in the Library. Costs are quoted as estimated outturn prices and could be updated to 1995 prices only at disproportionate cost.

  Career Breaks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) men and (b) women applied for career breaks in his Department or its agencies; and how many have had their employment terminated in the last five years.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department does not keep a central record of applications for career breaks, but the Department's personnel information system records that in the last five years, 67 men and 716 women were given discretionary special leave with or without pay. This does not include those taking statutory maternity leave or staff on long-term sick leave, but does include those suspended. Of these, six have had their appointment terminated while on special leave.

  Trans-European Road Network
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport with which bodies he consulted in drawing up the UK master plan on(a) the trans-European road network and (b) the trans-European rail and combined transport network.

  Mr. Watts
  Consultations took place with:

  a) Local authority associations in England and the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, for Scotland and for Wales about the trans-European road network.

  b) British Rail, European Passenger Services, Railtrack and Northern Ireland Railways on railways.

  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what environmental and economic criteria he used to select schemes for inclusion in the trans-European road network.

  Mr. Watts
  The United Kingdom routes that the Government proposed for inclusion in the trans-European road network were put forward on the basis of their 204
  contribution to meeting the aims set out for trans-European networks in the treaty on European Union.

  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average net present value for schemes designated part of the United Kingdom trans-European road network.

  Mr. Watts
  It is not possible to provide an average net present value.

  Net present values are calculated separately for each scheme and are normally published when individual schemes reach the public consultation stage. Not all schemes on TERN routes have reached this stage.

  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has conducted into the indirect economic benefits to the United Kingdom of the UK section of the trans-European road network.

  Mr. Watts
  The trans-European transport network plans are still in draft form pending adoption by the Council and the European Parliament.

  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what estimates his Department has made of the cost of implementing the UK sections of(a) the trans-European road network, (b) the trans-European high-speed rail network, (c) the trans-European conventional rail network and (d) the trans-European combined transport network.

  Mr. Watts
  None. The network plans are still in draft form pending adoption by the Council and the European Parliament. The networks will, in any case, be indicative and place no obligation on member states to commit expenditure.

  Railtrack Access Changes
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what change he has made in the authorised charges to be made by Railtrack to train operating companies; what sums were previously expected to be received in total income and what sums are not expected; and what will he the effect of the difference in rail improvements and maintenance.

  Mr. Watts
  The Rail Regulator is responsible for approving the access charges levied by Railtrack. The regulator recently announced, following a review of Railtrack's access charges, that charges in 1995–96 should be, on average, 8 per cent. lower in real terms than their level in 1994–95. Thereafter, they will be reduced in real terms by 2 per cent. per annum. The regulator has stated that he considers that this level of income will generate sufficient cash flow to enable Railtrack to finance the investment programme needed to maintain a safe, effective and efficient network.

  Total access charges levied by Railtrack on franchised passenger train operators in 1994–95 were £2,065 million.

  Drive Programme
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to work with the EU in relation to its new Drive programme to develop an integrated road transport environment in the UK and Europe.

  Mr. Watts
  The Department of Transport has worked closely with the European Commission to design, build and manage both the previous phases of the Drive programme. We have helped the Commission to put
  205
  together the work plan for the next programme; where appropriate, we are supporting and joining consortia bidding to undertake the work; we are offering to help the Commission in its evaluation process; and we intend to participate fully in the arrangements that the Commission is making to monitor and manage the new programme itself.

  Chideock-Morcombe Lake Bypass
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he expects to announce his decision on the A35 Chideock-Morcombe lake bypass; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he expects to receive the inspector's report into the public inquiry on the A35 Chideock-Morcombe lake bypass.

  Mr. Watts
  The timing of an announcement will be subject to the receipt of the inspector's report, and the need for the Secretaries of State to give careful consideration to the inspector's conclusions and recommendations.

  I understand that the inspector expects to be able to submit his report to the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport by the middle of the year.

  Road Pricing
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent research his Department has undertaken into the concept of road pricing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  A major research project into the implications of introducing congestion charging in London is nearing completion. The findings will be made public later this year. My Department has also provided some financial support for research by local authorities outside London.

  Particulate Pollution
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Department of Health concerning the number of early deaths from particulate pollution.

  Mr. Norris
  Particulate emissions are currently being considered by a sub-group of the Department of Health's Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants which was set up to advise Government on the effects on health of air pollutants both in outdoor and indoor air. My officials are fully involved with COMEAP.

PRIME MINISTER

  National Service
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the number of people who have performed national service(a) in each of the armed services, (b) in the Merchant Navy and (c) comparable service for the National Coal Board.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is not available.

  Internet
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards encouraging party political debate on the Internet.

  The Prime Minister
  Her Majesty's Government are all in favour of a full and frank political debate on the Internet or in any other forum.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford); and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement regarding manufacturing employment.

  The Prime Minister
  In the quarter to December 1994, employment in manufacturing industry rose by 37,000 the largest rise since quarterly records began.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what legislative measures he will introduce to increase the number of unemployed young people who enter training programmes.

  Mr. Paice
  There are no legislative measures planned for this purpose. The Government are committed to increasing the range of options in education and training available to young people and increasing the level of advice and guidance provided by the Careers Service.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will instigate a publicity campaign giving advanced warning to employers of the retrospective application of the workplace, signs and construction products directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Whenever European Community directives are implemented, appropriate publicity is given to the relevant implementing regulations. The workplace directive, safety signs directive and construction products directive are at different stages of implementation. In no case do the regulations apply retrospectively.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the impact on small businesses of the workplace, signs and construction products directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  A cost benefit analysis or compliance cost assessment is prepared in respect of all new regulations implementing European Community directives. The workplace directive, safety signs directive and construction products directive are at different stages of implementation. In each case assessments have been made of the likely costs of the relevant regulations.

  Permanent Secretaries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which permanent secretaries have left his Department's employment in the last five years; and which public positions they have been appointed to subsequently.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Sir Geoffrey Holland transferred from the Employment Department to the Department for Education on 13 January 1993.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what items of correspondence were received by Ministers in the Overseas Development Administration from Messrs Ian Greer Associates in the last month.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 28 February 1995]: One invitation to meet business men was received and accepted.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Permanent Secretaries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney General which permanent secretaries have left his Department's employment in the last five years; and which public positions they have been appointed to subsequently.

  The Attorney-General
  Sir James Nursaw KCB, QC retired as Treasury Solicitor in October 1992. He was part-time legal adviser to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission during 1992–93 and is currently part-time counsel to the Chairman of Committees (House of Lords).

  Sir Allan Green QC resigned as Director of Public Prosecutions in October 1991. He has not been appointed to any public positions.

EDUCATION

  Permanent Secretaries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which permanent secretaries have left her Department's employment in the last five years; and which public positions they have been appointed to subsequently.

  Mr. Boswell
  In the five years from I March 1990, Sir John Caines KCB and Sir Geoffrey Holland KCB have left the Department for Education. Sir John Caines has since been appointed as an advisor to the National Heritage memorial fund and a council member of the Open university. Sir Geoffrey Holland has not been appointed by Ministers to any public positions.

  School Funding
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 3 March,Official Report, column 775, concerning priorities in educational expenditure, if she will publish the text of the letters she has sent to her hon. Friends on this topic.

  Mr. Forth
  No.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the average sizes of single teacher classes in each year since 1979–80 in maintained(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools and (c) overall.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The average sizes of single teacher classes in maintained primary and secondary schools in England between 1980 and 1994, the latest date for which information is available, are shown in the table.

  Average sizes of single teacher classes in maintained primary and secondary schools in England 1980–1994

  Position in January each year

  Primary Schools

  1Secondary Schools

  Primary and Secondary Schools

  1980

  25.4

  21.0

  23.2

  1981

  25.2

  21.0

  23.0

  1982

  25.1

  20.9

  22.9

  1983

  24.8

  20.8

  22.7

  1984

  24.7

  20.6

  22.5

  1985

  24.9

  20.6

  22.7

  1986

  25.5

  20.6

  22.9

  1987

  25.4

  20.4

  22.9

  1988

  25.4

  20.1

  22.8

  1989

  25.7

  20.1

  23.0

  1990

  25.9

  20.3

  23.2

  1991

  26.3

  20.6

  23.7

  1992

  26.4

  20.9

  23.8

  1993

  26.6

  21.2

  24.1

  1994

  26.9

  21.4

  24.3

  1 excluding Sixth Form Colleges which ceased to be classified as schools from 1 April 1993.

  Overseas Students
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will announce the Government's decision on the proposal to amend the Education (Fees and Awards) Regulations 1994 to allow institutions to charge overseas students on part-time courses higher fees; and further, whether she will publish the responses to the consultation exercise engaged in by her Department.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government have carefully considered the responses to the consultation exercise announced last September. In the light of the general support for the proposal shown by the responses to the exercise from institutions, the Government have decided to lay before Parliament an amendment to the Education (Fees and Awards) Regulations 1994 to allow higher and further education institutions to charge all students on part-time courses a higher fee, representing the full cost of their course, where they do not meet the three-year residency requirement and are not excepted.

  The amendment will not alter, in any way, institutions' present discretion to set their own fee levels or to waive or reduce fees for asylum seekers if they choose.

  In line with the code of practice on access to Government information, a summary of the responses to the consultation exercise will he provided by the

  209
  Department From today. A copy will be placed in the Library. Copies of individual responses will be made available in the public enquiry room of the Department, unless the respondent has specifically requested confidentiality.

  Community Facilities
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what advice her Department gives to local education authorities regarding the provision of community or adult education facilities financed by local education authorities; and what advice her Department gives to the Department of the Environment regarding the provision of finance for such facilities and courses.

  Mr. Boswell
  It is for individual local education authorities to secure the adequate provision for their areas of certain types of further education for adults, as defined by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The Department does not issue any advice to local education authorities on this matter.

  The Department keeps the Department of the Environment abreast of spending needs in this area, and discusses with them and the local authority associations the provision of funding to local education authorities.

  Discretionary Awards
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students are in receipt of discretionary grants for the latest year for which figures are available; and what are the main subjects or courses being studied.

  Mr. Boswell
  Local authority returns show that my Department in 1992–93, the latest year for which data are available, there were 220,000 discretionary awards. A total of 24,000 awards were for courses of higher education of which 3,000 were for postgraduate courses; and 196,000 awards were for further education courses. Information on the subjects studied by award holders is not collected centrally.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what advice her Department gives to local education authorities regarding the financing of student courses on a discretionary basis; and what advice her Department gives to the Department of the Environment regarding the provision of finance for discretionary grants.

  Mr. Boswell
  It is for individual local education authorities to determine their own discretionary awards policies in the light of local needs and priorities. The

  GUEST Allocation for Special Educational Needs 1994–95 and 1995–96

  £ thousand

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  LEA

  Training for SEN specialisms 1994–95

  Training for SEN specialisms 1995–96

  School SEN policies 1994–95

  School SEN policies1995–96

  SEN Parent partnership schemes 1994–95

  SEN Parent partnership schemes 1995–96

  Corporation of London

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.5

  0.0

  0.3

  Camden

  44.0

  39.8

  13.2

  24.8

  23.0

  23.0

  Greenwich

  76.4

  75.6

  23.0

  44.7

  18.0

  20.0

  Hackney

  37.0

  37.5

  19.7

  35.3

  31.0

  35.5

  Hammersmith

  69.0

  63.0

  11.9

  22.4

  10.0

  10.0

  Islington

  80.0

  137.4

  16.7

  32.8

  10.0

  13.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  24.0

  21.6

  7.6

  13.4

  10.0

  10.0

  Lambeth

  28.5

  51.3

  21.2

  34.8

  24.0

  30.5

  Lewisham

  72.9

  65.0

  21.2

  40.7

  49.0

  52.5

  210
  Department does not produce any central guidance on this issue.

  The Department keeps the Department of the Environment abreast of spending needs in this area, and discusses with them and the local authority associations the provision of funding to local education authorities.

  Further Education (Funding)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the demarcation between(a) community and adult education courses funded by local education authorities, (b) courses of further and higher education funded by Higher Education Funding Council and (c) courses for which training and enterprise councils are responsible.

  Mr. Boswell
  Under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, the further education funding councils and local education authorities are jointly responsible for securing the adequate provision for their areas of all kinds of further education for adults. The FEFCs are responsible for securing the provision of the type of further education defined in schedule 2 to the Act—mainly vocational, academic, access and basic skills courses. LEAs have responsibility for securing the provision of all other kinds of further education— mainly leisure and recreational courses.

  The Higher Education Funding Council for England funds HE institutions for non-vocational community education through its funding methodology for part-time teaching, and for continuing vocational education where the institutions apply successfully for development funding.

  Training and enterprise councils are responsible generally for co-ordinating the training needs of their areas and specifically for delivering the youth training programme for young people and the training for work programme for adults.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the allocation for each local education authority for special educational needs support in 1994–95 and 1995–96, broken down into the categories(a) training, (b) school policies and (c) parent partnership schemes in each year.

  Mr. Forth
  The allocations to each local education authority for these grants, made under the grants for edcuation support and training programme, are shown in the table.
  211

  GUEST Allocation for Special Educational Needs 1994–95 and 1995–96

  £ thousand

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  LEA

  Training for SEN specialisms 1994–95

  Training for SEN specialisms 1995–96

  School SEN policies 1994–95

  School SEN policies1995–96

  SEN Parent partnership schemes 1994–95

  SEN Parent partnership schemes 1995–96

  Southwark

  43.9

  39.9

  21.5

  36.3

  41.0

  42.0

  Tower Hamlets

  45.5

  39.4

  22.5

  43.7

  66.0

  67.0

  Wandsworth

  160.7

  172.0

  19.2

  31.3

  51.0

  42.0

  Westminster

  8.4

  10.9

  12.4

  24,3

  19.0

  19.0

  Barking

  48.2

  32.6

  16.1

  30.8

  29.0

  30.0

  Barnet

  67.4

  137.4

  27.3

  48.2

  0.0

  38.0

  Bexley

  45.2

  40.4

  20.3

  35.8

  10.0

  13.0

  Brent

  65.6

  118.9

  20.0

  29.3

  66.0

  70.0

  Bromley

  39.9

  42.9

  23.5

  38.3

  14.0

  16.0

  Croydon

  52.4

  47.4

  29.3

  51.7

  21.0

  26.5

  Ealing

  52.6

  63.5

  25.5

  32.8

  10.0

  49.5

  Enfield

  43.4

  50.7

  21.5

  38.7

  58.0

  58.0

  Haringey

  65.0

  59.6

  21.7

  42.7

  14.0

  14.0

  Harrow

  44.7

  43.0

  16.4

  31.3

  24.0

  25.0

  Havering

  47.0

  45.8

  23.5

  43.7

  14.0

  14.0

  Hillingdon

  40.0

  36.9

  21.7

  29.8

  9.0

  10.0

  Hounslow

  44.0

  38.7

  19.5

  36.8

  14.0

  15.0

  Kingston upon Thames

  25.8

  23.3

  11.3

  19.9

  5.0

  10.7

  Merton

  29.9

  28.1

  15.5

  29.3

  19.0

  32.5

  Newham

  63.0

  70.0

  20.7

  39.7

  55.0

  56.0

  Redbridge

  46.1

  44.8

  17.7

  34.8

  15.0

  23.5

  Richmond upon Thames

  25.2

  19.8

  11.9

  23.3

  27.0

  30.5

  Sutton

  21.0

  40.2

  13.9

  21.9

  25.0

  25.0

  Waltham Forest

  98.4

  63.4

  20.3

  37.3

  15.0

  16.0

  Birmingham

  205.0

  216.3

  103.9

  192.2

  72.0

  72.0

  Coventry

  73.0

  118.0

  32.4

  61.6

  27.0

  40.0

  Dudley

  76.5

  76.3

  26.8

  48.7

  11.0

  21.5

  Sandwell

  65.0

  59.7

  33.6

  64.6

  54.0

  63.5

  Solihull

  40.0

  34.7

  21.2

  40.7

  14.0

  19.5

  Walsall

  56.0

  52.5

  31.3

  57.1

  33.0

  33.0

  Wolverhampton

  39.9

  34.5

  30.8

  58.1

  28.0

  27.0

  Knowsley

  40.0

  41.0

  18.7

  36.3

  44.0

  44.0

  Liverpool

  125.5

  124.6

  54.0

  103.3

  52.0

  53.0

  St. Helens

  45.0

  45.5

  21.7

  38.7

  24.0

  26.0

  Sefton

  53.0

  49.2

  29.3

  57.1

  25.0

  25.0

  Wirral

  58.8

  52.6

  32.6

  62.6

  20.0

  20.0

  Bolton

  62.7

  30.3

  31.1

  58.1

  17.0

  17.5

  Bury

  35.0

  33.7

  21.5

  41.2

  0.0

  19.0

  Manchester

  120.0

  136.8

  51.8

  99.8

  42.0

  43.0

  Oldham

  66.4

  64.0

  29.9

  58.1

  29.0

  25.0

  Rochdale

  50.0

  43.3

  22.5

  40.7

  14.0

  14.0

  Salford

  55.7

  48.3

  27.3

  51.2

  20.1

  27.0

  Stockport

  60.0

  57.8

  32.4

  62.1

  24.0

  24.0

  Tameside

  45.0

  44.7

  16.5

  47.7

  14.0

  14.0

  Trafford

  44.5

  72.3

  23.7

  44.7

  13.0

  22.5

  Wigan

  88.0

  81.5

  36.7

  71.0

  38.0

  39.0

  Barnsley

  48.6

  48.2

  27.3

  52.7

  20.0

  21.0

  Doncaster

  35.8

  56.7

  39.2

  77.0

  29.0

  33.0

  Rotherham

  60.0

  144.7

  33.6

  65.6

  28.0

  29.0

  Sheffield

  100.0

  89.5

  44.3

  86.4

  29.0

  30.0

  Bradford

  111.0

  87.6

  63.2

  118.7

  49.0

  49.0

  Calderdale

  33.7

  43.0

  12.4

  45.2

  17.0

  18.0

  Kirklees

  56.0

  88.8

  49.8

  93.4

  36.0

  40.5

  Leeds

  130.0

  116.4

  74.8

  144.6

  43.0

  46.5

  Wakefield

  60.0

  62.0

  42.7

  79.5

  29.0

  29.0

  Gateshead

  40.0

  34.7

  24.0

  46.7

  19.0

  20.0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  114.0

  122.2

  26.3

  50.7

  37.0

  38.0

  North Tyneside

  33.0

  34.2

  21.7

  41.7

  15.0

  18.0

  South Tyneside

  35.0

  27.0

  17.6

  34.3

  30.0

  33.0

  Sunderland

  30.0

  53.6

  10.0

  60.1

  20.0

  29.0

  Isle of Scilly

  0.7

  2.5

  0.1

  2.5

  0.0

  3.5

  Avon

  140.0

  124.0

  108.7

  212.1

  41.0

  41.0

  Bedfordshire

  115.0

  131.2

  73.1

  137.1

  26.0

  28.0

  Berkshire

  147.2

  169.0

  83.6

  154.0

  36.0

  43.0

  Buckinghamshire

  135.0

  202.2

  83.4

  155.0

  49.0

  50.0

  Cambridgeshire

  120.0

  117.9

  78.3

  142.1

  58.0

  60.0

  Cheshire

  129.0

  151.5

  130.6

  247.4

  58.0

  60.0

  Cleveland

  170.0

  134.5

  64.7

  122.7

  29.0

  35.0

  212 213

  GUEST Allocation for Special Educational Needs 1994–95 and 1995–96

  £ thousand

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  LEA

  Training for SEN specialisms 1994–95

  Training for SEN specialisms 1995–96

  School SEN policies 1994–95

  School SEN policies 1995–96

  SEN Parent partnership schemes 1994–95

  SEN Parent partnership schemes 1995–96

  Cornwall

  90.0

  119.2

  70.7

  138.1

  29.0

  29.0

  Cumbria

  95.0

  80.0

  86.4

  151.5

  29.0

  32.5

  Derbyshire

  139.3

  140.0

  128.6

  239.9

  41.0

  41.0

  Devon

  200.0

  210.0

  126.8

  244.9

  91.0

  92.0

  Dorset

  91.9

  103.0

  64.7

  120.2

  27.0

  43.5

  Durham

  120.0

  120.08

  55.7

  168.4

  35.0

  29.0

  East Sussex

  130.0

  161.1

  64.7

  125.2

  47.0

  49.0

  Essex

  230.0

  230.9

  159.0

  249.9

  92.0

  96.0

  Gloucestershire

  120.8

  111.0

  74.8

  124.7

  27.0

  28.0

  Hampshire

  230.0

  248.8

  171.1

  313.5

  87.0

  87.0

  Hereford and Worcester

  138.0

  178.1

  92.4

  178.3

  0.0

  38.0

  Hertfordshire

  238.0

  313.4

  128.8

  237.0

  59.0

  60.0

  Humberside

  165.0

  200.0

  104.8

  203.2

  0.0

  60.0

  Isle of Wight

  37.0

  73.0

  16.9

  33.3

  9.0

  33.5

  Kent

  340.0

  510.0

  174.8

  303.0

  109.0

  111.0

  Lancashire

  280.0

  283.5

  178.8

  343.8

  94.0

  85.0

  Leicestershire

  174.0

  161.9

  76.9

  201.7

  25.0

  29.0

  Lincolnshire

  75.0

  65.0

  86.7

  144.1

  34.0

  32.0

  Norfolk

  110.0

  98.6

  113.0

  205.7

  24.0

  25.0

  North Yorkshire

  250.0

  128.0

  74.4

  223.5

  91.0

  91.0

  Northamptonshire

  130.0

  147.7

  83.9

  153.5

  39.0

  39.0

  Northumberland

  66.3

  66.7

  33.5

  101.3

  31.0

  32.0

  Nottinghamshire

  140.0

  129.0

  128.6

  249.4

  97.0

  97.0

  Oxfordshire

  105.0

  171.0

  71.2

  140.1

  8.0

  69.5

  Shropshire

  112.3

  95.2

  64.2

  119.7

  28.0

  28.0

  Somerset

  42.5

  2.5

  23.6

  130.2

  49.0

  50.0

  Staffordshire

  220.0

  217.8

  124.6

  240.9

  59.0

  59.0

  Suffolk

  125.0

  181.3

  83.9

  165.4

  38.0

  40.0

  Surrey

  124.0

  219.0

  106.8

  179.8

  0.0

  0.0

  Warwickshire

  105.0

  104.3

  71.5

  132.6

  32.0

  32.0

  West Sussex

  140.0

  126.3

  73.2

  142.6

  44.0

  46.0

  Wiltshire

  100.0

  143.3

  82.1

  148.5

  34.0

  34.0

  Total

  9,668.5

  10,500.5

  5,444.2

  10,500.1

  3,518.1

  4,000.0

  Support and Training
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the full bids for grants for education support and training for the 1995 assessment and testing arrangements for each local education authority.

  Mr. Forth
  The grants for education support and training allocations for the implementation of national curriculum assessment arrangements, which totalled £23.3 million in 1995–96, were distributed among local education authorities according to a formula, rather than requiring bids from LEAs.

  However, 34 of the 109 LEAs did indicate the level of support they were seeking. This information is shown in the table

  LEA

  implementation of National Curriculum Assessment Arrangements (Bids)£

  Corporation of London

  15,000

  Camden

  F

  Greenwich

  116,600

  Hackney

  F

  Hammersmith

  30,000

  Islington

  F

  Kensington and Chelsea

  21,200

  214

  LEA

  implementation of National Curriculum Assessment Arrangements (Bids)£

  Lambeth

  F

  Lewisham

  110,800

  Southwark

  110,000

  Tower Hamlets

  F

  Wandsworth

  F

  Westminster

  F

  Barking

  F

  Barnet

  F

  Bexley

  37,200

  Brent

  133,240

  Bromley

  F

  Croydon

  80,000

  Ealing

  F

  Enfield

  F

  Haringey

  F

  Harrow

  146,000

  Havering

  118,600

  Hillingdon

  90,000

  Hounslow

  F

  Kingston upon Thames

  F

  Merton

  F

  Newham

  F

  Redbridge

  65,500

  Richmond upon Thames

  F

  Sutton

  F

  Waltham Forest

  126,500

  215

  LEA

  implementation of National Curriculum Assessment Arrangements (Bids)£

  Birmingham

  F

  Coventry

  F

  Dudley

  122,400

  Sandwell

  F

  Solihull

  F

  Walsall

  F

  Wolverhampton

  90,500

  Knowsley

  F

  Liverpool

  F

  St. Helens

  F

  Sefton

  129,700

  Wirral

  115,560

  Bolton

  F

  Bury

  F

  Manchester

  F

  Oldham

  F

  Rochdale

  F

  Salford

  F

  Stockport

  F

  Tameside

  F

  Trafford

  80,000

  Wigan

  F

  Barnsley

  F

  Doncaster

  F

  Rotherham

  130,700

  Sheffield

  F

  Bradford

  F

  Calderdale

  F

  Kirklees

  215,310

  Leeds

  F

  Wakefield

  F

  Gateshead

  80,000

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  F+30,201

  North Tyneside

  67,720

  South Tyneside

  F

  Sunderland

  126,150

  Isles of Scilly

  32,300

  Avon

  F

  Bedfordshire

  F

  Berkshire

  F

  Buckinghamshire

  328,000

  Cambridgeshire

  F

  Cheshire

  F

  Cleveland

  F

  Cornwall

  F

  Cumbria

  F

  Derbyshire

  F

  Devon

  F

  Dorset

  F

  Durham

  F

  East Sussex

  F

  Essex

  F

  Gloucestershire

  244,000

  Hampshire

  F

  Hereford and Worcester

  240,000

  Hertfordshire

  F

  Humberside

  F

  Isle of Wight

  F

  Kent

  F

  Lancashire

  F

  Leicestershire

  350,000

  Lincolnshire

  F

  Norfolk

  F

  North Yorkshire

  F

  Northamptonshire

  F

  Northumberland

  F

  Nottinghamshire

  F

  Oxfordshire

  F

  Shropshire

  F

  Somerset

  203,000

  Staffordshire

  482,700

  216

  LEA

  implementation of National Curriculum Assessment Arrangements (Bids)£

  Suffolk

  F

  Surrey

  372,060

  Warwickshire

  F

  West Sussex

  277,100

  Wiltshire

  F

  Total

  4,918,041

  Notes:

  1. "F" indicates that the LEA did not submit a bid, but will take up its formula allocation

  2. Total is only the total of the bids made (34 of 109 LEAs)

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee on what occasions over the past five years combined familiarisation drills and exercises have been held between the Palace of Westminster fire section, other security staff and the London fire brigade as part of incident pre-planning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  Detailed records of familiarisation visits by London fire brigade crews prior to 1993 are not held. Since January 1993 16 familiarisation visits have taken place. Large scale exercises involving the extensive deployment of crews, including a fire boat crew on one
  occasion, have taken place as follows:2 October 1990
  1 May 1993
  1 May 1994
  A further large scale exercise with the London brigade is planned for 14 May 1995.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what lessons have been drawn from the fires at Hampton Court palace, Windsor castle and Stormont in relation to minimising fire risk at(a) the Palace of Westminster and (b) other buildings in the parliamentary estate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  Following the publication of the guide to the protection of historic buildings "Heritage Under Fire" in 1990, which drew on the experience of a number of fires including the one at Hampton Court, a fire safety manager was appointed in 1992 to advise on all aspects of fire precautions and means of escape. The publication of a fire safety strategy for the Palace of Westminster and parliamentary outbuildings in 1993 and the establishment of a fire safety committee to review fire risk management and ensure the fire safety strategy is implemented are both in line with the recommendations of the report by Sir Alan Bailey, "Fire Protection
  Measures for the Royal Palaces", published in May 1993, following the fire at Windsor castle. It is understood that the report into the fire at Parliament buildings, Stormont, will be published in due course.
  217
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee (1) if(a) the Palace of Westminster and (b) other buildings in the parliamentary estate reach the standard of fire safety which would be required for the issue of a fire certificate;

  (2) if he will make an assessment of the fire risk of (a) the Palace of Westminster and (b) other buildings in the parliamentary estate.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  Home Office fire inspectors have recently assessed the fire risk of the Palace of Westminster and have recommended further measures to be taken. These are being progressed and it is expected that a fire certificate will be issued later this year. The fire risks of the parliamentary outbuildings have also been assessed and fire certificates have already been issued for Norman Shaw North, Norman Shaw South, 1 Canon row and 2 the Abbey garden. A fire certificate for 3 Dean's yard is expected shortly. Some additional works are being carried out in 7 Millbank and the phase 1 building and it is expected that fire certificates will be issued later this year.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what difficulties of access exist for the fire brigade and other emergency services in the event of fire in relation to(a) the Press Gallery area and (b) other areas presenting access difficulties.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  Vehicular access for fire brigade appliances into Speaker's Court and the inner courtyards has to be carefully managed because of the size of the archways. This has been tested on exercises held with the London fire brigade. There are no particular difficulties of access for fire brigade and emergency service personnel to the Press Gallery or other areas of the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission (1) what changes in the number of fire officers within the Palace of Westminster's fire section were contained in the recommendation of the Metropolitan police internal reports into fire prevention that were prepared in February 1985 and December 1987.

  (2) how many additional fire officer posts within the Palace of Westminster's fire section were recommended by the fire safety manager in 1992; what were the reasons or basis for his recommendations; and how many additional officers were subsequently appointed.

  (3) if he will list the establishment of the Palace of Westminster's fire section for the last 10 years, indicating at each appropriate stage the size of the parliamentary estate over which their responsibility extended.

  (4) what changes to the establishment, watch rotas, pay and conditions of service of the Palace of Westminster fire section are (a) under consideration or (b) subject to consultation with trade unions; and if he will make a statement.

  (5) if he will make a statement about the role and functions of the members of the Palace of Westminster's fire section in the initial stages of any fire incident being reported.

  Mr. Beith
  Members of the Palace of Westminster fire section are civilian employees of the Metropolitan police subject to Metropolitan police terms and conditions of service. The role and responsibilities of the fire section are specified in the fire strategy for the Palace of Westminster and parliamentary outbuildings, which was 218
  approved by the relevant Committees of both Houses in 1993. A review of the fire section has recently been carried out by the staff inspector in conjunction with the staff inspector of the House of Lords and I have asked the Serjeant at Arms to write to the hon. Member about their recommendations.

  Motor Vehicles
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he will have notices placed around the precincts of the Houses of Parliament ordering drivers of all motor vehicles to turn their motor engines off when their vehicle is stationary or parked; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  No. In my reply to my hon. Friend on 17 February 1994,Official Report, column 938, I stated that this was a matter for the Serjeant at Arms. I understand that instructions have since been given to members of the security force to caution drivers who leave their engines running unnecessarily.

TREASURY

  Charges and Salaries
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new measures he proposes to combat the impact of charges he assessed to be unfair, dividends he has assessed to be excessive and top salaries he has assessed to be contrary to(a) the consumers' interests and (b) the wider national interest.

  Sir George Young
  These are primarily matters for the companies concerned, within the framework of competition law, the Companies Act and any special regulatory regime prescribed by Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's remarks to the House on 28 February about board remuneration set out the Government's position.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many new positions are needed to run the new delegated pay systems which the Government has introduced for each department in the civil service.

  Sir George Young
  Responsibility for the pay and grading of almost two thirds of civil servants is delegated to Departments. "The Civil Service—Taking Forward Continuity and Change" (CM2748) confirmed the Government's intention that all Departments will become responsible for their own pay and grading arrangements below senior levels from I April 1996.

  It is not possible to give an assessment of the administrative implications of the changes. However, the Government believe that there is considerable potential in the civil service for further improvement both in quality of service, within what can be afforded, and in efficiency. Greater delegation of decisions will enable local needs and circumstances to he taken more fully into account in devising pay and grading systems, will allow Departments to manage and motivate their staff more effectively, and will further strengthen links between reward and performance.

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons he has introduced performance-related pay into the public service.

  Sir George Young
  Performance-related pay helps to support the Government's citizens charter objective to establish a regular and direct link between the contribution made by individuals to the standards of service provided, and their reward. First, it is fair, because it rewards those who have made the greatest contributions. Secondly, more flexible pay systems help to achieve a more effective distribution of resources. Thirdly, performance-related pay focuses effort on the delivery of key objectives by reinforcing an organisation's performance management system.

  Tobacco
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what United Kingdom laws govern the distance selling of tobacco products to United Kingdom citizens on mail order from European countries with lower excise duties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The United Kingdom law governing the distance selling arrangements for excise goods is the Excise Goods (Holding, Movement, Warehousing and REDS) Regulations 1992. Under these regulations the vendor of the goods in the other member state is liable to pay the UK excise duty.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate what effect distance selling of tobacco products has on the legal trade in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Distance selling is a recognised legitimate activity for which provision has been made in EC legislation, which is implemented in United Kingdom legislation in the Excise Goods (Holding, Movement, Warehousing and REDS) Regulations 1992. Such transactions attract payment of UK duty. Accordingly, no separate assessment has been made on the effect that they have on UK trade.

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was(a) the number of new residential lettings created under the business expansion scheme in Scotland for each of the years 1988–89 to 1992–93 inclusive and (b) the cost per dwelling in Scotland of new residential lettings under business expansion scheme in terms of both income tax relief and exemption from capital gains tax.

  Sir George Young
  Available estimates for Scotland are in the table. It is not possible to give a reliable estimate of the cost of exempting gains arising from disposals of BES shares from capital gains tax.

  Year

  Number of BES new lettings

  Average cost of income tax relief per new letting (£)

  1988–89

  800

  17,000

  1989–90

  400

  21,000

  1990–91

  100

  22,000

  1991–92

  100

  10,000

  1992–931

  600

  20,000

  1 Provisional.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the members of the committee which he has appointed to review the common fisheries policy.

  Mr. Jack
  I shall reply to the hon. Member when I have made the appointments concerned.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of outstanding second-tier reviews of child support cases carried out under section 18 of the Child Support Act 1991; and what steps he has taken to clear the backlog.

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 8 March 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of outstanding requests for reviews to be carried out under Section 18 of the Child Support Act.At the end of January 1995, 8,099 such requests were outstanding. compared to 10,766 outstanding at the end of July 1994. This reduction reflects the increased emphasis which has been given to this type of work over recent months. I anticipate that the backlog will be cleared by 31 March 1995.
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what amount of new maintenance has been collected by the Child Support Agency in each year of its operation to the latest available date.

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 8 March 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the new maintenance collected by the Child Support Agency.
  Figures for the whole of 1993/94 and from April 1994 to the end of January 1995 are shown in the table. I have included maintenance paid direct by absent parents (APs) to parents with care (PWCs) in income support (IS) cases. However, I have not included maintenance paid direct between parents who do not use the Agency's collection service in family credit (FC) cases, or cases where benefit is not in payment. This is because your Question seems to be directed specifically at those areas in which the Agency is most closely involved.

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–951

  Paid direct by Absent Parents to Parents with Care on IS

  1

  0

  Paid through Agency collection service in IS. FC and DWA cases and offsets benefit spending2

  10

  32

  221

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–951

  Paid through Agency collection service in IS, FC and DWA cases in excess of benefit paid, and to non benefit cases3

  3

  19

  Total

  415

  62

  1 1994–95 figures cover April 1994 to January 1995.

  2 Maintenance paid through the Agency collection service that offsets benefit spending and therefore leads to benefit savings.

  3Maintenance paid through the Agency collection service that is passed on to parents with care.

  4Includes a small element relating to PWCs who used the collection service and were receiving either FC; disability working allowance (DWA), or who were not receiving benefit.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of(a) cases take on by the Child Support Agency since April 1993, (b) interim maintenance assessments made, (c) full maintenance assessments made, (d) cases cleared without an assessment being made, (e) cases deferred because an effective application has not been made by an income support claimant, (f) outstanding case involving a paternity dispute and (g) other outstanding cases awaiting assessment.

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 8 March 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of cases taken on and assessment made by the Child Support Agency.
  Between April 1993 and the end of January 1995, the Agency issued 1,190,200 maintenance application forms (on some forms more than one absent parent may he involved); completed 129,000 interim maintenance assessments and 299,100 full maintenance assessments. 403,000 cases were cleared without an assessment being made.
  As at the end of January 1995, 432,000 cases were on hand awaiting a maintenance assessment, including 6,800 in which paternity was being disputed. Given the volume of cases dealt with by the Agency we would expect to have around 250,000 cases on hand at any one time.
  You also ask about cases deferred because an effective application had not been made by a client receiving income support. 1 have taken this to refer to those cases deterred as a one off exercise as part of the measures announced on 20 December 1994. This exercise was only completed last week so the full details will not he available until later this month; but by the end of January, there were 2,700 cases where IS applications had been deferred.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many maintenance enquiry forms have been issued to absent parents since the Child Support Agency commenced operation in April 1993;

  (2) how many maintenance application forms have been issued since the Child Support Agency commenced operation in April 1993; and what proportion have been issued to parents not already receiving maintenance.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.
  222
  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 8 March 1995:
  I am replying to recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security abut the number of maintenance enquiry forms (MEFs) and maintenance application forms (MAFs) that have been issued by the Child Support Agency.
  From April 1993 to the end of January 1995, 692,900 MEFs were issued to absent parents.
  In the same period 1,190,200 MAFs were issued, of which we estimate that 77 per cent. were issued to parents not already receiving maintenance.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many requests for a review of a child support assessment have been made, and what proportion of these has resulted in an application for an appeal to a child support appeal tribunal.

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 8 March 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about reviews and appeals.From April 1993 to the end of January 1995 the Child Support Agency had received 47,100 requests for review under Section 18 of the Child Support Act.In the same period 6,800 applications for appeal were made. As not all applications for appeal arise from Section 18 reviews, it is not appropriate to express this figure as a proportion of the total number of Section 18 reviews requested.
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of outstanding child maintenance applications are over(a) 13 weeks, (b) 26 weeks and (c) 52 weeks old.

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 8 March 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of state for Social Security about the proportion of outstanding child maintenance applications that are over 13, 26 and 52 weeks old.
  The table shows the proportion of cases within these age bands as a percentage of the caseload as at the end of January 1995.

  Percentage of caseload

  Cases over 13 weeks old

  83

  Cases over 26 weeks old

  69

  Cases over 52 weeks old

  48

  A significant number of the cases over 26 weeks old will he deferred as part of the measures announced on 20 December 1994.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the total payments being made to the Child Support Agency by absent parents in respect of children whose parents with care were in receipt of relevant state benefits before April 1993 and whose assessment has been completed by the Child Support Agency; and what is the total number of these cases.

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

  Social Fund
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give(a) the figure of the amount lent in Wales under the social fund scheme, (b) the amount currently outstanding and (c) the numbers of those currently liable.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Mr. Michael Bichard to Mr. Ron Davies, dated 7 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question requesting the figure for the amount lent in Wales under the Social Fund scheme, the amount currently outstanding and the numbers of those currently liable.
  You ask for the figure of the amount lent in Wales under the Social Fund scheme. You are probably aware that the Fund has two distinct parts—regulated and discretionary. Social Fund Budgeting Loans and Crisis Loans are part of the discretionary part of the scheme.
  The amount of loans expenditure in Wales for the period 1 April 1994 to 31 January 1995 is £12,143,769.41. The amount currently outstanding (unspent) in Wales for loans in the current financial year is £2,823,256.00. I am also able to tell you that as at 31 January 1995 £13,597.79, in total, was owed by applicants in the Benefits Agency Districts in Wales. This figure will include amounts outstanding on loans currently being repaid and for loans where recovery has been interrupted or deferred.
  I am unable to supply the numbers of those currently liable as the Social Fund Computer System does not count the number of individual customers. However, the number of awards made in Wales for loans for the period 1 April 1994 to 31 January 1995 is 77,417. As a customer may have more than one loan outstanding, and many customers will have repaid their loan(s) within this period, this figure may he greater than the number of those currently liable.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list the number of cases in which funds have been recovered by the Compensation Recovery Unit during the last year for which figures are available; what were the administrative and other costs of the unit during that period; and what was the gross and net sum ingathered after allowing for those costs;

  (2) how many staff are presently employed in the Compensation Recovery Unit.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  These are matters for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Mr. Michael Richard to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 7 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the number of staff currently employed in the Compensation Recovery Unit: the administrative and other costs of the unit; the number of cases handled by it and the gross and net sums ingathered after allowing for these costs during the last year for which figures are available.
  The total number of people employed in the Compensation Recovery Unit at the present time is 196; this includes 46 part time staff.
  During the period from I April 1994 to 28 February 1995. the number of cases in which sums have been recovered amounts to 60,821 and the sum recouped was £91,750.000. After taking into
  224
  account costs of £4,070,000, the net amount recovered equates to £87,680,000.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Income Support
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of those who have been granted exceptional leave to remain are in receipt of income support.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  People who have been granted exceptional leave to remain are not separately identified within the income support scheme.

  Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many PDD12 claimants have appealed against category 0 X-ray evidence since September 1993.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is available only to 2 October 1994 when the total number of appeals received against the category 0 X-ray was 3,416.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many posthumous PDD12 claims there have been to date; and how many have received an award;

  (2) how many PDD12 claimants rejected for an award when they were living, because the X-ray evidence was category O have been made a posthumous award after death based on the findings of the pathologist's report:

  (3) how many PDD12 appellants have been referred for fresh X-rays because the ones on which the original diagnosis was made were unsuitable.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not readily available and could he obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Benefit Payment Card
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) of 26 January,Official Report, column 320, if he will name the five potential suppliers of a benefit payment card.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) on 9 December,Official Report, column 385.

  Pneumoconiosis
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants to whom an award was made for pneumoconiosis in(a) 1980, (b) 1986 and (c) 1993 had it increased because the disease worsened an attendant condition.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many awards for pneumoconiosis were made in each of the coalfield areas in(a) 1980, (b) 1986 and (c)

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not available by coalfield areas. New awards for pneumoconiosis in the coal mining industry, analysed by disability benefit centre, are in the table.
  225

  New awards for pneumoconiosis in the coal mining industry by disability benefit centre

  Disability benefit centre

  1980

  1986

  1993

  Cardiff

  113

  71

  58

  Swansea

  22

  38

  22

  Glasgow

  6

  7

  10

  Stoke

  23

  38

  27

  Sheffield

  179

  142

  205

  Manchester

  30

  18

  12

  Newcastle

  84

  37

  58

  London

  4

  6

  3

  All panels

  461

  357

  395

  Note:

  Based on a 100 per cent, count.

  Housing benefit in Scotland average caseload and expenditure

  Year

  Caseload (thousands)

  Expenditure (millions)

  Rent rebate

  Rent allowance

  Rent rebate(£)

  Rent allowance(£)

  All private tenants(including HA tenants

  Housing association tenants

  1983–84

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  182.08

  29.81

  1984–85

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  200.63

  41.18

  1985–86

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  224.87

  55.47

  1986–87

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  258.33

  71.39

  1987–88

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  291.42

  88.67

  1988–89

  494

  72

  n/a

  314.15

  86.29

  1989–90

  478

  79

  n/a

  363.75

  113.23

  1990–91

  467

  76

  n/a

  400.30

  119.36

  1991–92

  466

  76

  n/a

  444.26

  136.37

  1992–93

  460

  83

  22

  489.82

  169.17

  1993–94

  457

  93

  30

  1523.99

  1202.31

  1994–95

  446

  103

  34

  1537.30

  1230.98

  Sources:

  Caseload, housing benefit information system.

  Expenditure, DSS planning and finance division.

  Notes:

  1. Rent rebate, includes local authority, new town and Scottish Homes' tenants.

  2. Rent allowance, includes housing association and other private sector tenants.

  3. n/a = Not available.

  1Provisional.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of I March,c. 623-24. how many of the asylum seekers in receipt of income support are (a) awaiting an initial decision on their application and (b) appealing against it.

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

  Habitual Residence
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons from the Republic of Ireland not habitually resident in the United Kingdom at the time of their claim have been in receipt of(a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) council tax benefit schemes since 1 August 1994, giving the sums paid under each heading.

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

  Residential Care and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of residents

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was(a) the total cost of housing benefit in Scotland for (i) tenants of new towns, Scottish Homes and local authorities, (ii) tenants of housing associations and (iii) tenants of private landlords and (b) the total number of households in Scotland receiving housing benefit in respect of (1) Scottish Homes, local authorities and new towns, (2) housing associations and co-operatives and (3) the private rented sector for each year since 1982–83.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the table.

  of care or nursing homes whose total entitlement to care funding does not meet their fees for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Reliable in formation is not available before November 1992.

  The number of residents with preserved rights to the higher limits of income support whose total entitlement to social security benefits does not meet the fees is:

  Number

  November 1992

  91.500

  November 1993

  85.000

  February 1994

  78.500

  Source:

  Income support statistics quarterly inquiries November 1992. November 1993 and February 1994.

  Some of these residents may have disregarded benefits, income or capital which could he used to meet any shortfalls.

  Permanent Secretaries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which permanent secretaries have left his Department's employment in the last five years; and
  227
  which public positions they have been appointed to subsequently.

  Mr. Hague
  None.

SCOTLAND

  Anti-Social Neighbours
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what powers are available to(a) local authority housing departments, (b) Scottish Homes, (c) housing associations, (d) housing co-operatives, (e) private sector landlords and (f) owner-occupiers to deal with anti-social behaviour by neighbours; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In many cases, anti-social behaviour by neighbours will amount to nuisance. Local authorities, Scottish Homes, housing associations and housing co-operatives have powers under section 47 of, and part I of schedule 3 to, the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 to raise proceedings for the recovery of possession of one of their houses including where a tenant, or any one of joint tenants, or any person residing or lodging with him or any sub-tenant of his has been guilty of conduct in, or in the vicinity of, the house which is a nuisance or causing an annoyance to others. Recovery of possession can also he granted where a tenant has been convicted of using the house, or allowing it to be used, for immoral or illegal purposes.

  Local authorities also have powers under section 58 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to deal with noise from premises which they consider amounts to a nuisance. In this case, noise also includes vibration.

  Private sector landlords have powers to raise proceedings to recover possession of their houses under section I I of, and schedule 2 to, the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 and section 18 of, and schedule 5 to, the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988. Private sector leases may also contain a condition under which the tenant agrees not to

  (a) £0––1.000

  (b) £1,001–£2.000

  (c) £2,001–£3,000

  (d) £3,001–£4.000

  (e) £4,001–£5,000

  (f) £5,001 and over

  Shetlands Islands

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  7

  Cairngorms Straths

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  9

  Argyll Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13

  Opencast Coal Mining
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) all existing opencast coal sites in Scotland, (b) all sites for which planning consent has been granted and (c) any further sites which arc either subject to planning applications or which have otherwise been drawn to the attention of his Department.

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Existing opencast coal mining sites in Scotland. by region:

  Central

  Auchengean West

  Blackrig

  Fencehillhead

  228
  cause nuisance or annoyance to neighbours, and I believe that such conditions are common.

  Owner-occupiers can go to court to seek an interdict against a nuisance beginning or continuing, and damages where they have incurred loss.

  On 22 February, the Scottish Office published a good practice note on tenancy management which described the legal and management remedies which arc available to landlords to deal with problems arising from anti-social behaviour. I also announced on 22 February the award of a grant to the Chartered Institute of Housing to undertake research into current practice in dealing with anti-social behaviour and to identify examples of good practice among public sector landlords.

  On 3 March, I announced that we would he consulting widely on a proposal which has been put to me, in the context of anti-social behaviour, for probationary tenancies. I expect to seek views on this in the near future. In making this announcement, I made it clear that I retain an open mind on action which might he required to help to deal with anti-social behaviour.

  Farm Conservation Grants
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many farm conservation plans, so far approved in the Shetland Islands environmentally sensitive area scheme, involve payments in the(a) £0 to £1,000, (b) £1,001 to £2,000, (c) £2,001 to £3,000, (d) £3,001 to £4,000 and (e) £4,001 to £5,000 bands:

  (2) how many farm conservation plans. so far approved in the Cairngorm Straths islands environmentally sensitive area scheme, involve payments in the (a) £0 to £1,000, (b) £1,001 to £2,000, (c) £2,001 to £3,000, (d) £3,001 to £4,000 and (e) £4,001 to £5,000 bands;

  (3) how many farm conservation plans, so far approved in the Argyll islands environmentally sensitive area scheme, involve payments in the (a) £0 to £1,000, (b) £1,001 to £2,000, (c) £2,001 to £3,000, (d) £3,001 to £4,000 and (e) £4,001 to £5,000 bands.

  Mr. Lang
  The information, in the format requested, based on the total payments scheduled in each five-year farm or croft conservation plan is set out in the table:

  Greyrigg

  Ladywell

  Lower Redbrac

  Saline Park Wood

  South Roughcastle

  Dunfries and Galloway

  Crawick

  Fife

  Braehead

  Cairncubie

  Cotton Farm

  Halbeath

  Mooreland

  229

  Prathouse

  Westfield Link

  Woodbank (Windygates)

  Lothian

  Blindwells Extension

  Chesterswood Extension

  Northrigg Phase W

  Oxenfoord

  Rosslynlee

  Strathclyde

  Airdsgreen

  Auchline Mine

  Biggar Road

  Birneknowe

  Catcraig

  Chalmerston

  Dalquhandy

  Damside

  Drumbow

  Easter Baton

  Easter Baton (West)

  Easter Fortissat

  Edge Form

  Glenbuck

  Greenland Moss

  Greeside Farm

  Heckler's Yard

  Laigh Riggend

  Legbrannock Farm

  Morningside (Torbush)

  Mossband Farm

  Piperhill

  Royal George

  Skellyton Farm

  Smiths Farm

  Townhead Farm

  Viaduct West

  Waterloo

  Windyedge

  Woodsethead

  Tayside

  Lambhill Remainder

  Leuehars Wood

  (b) Information about specific planning consents is not held centrally.

  (c) Two applications are currently before the Secretary of State on appeal against the planning authorities' decision; these are Greenhead Moss and Wester Mosshat farm, both in Strathclyde. The following prospective opencast coal mining sites were identified in Scotland during the privatisation of the British Coal Corporation.

  Central

  Aitkenhead

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Glenmuckloch

  Fife

  Greenbank

  Strathclyde

  Broken Cross

  Chalmerston North

  Drumshangie

  House of Water, Cumnock

  Ladylands

  230

  Leadloch

  Powharnal

  Spireslack

  Gasswater

  Glentaggart

  Grievehill

  Pennyvenie

  Watsonhead

  Wilstontown

  NHS Trust Chief Executives
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if NHS trust chief executives are bound by the same rules concerning public statements as are their staff; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Rules of individual conduct are a contractual matter between an employee and the employing trust.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance is given to the chairmen and chief executives of NHS health hoards and trusts concerning public political comments; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is one of the conditions of appointment of chairmen of health hoards and NHS trusts that they should not make political speeches on matters affecting the work of their hoard. The conditions of employment of NHS trust chief executives and hoard general managers of health hoards are a contractual matter between an employee and the employer.

  Kynoch Group plc
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance was given by his Department to Messrs Kynoch of Keith within the past 10 years.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 3 March 1995]: None. The Scottish Development Agency and later Scottish Enterprise took equity investment in Kynoch Group plc, formerly G and G Kynoch plc. This was an operational matter within the delegated authority of these two bodies.

  Water and Sewerage Directors
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the present salaries of each of the local government directors and depute directors responsible for water and sewerage in Scotland; and what arc the annual expenses paid to each of the councillors involved with water and sewerage committees in their duties on those committees.

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 7 March 1995]: From the information held centrally, it is not possible to provide information on the precise salaries of the directors and depute directors of water and sewerage. We believe that most directors of water and sewerage are paid in the broad range of £50,000 to £65,000. One earns in excess of £80,000.

  No information is available about the expenses paid to councillors serving on water and sewerage committees, as these are matters for local authorities to decide.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local government directors and depute directors have responsibility for water and sewerage services in Scotland.
  231
  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 7 March 1995]: There are 12 directors and 14 depute directors with responsibility for water and sewerage services in regional and island councils. In addition, there is one director and one depute director in the Central Scotland water development board which is responsible for bulk supplies of water.

  Publications
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all White Papers, Green Papers and pamphlets issued by his Department, or agencies for which it is responsible, in 1994 giving, in each case, the total cost to the Exchequer of their production, publication and distribution; and what was the total equivalent cost in 1980.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 March 1995]: In 1994 my Department published two Command Papers. In addition, a wide range of other documents including consultation documents and pamphlets was issued. Detailed information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  In respect of those publications published by HMSO, all costs are borne by HMSO, which aims to recover these from sales revenue.

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the level of underspend on planned projects by Highlands and Islands Enterprise in the current year; and whether consideration has been given to the allocation of these resources to the funding of the joint European torus programme currently financed by the Highland regional council.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 March 1995]: I understand that there has been some slippage on Highlands and Islands Enterprise projects in the current year. However, assurances have been received from Highlands and Islands Enterprise that it will draw down its total grant in aid this year and that these funds are fully committed.

  Long-stay Mental Hospitals
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to collect information about the number of long-stay mental hospitals which have trust status.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given cm 6 February 1995, Official Report, column 73.

  Information about the number of long-stay mental hospitals is available from the Scottish health service costs hook published by the information and statistics division, directorate of information services, the NHS in Scotland. A copy of this publication has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Sleeper Services
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what were the gross revenues and gross costs of the sleeper services to Carlisle and Fort William in 1992–93 and 1993–94; and what is the estimate for 1994–95;
  232
  (2) pursuant to his oral statement of 8 February, to the Scottish Grant Committee, Official Report, column 2, if he will provide details of the calculations of the costs per passenger on the Fort William and Carlisle sleeper services; and what has been the passenger loading on the sleeper services for the same financial years.

  Lord James-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 February 1995]: Responsibility for railways throughout Great Britain rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Information on the operation of sleeper services is a matter for British Rail and the Franchising Director who have provided the following figures. The approximate gross costs, excluding the fixed element of track access charges, and gross revenues of the sleeper and night motorail services to Fort William and Carlisle are as follows:

  £ million

  Costs

  Revenue

  Fort William

  3.7

  1.0

  Carlisle

  0.6

  0.4

  The figures relate to 1993–94 passenger numbers but have been uprated to 1994–95 price levels. They also reflect an assessed provision for new charging systems such as rolling stock leases. No figures are available for 1992–93 and 1994–95.

  The calculations of the subsidy per passenger on the Fort William and Carlisle sleeper and motorail services noted by me in my oral statement to the Scottish Grand Committee on 8 February, were derived from the attributable subsidy—approximately £2.7 million and £200,000 for the Fort William and Carlisle services respectively—divided by the number of passengers in 1993–94.

  The passenger loading figures for the sleeper services are as follows:

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Fort William

  14,600

  14,600

  Carlisle

  6,700

  5,700

  No estimates are available for 1994–95.

WALES

  Permanent Secretaries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which permanent secretaries have left his Department's employment in the last five years: and which public positions they have been appointed to subsequently.

  Mr. Redwood
  One—Sir Richard Lloyd Jones, who retired in August 1993. He was subsequently appointed chairman of the Staff Commission for Wales, and the advisory committee which preceded it, for 1.5 days a week at £15,900 per year, and as chairman of the Arts Council for Wales for 2 days a week, for which he receives no remuneration.

HEALTH

  Blood
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial structures exist between regional and district health authorities and the National Blood Authority for meeting variations in general trends in demand and supply of blood in the national health service; and what are the current price levels for blood transferred between them.

  Mr. Sackville
  National health service hospital trusts' contract with blood transfusion centres for the supply of blood, and fluctuations in supply and demand, are managed through the contracting process. Handling charges, which cover only the local transfusion centres' operating costs, are paid by hospitals for blood supplied. Handling charges are also paid for transfers between transfusion centres at a standard rate. There is never any charge for the blood itself which is freely given by our volunteer donors.

  Organ Donor Register
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the national health service organ donor register was established; how many people have registered with it; when the register will come into operation; and what proposals she has to promote public awareness of it.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service organ donor register was launched on 6 October 1994. More than 700,000 people have joined the register. The register is already fully operational. This month we launched an advertising campaign in England in addition to ongoing publicity initiatives.

  Note: Around 440,000 of these were transferred from the existing Lifeline Wales register.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from local authorities regarding the increased demands for community care since the implementation of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990.

  Mr. Bowis
  Some local authorities have cited the popularity of the policy as a reason for increased demand for community care as a factor which is placing their services under pressure. It is for authorities to manage such factors within the context of the increased resources which we have made available for community care.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what consultation takes place between the NHS and local authorities to determine the needs of particular areas for community care;

  (2) how much has been saved in the NHS by the recent allocation of community care responsibility to local authorities.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 13 December 1994 at columns 615–16.

  Smoking
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when smoking was last discussed at the EU Health Minsters' Council.

  Mr. Sackville
  On 22 December 1994.

  Patients (Deaths)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she intends to hold an investigation into the recent deaths of patients at Kneesworth psychiatric hospital.

  Mr. Bowis
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 8 February at column 271.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she intends to take to reduce the number of deaths of patients undergoing psychiatric care.

  Mr. Bowis
  In the White Paper, "The Health of the Nation" we set a target to reduce the suicide rate of severely mentally ill people. A number of central initiatives designed to improve existing mental health services will complement local action to reduce the suicide rate among severely mentally ill people. These include the various measures in the ten point plan that we announced in August 1993 and the issue of the "Mental Illness Key Area Handbook" to all managers of national health service and local authority mental health services. The revised edition of the handbook provides a number of examples of interventions which may help to reduce suicide rates.

  Many of the measures being taken to reduce deaths from suicide among severely mentally ill people should also help to reduce the number of other premature and preventable deaths of patients undergoing psychiatric care.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many actions for medical negligence have been issued against the Fallodon hospital in Leeds, and Leeds Private Hospitals Ltd.

  (2) what action she is taking in response to claims for medical negligence against the Fallodon hospital in Leeds and Leeds Private Hospitals Ltd.

  Mr. Sackville
  In the private sector, any question of medical negligence is a matter between the parties concerned.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it a condition of any licence given to a private hospital that adequate insurance against medical negligence claims is obtained by that hospital;

  (2) what requirements are placed on private hospitals to insure themselves against claims for medical negligence.

  Mr. Sackville
  Any question of medical negligence is a matter between the parties concerned.

  Waiting Lists, West Midlands
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons additional resources made available in the present and forthcoming financial years for the West Midlands waiting list initiative are not being incorporated into district health authority budgets; and if she will make a statement on the impact of this on the
  235
  scale of the redundancy programme in South Birmingham health authority.

  Mr. Malone
  The allocation of resources for the West Midlands waiting times initiative is a matter for West Midlands regional health authority and I refer the hon. Member to Mr. Bryan Baker, chairman of West Midlands RHA, for this information. The redundancy programme in South Birmingham, and any possible impact that the waiting times initiative may have on this, is a matter for South Birmingham health authority and the hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Bryan Stoten, chairman of the authority, for further details.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future of the West Midlands waiting list initiative in 1996–97.

  Mr. Malone
  West Midlands are to be congratulated on the excellent progress that they have made in reducing waiting times for in-patient and day case treatment for their residents. I look to local purchasers and providers to build on this success in the future.

  Fallodon Hospital, Leeds
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints have been submitted to Leeds Healthcare regarding the Fallodon hospital and Leeds Hospitals Ltd.

  Mr. Malone
  This is a matter for Leeds Healthcare. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mrs. Pam Smith, chairman of Leeds Healthcare, for details.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will order an inquiry into the standards of health care provision at the Fallodon hospital and Leeds Private Hospitals Ltd.

  (2) what representations she has received regarding the Fallodon hospital in Leeds.

  Mr. Sackville
  Responsibility for the Fallodon's registration under the Registered Homes Act 1984 rests with the health authority. A number of concerns have been raised with the Department in relation to the Fallodon's approval by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under section 1(3) of the Abortion Act 1967 to provide treatment for termination of pregnancy. All were fully investigated. Improvements were required and implemented and the Fallodon continues to he approved under the Act.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she is taking to encourage bone density scanning for osteoporosis.

  Mr. Sackville
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Cumberlege, announced on 31 January that she had accepted the recommendations contained in the report of the Advisory Group on Osteoporosis, copies of which are available in the Library. She wrote to the chairmen of all national health service bodies drawing their attention to the recommendation that bone densitometry should be available to assist clinical decision-making for certain patients identified as being at high risk. My noble Friend will also be discussing this aspect, and the report more generally, with regional chairmen.

  Domiciliary Care
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the extent to which the current NHS system meets the Government's objective to promote the development of the domiciliary day and respite care services to enable people to live in their own home wherever feasible and sensible.

  Mr. Bowis
  Recent guidance, HSG(95)8, on national health service responsibilities for meeting continuing health care needs reiterated the important responsibilities of the NHS to arrange and fund a full range of services to meet people's continuing health care needs. As well as continuing in-patient care the guidance included important responsibilities for rehabilitation, respite health care and community health and primary care services for people at home or in residential care homes. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many elderly people are currently under domiciliary day and respite care; and how many are in full nursing home facilities.

  Mr. Bowis
  The centrally available information on day and domiciliary services arranged by social services authorities shows that in a sample week in September 1993 there were estimated totals of 435,000 households in England receiving home help or home care where the oldest resident was aged 65 or over, 123,000 attendances at day centres by people aged 65 or over, and 287,000 people—nearly all aged 65 or over—had meals either delivered to their homes or served at luncheon clubs. Information is not available centrally about how many individuals were receiving services arranged by social services authorities.

  The number of local authority supported residents aged 65 and over in short-term placements in either residential care or nursing homes, many of which will he for respite purposes, was 11,000 on 31 March 1994.

  Information on all registered nursing homes is that there were 132,200 nursing home beds occupied by people aged 65 or over in 1993–94.

  Dental Practitioners
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when she expects to recover the average overpayment from each general dental practitioner;

  (2) what proposals she has to require general dental practitioners to repay the average overpayment to the Government.

  Mr. Malone
  The Green Paper, "Improving NHS Dentistry", states that the issue of past overpayments to dentists is one that needs to be addressed. The Government have been reviewing the issue as part of their consideration of the way forward following the Green Paper.

  Maternal Mortality
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of maternal mortality there have been following births in the Dewsbury area for(a) home confinements and (b) hospital births in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.
  237

  Maternal deaths of women (ICD 630–6761 aged 16–50 for Dewsbury district health authority, 1983–1992

  Year

  Number

  1983

  1

  1984

  0

  1985

  0

  1986

  0

  1987

  1

  1988

  0

  1989

  1

  1990

  0

  1991

  1

  1992

  1

  1 1CD 9 codes 630–676 refer to complications of pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium. Of these, codes 647 and 648 may be considered indirect causes of the pregnancy as they cover conditions in the mother classifiable elsewhere in the ICD 9 but which complicate pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium. The remaining conditions may be considered direct causes relating to pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium.

  Notes

  1. There may have been other deaths among women who were pregnant or had recently given birth where this information was not given on the death certificate or was not selected as the underlying cause of death.

  2. Information collected on the death certificate gives the place where the woman died. This may be different from where her child was born. Therefore it is not possible to separate deaths following births from home confinements and hospital births.

  Mental Health Act 1983
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those services which an authority(a) can be required to provide and (b) can make available under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983; and if she will list the services actually available under that section.

  Mr. Bowis
  The specific services provided by health and local authorities under section 117 will vary according to individual needs and local arrangements. General guidance on the provision of after-care services for patients who have been detained in hospital is given in chapter 27 of the Mental Health Act code of practice, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 8 February,Official Report, columns 270–17, when she expects to publish the numbers of patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 in (a) NHS units and (b) private units.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Statistical Bulletin, "In-patients Formally Detained in Hospitals Under The Mental Health Act 1983 and Other Legislation, England: 1987–88 to 1992–93", is to be published shortly. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Neuroleptic Drugs
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what proposals she has to hold an inquiry into the use of neuroleptic drugs.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 8 February at column 273.

  Refugees
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports she has received of NHS trust hospitals denying treatment to refugees properly referred by their general practitioners; and what mechanisms are in place to ensure that the rules as regards eligibility for free NHS hospital care are correctly applied.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. It is for national health service trusts to establish whether patients are eligible for exemption from charges for NHS hospital treatment, using the Department's Manual of Guidance on the NHS Treatment of Overseas Visitors.

  Private Hospitals
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to review the licensing procedures of private hospitals.

  Mr. Sackville
  The registration of private hospitals is subject to part II of the Registered Homes Act 1984. A review of registration and inspection procedures will commence this year.

  Human Rights
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will arrange for the draft convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine to he amended in response to opinion No. 184 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe; when she expects the draft convention to he opened for signature; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The United Kingdom Government will take account of the Parliamentary Assembly's opinion in considering the current draft convention. No date has as yet been agreed for the convention to be signed.

  The Government share with the Governments of other member states a commitment to the protection of human rights and dignity.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's policy towards the draft convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  My Department will continue its involvement in the Council of Europe's Steering Committee on Bioethics, which is drawing up a draft convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine for consideration by the Council of Ministers. This involvement will reflect the United Kingdom Government's firm commitment to the protection of human rights.

  Prescribing Incentive Schemes
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about payments to 240
  general medical practitioners under the 1993–94 national practice based prescribing incentive schemes.

  Mr. Malone
  The schemes have been successful in encouraging cost-effective prescribing. Payments due to those who qualified under the 1993–94 schemes have been authorised on an extra statutory basis. Similar arrangements will apply to payments in respect of 1994–95 schemes. The total amount paid on this basis—estimated at £1.7 million in 1994–95—will be included in family health services authorities summarised accounts.

  Continuing Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is her estimate of the cost to the National Health Service of providing continuing care for each year from 1979 to 1996;

  (2) what is her estimate of the number of people in need of continuing care as provided by the national health service in each year from 1979 to 1996.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 19 December 1994 at column 1147. The number of people in need of continuing care is not available centrally.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps she will take to monitor health authorities investment in continuing care provision; and how she will ascertain which health authorities are under-providing.

  Mr. Bowis
  The National Health Service Executive and social services inspectorate will work closely with authorities to ensure that the guidance is fully implemented. As part of this process, health authorities will be required to include managing any re-investment in their timed and costed plans which will he in place by I April 1996.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances patients will he able to challenge the criteria applied by the health authority to decide their entitlement to national health service continuing care.

  Mr. Bowis
  Health authorities must consult and fully involve local authorities, all general practitioners, national health service and independent providers and representatives of users and carers in drawing up local eligibility criteria.

  From April 1996, a patient or his or her family and any carer can ask the health authority to review the decision on entitlement to national health service funded continuing health care if they do not believe that the health authority's eligibility criteria have been applied correctly.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances a patient in need of continuing care as provided by the national health service can be placed in a nursing home.

  Mr. Bowis
  It is for health authorities to arrange and fund a full range of services to meet the continuing health care needs of their local population. They may purchase such care from national health service hospitals or other facilities, including nursing homes. If a patient meets the
  241
  eligibility criteria for continuing NHS in-patient care but a bed is not available within the health authority's contracted provision, agreement for an extra-contractual referral to another hospital or nursing home should be sought.

  Home Helps
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authority home helps there have been per 1,000 population in each year since 1979.

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

  Table: Whole time equivalent (WTE) home helps employed by local authorities, 1979–1993 England

  At 30 September

  WTE home helps per 1,000 population1

  1979

  0.96

  1980

  1.00

  1981

  0.99

  1982

  1.01

  1983

  1.05

  1984

  1.08

  1985

  1.10

  1986

  1.13

  1987

  1.19

  1988

  1.20

  1989

  1.18

  1990

  1.16

  1991

  1.13

  1992

  1.12

  19932

  1.05

  1 Home helps employed by direct service organisations or by independent organisations under contract to local authorities are not included.

  2 The statistical return collecting details of local authority staffing was very substantially revised in 1993 and this may have affected comparability with earlier years.

  Permanent Secretaries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which permanent secretaries have left her Department's employment in the past five years; and which public positions they have been appointed to subsequently.

  Mr. Sackville
  Sir Donald Acheson and Sir Duncan Nichol have retired as permanent secretaries in this Department in the five years from I March 1990. Ministers appointed Sir Donald Acheson to chair the Home Office Health Advisory Committee to the Prison Service in 1992. Ministers have not offered Sir Duncan Nichol any public appointments.

  Operations
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from the health services management centre of the University of Birmingham questioning the value of a number of operations commonly performed on patients; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  No such representations have been received.

  Staff Relocation Expenses
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on staff relocation expenses in each year since 1990–91 by region.

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not separately identifiable within the annual accounts or annual financial returns of health authorities and national health service trusts.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Women Directors
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what initiatives his Department is taking to increase the number of female directors in Britain's industrial companies.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  It is for the board and shareholders of companies to choose directors, not Government.

  Company Assistance (Midlands)
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what concerns have been raised by companies and firms in the midlands about the provision of assistance to them by his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department deals with a large number of companies in the midlands on a daily basis on a wide variety of issues.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what studies his Department has conducted on the relative costs of telecommunications services in the United Kingdom and other European Union countries.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My Department has studied the overall competitiveness of United Kingdom telecommunications infrastructure, including costs. We also monitor studies by outside bodies. These studies show that UK telecom costs are amongst the lowest in Europe.

  Jaguar X200
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with Jaguar concerning financial assistance for the X200 project.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have been keeping in very close touch with the top management in Ford and Jaguar as their plans for the X200 project have developed.

  The company has not yet decided whether to go ahead with the project or, if it does, where the car would he manufactured.

  I am of course keen to maximise the prospects of the project being located in the United Kingdom.

  Internet
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what use his Department is making of the Internet super-highway.
  243
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My Department recognises the value of the Internet as a means to share information and develop contacts at a national and international level. We are already making use of its facilities for electronic mail, and to obtain and provide information, and I have instigated a programme to consider and develop the Department's usage from a strategic perspective.

  My E-Mail address is Taylor@mintech.demon.co.uk

  Private Mines
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with private mine owners regarding terms and conditions of service for miners since privatisation.

  Mr. Page
  None. These are matters for the employers and their employees.

  Electricity Companies
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice his Department has given to the Director General of Electricity Supply concerning the consequences on prices of the high remuneration of directors.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has given no advice to the Director General of Electricity Supply regarding these matters.

  Trade Deficit
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade by how much the United Kingdom deficit with countries outside the EU changed in 1994; and to what factors he attributes this.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  In 1994, the value of the visible trade deficit of the United Kingdom with countries outside the European Union was reduced by £2.7 billion, reaching its lowest level since 1987. UK exports to these countries increased in value by 10 per cent. in 1994 while imports increased by 5 per cent. UK exports are now at record levels both in terms of value and volume. This has been achieved by UK companies manufacturing goods that are competitive in quality and price in international markets.

  Steel
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support he is giving to the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation's campaign in favour of British-made steel.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government share the ISTC's concerns about continuing subsidies to the United Kingdom steel industry's competitors in Europe. We have consistently made it clear to the Commission and other member states the importance we attach to the strict application of the ECSC rules on state aid. To assist us in this task, I have recently set up a steel subsidies monitoring committee—consisting of Government and steel industry representatives—to help gather evidence of illegal state aid and to pass it on to the Commission for action. We are also working with the UK constructional steelwork industry to improve the transparency and rigour with which sub-contracts for steelwork are awarded for public sector projects.

  Manufacturing (East London)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next plans to visit east London to discuss the future of manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  I visited east London last Wednesday, 1 March, to discuss with local manufacturers how best to take forward the London manufacturing initiative that I launched in October.

  Company Profits
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average proportion of post-tax profits paid as dividends in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the OECD as a whole in the last year.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  United Kingdom dividends accounted for 62.1 per cent. of profit after tax, interest and depreciation in 1992. Comparable figures are not available for the OECD as a whole, and could he produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Ceramic Imports
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the growth in the import of ceramic goods from the far east.

  Mr. Page
  My Department has received many representations on this subject, mainly about imports from China. United Kingdom manufacturers of ceramic products want the Government to support retention of the present quotas which limit imports into the European Community while many traders and retailers argue strongly that they are unjustified on economic grounds and should be removed.

  Information Society
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the recent G7 meeting of Technology Ministers on the information society.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on 2 March 1995,Official Report columns 715-16.

  Textphones
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance his Department gives to businesses developing textphones and similar aids for disabled people.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Seven different types of textphones have received approval from the British Approvals Board for Telecommunications. Whilst the development of aids of this type for disabled people is obviously important, I do not believe the companies involved in these developments need special support from my Department.

  Near East Trade
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what special efforts are being made to encourage trade with near eastern countries.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The countries of the near east include many of the top 80 United Kingdom markets and dedicated desk officers and export promoters have been appointed to cover these. Their efforts have made a
  245
  significant additional contribution to the encouragement and support of trade with the area. Regular promotional seminars are held, and we support numerous trade missions, as well as participation by United Kingdom firms in trade fairs and exhibitions.

  As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will be visiting the area shortly accompanied by a team of senior business men.

  Coal Mines
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received regarding the imposition of three-year fixed-term contracts on workers within the coal mining industry.

  Mr. Page
  None.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new measures he intends to take to revitalise the manufacturing base and its contribution to gross domestic product.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Government's policies are geared towards improving the competitiveness of the whole economy, including the manufacturing sector. Manufacturing industry continues to perform strongly: the latest CBI survey shows export orders at their highest level since April 1977, and over the last year productivity has grown by almost 6 per cent. and output by nearly 4½ per cent.

  Building Insurance
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about levels of premiums for building insurance relating to cover for terrorist attacks.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I have received no representations about the levels of terrorism insurance premiums which post-date my announcement of the premium arrangements for 1995, on 16 December 1994,Official Report, columns 850-51.

  Energy Demand
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are his Department's latest projections of the range of future energy demand and of carbon dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has today published the results of an extensive review of their prospects for future energy use in the United Kingdom and of the associated emissions of carbon dioxide, one of the major greenhouse gases.

  The report, "Energy Projections for the UK: Energy Use and Energy-Related Emissions of Carbon Dioxide in the UK 1995–2020", Energy Paper No. 65 (EP65), updates the energy and carbon dioxide projections published in Energy Paper No. 59 (EP59) in 1992.

  The new projections provide a framework to monitor the development and direction of energy markets in the UK; to keep track of whether the UK is on target to meet its aim of returning carbon dioxide emissions to their 1990 levels in 2000; and to inform debate on possible future carbon dioxide commitments beyond 2000.
  246
  The new figures show that, on the assumptions about the climate change programme described as follows, the outturn for carbon dioxide emissions in 2000 is expected to be between 7 and 14 million tonnes of carbon—MtC—below the Government's target for that year.

  The full range of carbon dioxide projections for 2000 and later years in million tonnes of carbon is as follows.

  Energy Paper 65

  Energy Paper 59 reference scenario

  1990

  158

  158

  2000

  144–152

  169

  2005

  154–165

  182

  2010

  154–167

  194

  2015

  164–182

  207

  2020

  171–197

  219

  The EP59 reference scenario implied that, in order to meet its carbon dioxide commitment, the Government should aim to achieve savings of 10 MtC by the year 2000. The new projections show that, compared to the reference scenario, savings of 17 to 25 MtC are now expected to be achieved.

  These savings, and those in later years, are due to the following factors.

  First, the revised projections incorporate the carbon savings expected to arise from the climate change programme. The projections have been constructed on the assumption that virtually all the elements of the climate change programme set out in Cm 2427 are in place. The fiscal measures are those announced in the 1994 Budgets. It has also been assumed that the amounts of energy saved by the non-fiscal measures are the same as those assumed in producing Cm 2427.

  Secondly, the revised projections reflect new assumptions about future fossil fuel prices and about the responsiveness of energy demand to the price of energy and to changes in incomes and output. They also incorporate changes in the assumptions about the way in which energy is likely to be supplied. While EP59 assumed that there would be 12 GW of combined cycle gas turbines CCGT the projections now assume that, by the year 2000, some 16 to 18 GW of CCGT will he operating. The estimates also assume, on the evidence of recent performance, that the output of nuclear generating stations will be significantly higher than was anticipated in 1992.

  These various changes in supply side assumptions and in estimated demand relationships arc expected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by between 7 and 17 MtC in 2000, compared with the scenario adopted for the climate change programme.

  The new projections alter the previous estimates of the carbon saved by the measures in the climate change programme. In part this reflects changes arising from the 1994 Budgets, particularly relating to VAT on domestic energy. The further assumed switch from coal to gas for electricity generation reduces the carbon savings attributable to reductions in electricity demand. The new projections assume a weaker link between changes in energy prices and changes in energy demand in the domestic sector.

  These changes work in different directions. Their net effect is that the savings associated with the programme of measures included in the original climate change

  247
  programme, allowing for the adjustments to the fiscal measures announced in the 1994 Budgets, would be between 8 and 9 MtC in 2000. This is what is included in the projections.

  Taking account also of reduced assumptions for the Energy Saving Trust, the net effect is now expected to be between 7 and 8 MtC. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is making an announcement today on the implications of the new energy projections for UK climate change policy.

  Electricity
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answers of I and 20 December to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)Official Report, columns 807 and 1046-47, if he has now laid an order bringing further amendments to the Electricity (Class Exemptions from the Requirement for a Licence) Order 1990 into effect.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have today laid before Parliament an order which will bring into effect two amendments to the Electricity (Class Exemptions from the Requirement for a Licence) Order 1990. The first amendment will extend until March 1998 the transitional period in which companies who generated or supplied electricity before the electricity industry was vested are exempt from the requirement to hold generation or supply licences, and the second amendment will help clarify the position of on-site generators who belong to the electricity pool and supply qualifying consumers on the same site through a distribution or transmission system belonging to a third party. I have also taken the opportunity to consolidate the 1990 order and the two amending orders that were laid in April and June 1994.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the names of all special advisers in his Department during the period 13 June 1987 to 24 July 1989.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The special advisers in the Department of Trade and Industry during the period 13 June 1987 to 24 July 1989 were:Charles Hendry
  Jonathan Hill
  Howell James
  Peter Luff
  Sir Jeffrey Sterling

  Distance Selling
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on progress towards agreement on the European Union directive on distance selling.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The distance selling directive is on the agenda for the meeting of the Consumer Council on 30 March. The current text is broadly acceptable to all member states and the French presidency hopes to reach agreement on a common position. If a common position is achieved the directive will be submitted to the European Parliament, where the co-decision procedure will apply.

  Baghdad (Trade Delegation)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the recent trade delegation to Baghdad.

  Mr. Needham
  The delegation went to Baghdad on its own initiative. It was not given assistance by the Government. Companies or individuals visiting Iraq with a view to discussing trade require a licence permitting them to do so from my Department. The organisers were advised of this requirement and asked to draw it to the attention of those travelling as part of the delegation. My Department has contacted known participants and will check to ensure they held, and complied with, the appropriate licences.

  Post Office
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the income to the Post Office during the past year from the sale of Post Office buildings; what was the cost of establishment from new Post Office buildings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Page
  The income to the Post Office in the financial year 1993–94 from the sale of Post Office buildings was £13.5 million. The cost of establishment of new Post Office buildings is not recorded separately. Investment in land and buildings—including leased premises—in the financial year 1993–94 was £114 million. This figure includes the costs of refurbishing and adapting existing buildings.

  Nuclear Review
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the implications for the future of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty will be included within the scope of his Department's current review of policy on nuclear power.

  Mr. Eggar
  The nuclear review is being conducted within the framework of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and of the United Kingdom's other international obligations.

  Steel
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the ratio in percentage terms and the figures in tonnes of imported and United Kingdom produced steel for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Page
  The information is in the table:

  UK steel1 production and imports

  Year

  Production2(000 tonnes)

  Imports

  Imports as percentage of production

  1979

  16,816

  3,859

  23

  1980

  10,389

  4,707

  45

  1981

  12,689

  3,399

  27

  1982

  11,835

  3,925

  33

  1983

  12,259

  3,429

  28

  1984

  12,563

  3,646

  29

  1985

  13,073

  3,865

  30

  1986

  13,141

  4,233

  32

  1987

  15,011

  4,391

  29

  1988

  16,681

  5,225

  31

  1989

  16,879

  5,497

  33

  1990

  16,081

  5,411

  34

  249

  UK steel1 production and imports

  Year

  Production2(000 tonnes)

  Imports

  Imports as percentage of production

  1991

  15,032

  5,576

  37

  1992

  14,902

  5,465

  37

  1993

  15,103

  4,917

  33

  1994

  15,669

  n/a

  n/a

  Source:

  Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau.

  Notes:

  Products of the steel industry as defined by the Standard Industrial Classification (1980), groups 221, 222 and 223.

  Includes deliveries to home market and exports.

  Postal Services
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the President of the hoard of Trade what is the current target timescale for completing first postal deliveries in urban areas.

  Mr. Page
  I understand from the Post Office that the general current target timescale for completing first deliveries in town areas is between 7 am and 9.30 am.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the target timescale for completing first postal deliveries has been altered since 1975.

  Mr. Page
  I understand from the Post Office that there has been no change in the target timescale for completing first deliveries since 1975.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what proportion of first-class mail is currently delivered within the first-delivery timescale as defined in 1975;

  (2) what proportion of first-class mail is currently delivered within the first-delivery timescale, as currently defined.

  Mr. Page
  I understand from the Post Office that there has been no change in the first delivery timescale since 1975 and that information on the proportion of first-class mail currently delivered within the first delivery timescale is not available. However, taking into account that the general target timescale for first postal deliveries in rural areas is longer than in town areas, overall 88 per cent. of all classes of mail nationally is delivered on the first delivery.

  Tourism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what government assistance has been given to depressed tourist areas in each year since 1976.

  Mr. Page
  There is no list of tourist areas to which Government assistance can be ascribed.

  Energy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the board of Trade if he will make a statement on the distribution of investment between nuclear and non-nuclear sources of energy as sponsored or sanctioned by his Department.

  Mr. Page
  The distribution of expenditure by my Department between nuclear and non-nuclear sources of energy is given in "Trade and Industry 1995: The Government's expenditure plans 1995–96 to 1997–98" (Cm 2804), copies of which are available in the Library of the House. This includes information about the 250
  financing of public corporations in the energy sector: futher information about their expenditure can be obtained from their annual reports and accounts, also in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations took place between(a) Ministers and (b) officials of his Department with (i) British Nuclear Fuels and (ii) Scottish Nuclear during their negotiations for additional reprocessing contracts and wet storage for spent nuclear fuel, announced on 28 February.

  Mr. Eggar
  Such contractual negotiations between British Nuclear Fuels plc and Scottish Nuclear Ltd., are a commercial matter for the companies concerned. BNFL has kept officials from the Department of Trade and Industry informed in general terms.

  Mr. Terry Venables
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on how a computer disk in the possession of his Department containing information on Mr. Terry Venables became public.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  It appears that the information concerned was improperly copied. The circumstances are the subject of an investigation by the police who are in consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Ship Finance
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to publish the Theisen Securities report on ship finance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Page
  The report by Theisen consultants on the financing of sales of new ships is expected to be available soon. I will place copies in the Libraries of the House.

  Konver Funding
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has obtained written confirmation from the European Commission that in the list of qualifying areas for Konver II funding, Preston is the travel-to-work area embracing Chorley and South Ribble.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 7 March 1995]: No; contrary to earlier expectations, the Commission has not yet published any list of areas in the Official Journal. But the list of British Konver II areas in the Government's programme, sent to the Commission on 1 March, includes Preston travel-to-work area.

  Insurance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the estimated average additional costs of purchasing private insurance to protect against sickness or unemployment after October 1995 to a homeowner with a £50,000 mortgage(a) if they are self employed, (b) if they are in full time permanent employment and are not disabled and (c) if they are full time permanent employment and are disabled.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 7 March 1995] Insurers currently charge standard rates of about £7 for every £100 of monthly mortgage payment and do not generally charge different rates for different situations.
  251
  Following the Budget announcement on changes to social security assistance, some insurers appear to be beginning to tailor their products more specifically to individual needs. However, it is too early to say whether this will have a significant impact on costs.

DEFENCE

  Job Losses
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department takes to changes to the size of the defence industry; and how many job losses have been recorded by his Department since July 1990.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department monitors public announcements of job losses by United Kingdom defence contractors. Since July 1990, when "Options for Change" was announced, some 65,500 job losses have been recorded in this way.

  This figure includes those announcements of which my Department is aware either through the press or by direct notification from the company. It may not include job losses sustained by smaller companies, including sub-contractors and component suppliers, which have gone unreported. It may, however, include some announced job losses which in fact relate to the civil rather than the defence business of the company concerned. The figure is of announced job losses, not all of which may yet have been implemented. It does not include jobs created in the defence industry as a result of new orders.

  HMS Brazen
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions between 1 January and 31 December 1994 HMS Brazen was used to transport fertiliser from the United Kingdom to Gibraltar for use at the official service residence; what quantity was involved; and at what estimated cost.

  Mr. Soames
  HMS Brazen transported fertiliser from the United Kingdom to Gibraltar for use at the official service residence on one occasion between 1 January and 31 December 1994. She transported four bags of fertiliser weighing I cwt. each. The transport of the fertiliser incurred no additional cost, as it occupied spare capacity on a ship already planned to visit Gibraltar.

  Sex Discrimination
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons documents relating to his Department's policy on sex discrimination are classified; in what circumstances they can be handed to employment appeal tribunals in cases of pregnancy dismissal by his Department; what considerations apply when they cannot be handed over; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  No special considerations apply to the disclosure in industrial tribunal proceedings of documents relating to my Department's policy on sex discrimination. Such a document would therefore be subject to disclosure if it was relevant to the issues to be determined in the proceedings and there were no other reasons such as legal 252
  professional privilege which would give the respondent cause to object to its production. In the context of pregnancy dismissal cases before tribunals, documents relating to sex discrimination policy are not considered by my Department to be relevant. This is because the only issue to be decided by the tribunal is that of quantum; the Ministry of Defence has accepted liability to compensate those service women who were unlawfully discharged on the ground of pregnancy.

  Strategic Weapons Systems
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the subject areas covered in the current programme of exchanges under the Polaris sales agreement, as amended for Trident.

  Mr. Freeman
  A joint official level United States-United Kingdom working group established under the Polaris sales agreement meets at regular intervals to discuss a range of technical, financial, logistics, planning and safety issues relating to the Polaris and Trident strategic weapon systems. Details of these exchanges arc classified.

  Atomic Control Office
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 February,Official Report, column 825, what amount of money is in the assistant chief scientific adviser (nuclear)'s intermediate higher level budget; and if he will provide an estimate, in percentage terms, of how much of this budget is spent on administration of the atomic control office, London.

  Mr. Freeman
  The assistant chief scientific adviser (nuclear)'s cash allocation for the current financial year is £1,285,000. It is estimated that between 5 and 10 per cent. of this will be spent on the administration of the atomic control office.

  Proto II Facility
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much it will cost in total to transfer and establish the proto II x-ray simulation facility, presently at the Sandia national laboratory, to AWE Aldermaston; and what proportion of this cost is to be met by the United Kingdom Government;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the proposal to transfer to Atomic Weapons Establishments (UK) the proto II x-ray simulation facility presently at the Sandia national laboratory and the plans to establish this facility at AWE Aldermaston as outlined in the United States Department of Energy fiscal year 1996 budget request for atomic energy defence activities.

  Mr. Freeman
  It has been decided not to proceed with the proposed transfer of the proto II facilitity to the United Kingdom.

  Mutual Defence Agreement
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 February,Official Report, columns 823–24, if he will make a statement on the role and function of the United Kingdom person stationed at (a) Laurel, Maryland, (b) Lawrence Livermore laboratory, (c) Dahlgren, Virginia, (d) Kings

  253
  bay, Georgia, (e) New London, Connecticut and (f) Crystal city, Arlington, Virginia.

  Mr. Freeman
  The United Kingdom personnel stationed in the United States as part of the Polaris sales agreement, as amended for Trident, provide direct liaison with US strategic systems project staff, supply staff and contractors on technical, financial, logistics, planning and safety matters. The individual stationed at the Lawrence Livermore laboratory is an employee of the Atomic Weapons Establishment on a short term appointment associated with the 1958 agreement, not the Polaris sales agreement as suggested by my previous reply.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many US personnel are stationed in the United Kingdom as part of(a) the 1958 US/UK mutual defence agreement, (b) the Polaris sales agreement and (c) the Trident sales agreement; and where they are located.

  Mr. Freeman
  There is one US employee stationed at the Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston under the terms of the 1958 mutual defence agreement. There are five US employees in the United Kingdom as part of the Polaris sales agreement, as amended for Trident. These are as follows:London: 2
  Bath: 2
  Barrow in Furness: 1

  AWE Aldermaston
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the policy of pursuing pulsed power weapons physics applications at AWE Aldermaston.

  Mr. Freeman
  Pulsed power physics techniques support a range of programmes at AWE associated with warhead safety, effectiveness and capability.

  RAF Spadeadam
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was Royal Air Force Spadeadam's budget for each of the last five financial years.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:

  1991–92: £6,750,000

  1992–93: £7,200,000

  1993–94: £8,500,000

  1994–95: £8,212,000

  Information for 1990–91 is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's current estimates of the numbers of operational nuclear weapons held by the other nuclear-weapon states; and what estimates his Department has made of each state's rate of dismantling of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Soames
  A comparison of the strategic nuclear forces of the nuclear weapon states is given in figure 3 on page 33 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994" (Cm 2550). It would be inappropriate to publish our more detailed assessments of force holdings and dismantlement programmes.

  Flying Training, Slovakia
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he had with the Government of Slovakia on access to flying training facilities in Slovakia for the Royal Air Force during his recent visit to that country; and what agreements have been reached on this subject.

  Mr. Soames
  During his meeting with the Slovakian Defence Minister on 15 February my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State discussed a wide range of issues, including possible United Kingdom military training opportunities in Slovakia. Although no agreements were concluded, our respective officials are considering ways of deepening co-operation between our two countries.

  Rugby League
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provisions have been made for the Rugby League within the Royal Air Force sports board's five-day sport officials and coaches courses for 1995–96.

  Mr. Soames
  No bid was received from the Rugby League for its sport to be included within the Royal Air Force sports board's five-day courses for 1995–96. Along with other sports, rugby league will he allowed the opportunity to hold a course in 1996–97.

  Permanent Secretaries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State For Defence which permanent secretaries have left his Department's employment in the last five years; and which public positions they have been appointed to subsequently.

  Mr. Freeman
  Sir Peter Levene, Sir Michael Quinlan, Sir Kenneth Macdonald and Professor Sir Ronald Oxburgh have left the Department as permanent secretaries in the five years from I March 1990. Ministers have appointed them to the following positions:

  Sir P. Levene

  adviser to the Prime Minister on efficiency and effectiveness;

  special adviser to the President of the Board of Trade;

  special adviser to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on competition and purchasing (1992 only);

  special adviser to the Secretary of State for Environment (1991–1992).

  Sir K. Macdonald

  chairman International Military Services Ltd.

  Sir M. Quinlan

  trustee of the Science museum.

  University Air Squadron
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the approximate annual cost of the training of Oxford university air squadron at RAF Benson; and which organisation finances these costs.

  Mr. Soames
  The current estimate of expenditure by Oxford university air squadron during this financial year is £436,000. This expenditure is funded by my Department with costs falling to the Royal Air Force college, Cranwell's budget.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the RAF bases which offer training to university air squadrons and the approximate annual cost of the training in each case.
  255
  Mr. Soames
  A list of university air squadrons based at RAF bases and airfields, together with estimates of expenditure during the present financial year, are as follows:

  University Air Squadron

  Airfield

  Estimate ofexpenditure £000

  Aberdeen Dundee and St. Andrews

  RAF Leuchars

  536

  University of Birmingham Air Squadron

  RAF Cosford

  549

  Bristol

  Colerne Airfield

  758

  East Lowlands

  RAF Turnhouse

  507

  East Midlands

  RAF Newton

  721

  Liverpool

  RAF Woodvale

  457

  University of London

  RAF Benson

  1,094

  Manchester and Salford

  RAF Woodvale

  700

  Northumbrian

  RAF Leeming

  514

  Oxford

  RAF Benson

  436

  Southampton

  RAF Boscombe Down

  680

  University of Wales Air Squadron

  RAF St. Athan

  504

  Yorkshire

  RAF Finningley1

  618

  1Should the decision be taken to close RAF Finningley, the Yorkshire UAS would relocate to RAF Church Fenton.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training facilities are available for Oxford university air squadron at RAF Benson.

  Mr. Soames
  At present, the Oxford university air squadron operates five Bulldog aircraft from RAF Benson. Generally, a full three year training syllabus comprises 99 hours of individual tuition on the aircraft. The squadron's working accommodation consists of a hangar, offices and a briefing facility. In addition, members have access to the infrastructure of an RAF operational base and the opportunity which that provides for training.

  Operation Granby
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of RAF personnel deployed during Operation Granby was logistical and support personnel.

  Mr. Soames
  Over 70 per cent. of RAF personnel deployed to the Gulf were logistics and support personnel.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the British 1st Armoured Division deployed as part of Operation Granby was logistical and support personnel.

  Mr. Soames
  A total of 43 per cent. of the British 1st Armoured Division deployed during Operation Granby was logistics or support personnel.

  Western European Union
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what actions his Department has proposed for the establishment of an intelligence satellite for the Western European Union.

  Mr. Soames
  The Western European Union is currently studying the possibilities of co-operation on a European satellite observation system. The United Kingdom is contributing fully to that work.

  Excess Equipment
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the receipts for the sale of excess equipment in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The following is the information:

  Financial year

  £ million

  1987–88

  61.3

  1988–89

  59.6

  1989–90

  37.0

  1990–91

  31.0

  1991–92

  32.8

  1992–93

  48.7

  1993–94

  66.7

  1994–95 (Forecast)

  72.4

  It would require disproportionate effort to establish details of receipts for previous financial years, as records are not readily available.

  Land Sales
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost in each of the last 10 years for the sale of land by his Department.

  Mr. Soames
  The sale of land and buildings over the past ten years has benefited the defence budget by some £789 million. The cost of achieving this level of receipt, however, is only recorded for the past five financial years, including the present year, and is as follows:

  1990–91: £2.9 million

  1991–92: £5.6 million

  1992–93: £6.3 million

  1993–94: £11.2 million

  1994–95: £14.7 million

  These levels of expenditure do not include in-house resources as this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The increasing costs are due to larger and more complex sites being introduced into the disposals programme.

  Bosnia
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will specify how many violations of the no-fly zone over Bosnia have been recorded for fixed wing aircraft in each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. Soames
  The monitoring of air activity over Bosnia is a matter for the UN and NATO. However, we understand that there have been 59 reported violations of the no-fly zone by fixed wing aircraft in the last 12 months. These are broken down as follows:

  Number

  1994

  March

  2

  April

  2

  May

  0

  June

  6

  July

  2

  August

  3

  September

  9

  October

  4

  November

  6

  257

  Number

  December

  2

  1995

  January

  0

  February

  23

  "Small Change" Experiments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of LSD experiments called "Small Change" carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down; in which years were the "Small Change" experiments conducted; how many service volunteers were tested under the "Small Change" experiments; what were the lowest and highest doses administered to service volunteers; what these volunteers were required to do under the "Small Change" experiments; how many animals were tested under the "Small Change" experiments and what types of animals were used; what was the conclusion of the "Small Change" experiments; with which countries the results of these experiments were shared; and under which defence agreement the results were shared with these countries.

  Mr. Freeman
  Responsibility for such matters rests with the chief executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from Graham S. Pearson to Dr. David Clark, dated 8 March 1995:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what was the purpose of LSD experiments called Small Change carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down; in which years were the Small Change experiments conducted; how many Service volunteers were tested under the Small Change experiments; what were the lowest and highest doses administered to Service volunteers; what these volunteers were required to do under the Small Change experiments; how many animals were tested under the Small Change experiments and what types of animals were used; what was the conclusion of the Small Change experiments; with which countries the results of these experiments were shared; and under which defence agreement the results were shared with these countries 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 carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the treat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of that programme, an evaluation is carried out of chemicals that may be utilised by an aggressor as a chemical warfare agent.

  3. Small Change, which took place in 1968, was one in a series of studies carried out to assess the effect of LSD on troops in a military setting where the behaviour of those volunteers who had been given LSD could be compared with control volunteers who had not been given LSD. No animals were used in these studies. The principal aim of the study was to assess the effects on the overall efficiency of an infantry platoon in attack when half of its personnel had been dosed with 160 pg each of LSD. The study was to determine whether the presence of volunteers who had not received LSD would:

  a. Mitigate the effects of the drug on the military performance of the unit as a whole.

  b. Modify the response of the individual members of the unit to the drug.

  4. Twenty eight volunteers participated in Small Change; fourteen received doses of 160 µg LSD in water. The volunteers were required to perform anti-terrorist sweeps as formed sections, each
  258
  sweep involving an advance over four kilometres and last about 2½ hours.

  5. Small Change showed that the platoon did not discharge its functions as well as would normally be expected. Overall its performance was adequate but it would have sustained a higher number of casualties than might have reasonably been expected. Unit efficiency fell by about 10% and the role of good discipline and mutual support between drugged and undrugged soldiers in mitigating the drug effects were demonstrated.

  6. The results from Small Change formed part of the technology database held by the Establishment in the area of evaluation of the potential hazard to Service personnel from possible chemical warfare agents. This information was drawn upon during the 1960s and 1970s in the agreements with our NATO allies to exchange information and so promote collaboration and cooperation in areas such as research and development in chemical and biological defence. The agreements at that time included:

  a. The Technical Cooperation Programme involving UK, US. Canada and Australia which had subsumed the earlier trilateral UK/US/Canada meetings.

  b. American, British, Canadian and Australian Armies (ABCA) agreement Quadripartite Working Group (QWG) on NBC defence.

  c. The NATO Panel VII on chemical and biological defence.

  Fraud
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 28 February,Official Report, column 515, if he will give a breakdown of the figure for fraud in the financial year 1993–94.

  Mr. Soames
  The breakdown of non-procurement fraud in my Department in financial year 1993–94 was as follows:

  £

  Fraudulent encashment of payable instrument

  2,000

  Travel and subsistence

  17,000

  Misappropriation of cash

  107,000

  Instrument of payment received on false documentation

  81,000

  Theft of assets

  358,000

  False claim for hours worked

  3,000

  Other

  3,000

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 28 February,Official Report, column 516, what were the estimated costs of fraud in the five highest value cases specified by his Department.

  Mr. Soames
  The estimated values of the frauds in question were as follows:

  £

  Director of Ammunition (Foxley)

  1,500,000

  VMS (Ltd.)

  150,000

  Chellingworth and Singer Ltd.

  1.000,000

  Gateway Motor Auctions

  111,000

  CAS Aviation and Marine International

  650,000

  259
  These figures do not, however, necessarily represent a quantifiable cash loss to the Department.

  Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy in respect of the biological and toxic weapons convention review conference to be held in 1996.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department is working for a strengthening of the biological and toxic weapons convention by the inclusion of appropriate verification 260
  measures. We hope to have achieved progress towards this by 1996.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department has considered to enhance the verification procedures of the biological and toxic weapons convention.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department is currently giving consideration to a number of measures including declarations, visits and inspections, some of which could be at short notice, that could be included in a future verification regime for the biological and toxin weapons convention.

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

UN Conference on Women
Baroness Gould of Potternewton Baroness Gould of Potternewton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for building on the achievements of the Cairo Conference on Population and Development at the forthcoming United Nations Conference on Women, to be held in Beijing in September 1995.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we will work hard to ensure that the Fourth World Conference on Women in Peking endorses the Cairo Programme of Action, in particular the commitments made to improve women's reproductive health and to enable women and men to have children by choice, not chance.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that extremely helpful reply. While fully appreciating the important role that the Minister played in the success of Cairo, will she agree that the International Women's Day—it is today—has a special significance this year, taking place as it does between those two important conferences for women at Cairo and Beijing? Will she also agree that the language and concepts relating to reproductive health and quality family planning agreed at the Cairo conference should be an intrinsic part of the plan of action of Beijing?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, indeed. On International Women's Day, today, we need to turn our minds very much to the language that will be used for the Peking conference. I certainly believe that we have to take the best of Cairo and make sure that it is part of Peking. I shall be doing my best to ensure that that is done.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on the work that she did at Cairo. Can she inform the House about two additional areas which might be addressed at Beijing? I refer first to the role of women in economic development, especially in areas where their contribution is not monetised and therefore often not recognised; and, secondly, to the growing issue of domestic violence, which many countries have indicated is now a high priority for discussion at the UN women's conference at Beijing?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for what she said. I believe that enabling women through education and training to be able to make a proper economic contribution to their families' lives will be a crucial issue for the Peking conference. Whether we shall be able to tackle domestic violence in the way
264
that the noble Baroness suggests is not yet clear from the preparation conferences. However, I know that many men and women across the world are anxious that more should be done in countries where perhaps their women are less educated to help women not to have to endure such things.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, first, perhaps I may congratulate the Minister on her emphasis on education and training for women, which enable them to make a more positive economic contribution to the future of their country. I hope that at Beijing, as we did at Nairobi 10 years ago, women will be encouraged to go into fields of work which are non-traditional for them.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her comment and her question on non-traditional employment for women. I am told that one of the marvellous discoveries in some universities these days is what good engineers women can make. While there will not necessarily be full-scale support for that at the Peking conference, I believe that widening opportunities in education and training for women must be uppermost in our minds as we approach the Peking conference.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, given the ODA' s excellent policy document, Children by choice not chance, will the Minister inform the House whether the Government have any plans to build on the achievements of the Cairo conference at the Beijing conference in order to achieve the objectives of that policy?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are not even waiting until the Peking conference to seek to build on the programmes which were so widely accepted at Cairo. We have committed about £100 million over two years through our own Children by choice not chance initiative. We have also encouraged other donors to do likewise. That is moving well.
We are now involved in wide-ranging discussions with other donors to ensure that we achieve better international understanding of what needs to be done in each country. We are not only running workshops on reproductive health but also trying to ensure that policy-making is realistic for the conditions in which women have to try to survive in some of the developing countries.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the general view in this Chamber is that the contribution of noble Baronesses to our affairs is outstanding? The Beijing Conference would proceed much better if they all went there to make a contribution.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comment to all noble Baronesses in the Chamber. As a Minister who maintains strict financial control, I have to consider carefully how much money we spend on Peking. Therefore, it might not be possible to take all noble Baronesses there. However, I shall certainly ascertain whether more could be included in the delegation.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, following the media reports today about what might be happening behind closed doors at the Copenhagen Social Summit, can the noble Baroness reassure the House that the considerable

265
success and achievements of the Cairo Conference, in which she played a notable part, will not be diminished or traded off in the next few days?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that what he heard on the "Today" programme this morning was a storm in a teacup. So far as I can tell, competitive press officers were trying to catch the eye of the media and they succeeded. Things are not bad in Copenhagen, the NGOs gained admission to the corridors this morning. I do believe that, if they had asked for it previously, they would have been allowed into the corridors, exclusion from which they complained about in the media. On International Women's Day, it is good to see so many women taking part in Question Time, and also a man. It gives us a little balance and is some help for my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who is only accompanied by the ladies today.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, will the Minister pay particular regard to what is called "cultural and religious sensibilities"? Under the name of "cultural and religious sensibilities", women suffer great injustices in many societies and I request my noble friend to pay particular regard to that. I ask her not to be fobbed off with what are called "special dispensations" for cultural and religious sensibilities.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. She is absolutely right that in many parts of the world cultural and religious sensitivities are used as an excuse not to face up to the needs of women in those societies. In the past year I have been pleased that we are making some progress in the Moslem communities. A number of the imams are much more forthright in looking to the needs of women than they used to be. I shall certainly bear in mind what my noble friend says in all our deliberations.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a disturbing trend in many developing countries that, as structural adjustment takes place, user fees are introduced for health, to the detriment of women? Does she agree that an objective at the Beijing Conference should be to ensure that in future such fees are not introduced as part of structural adjustment?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's anxiety and he knows that to some extent I share it. However, I do not think any UN conference or any other conference can seek to constrain the financial affairs of a country in the way that the noble Lord described. It is becoming increasingly clear that there is now an understanding of the need to give basic health care to people, free of charge where it can be arranged.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Baroness realise that many of us believe that, whatever the limitations of the Government's policy in the area, they would be a great deal worse if she were not the Minister responsible? We are grateful to her.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very much for what she has just said, but my colleagues also help me.

Inter-Governmental Conference 1996
2.46 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What United Kingdom initiatives concerning the repatriation of powers from the European Union in connection with the Inter-Governmental Conference in 1996 have been canvassed with member states over the previous six months and what has been the result.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has set out the basis of our approach to the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference on a number of occasions. We are now considering the details of our approach and will put forward a number of ideas to improve the efficiency and accountability of the European Union in support of British interests.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the noble Baroness indicate whether the reports are correct—apparently supported on 15th January by Mr. Portillo—that the Government seek to enable decisions of the European Court of Justice to be revoked or reviewed by the Council of Ministers on qualified majority voting? Is there any truth in that quite absurd suggestion? It seems completely to contradict the rules relating to the separation of powers.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: No, my Lords, I do not think so.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will indicate what her reply means. Is the suggestion being contemplated by the Government? That is what I ask.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is much too early to predict what will be discussed at the IGC. We have not even finished our own internal discussions. Having been a member of a former government, the noble Lord knows full well that until we reach the end of the process I shall not say yea or nay. However, I gave him a clear hint in my first Answer.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the Question was whether certain views had been canvassed with other member states and what responses were obtained. To the best of my recollection, the noble Baroness does not appear to have answered that part of the Question. If Ministers have not been involved in canvassing the views of others, can the Minister say whether they have been dealt with at the COREPER level with their own permanent representatives making the appropriate approaches, receiving responses and relaying them to Her Majesty's Government?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, any discussions at the present moment are necessarily tentative. But of course members of the Government—by that, I mean Ministers—are discussing the forthcoming Inter-Governmental Conference with European counterparts. But certainly I cannot comment on the

267
discussions, which have been held in private; and no decisions have been arrived at. I shall be listening to the noble Lord in the debate this afternoon.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her negative ambiguity in answering this Question is regarded by some of us on this side of the House as a very positive sign? May I take it that that is the way in which she would wish her Answer to be regarded?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that I always like to be positive with him; but sometimes he causes me to be negative.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister would care to take this opportunity to welcome the European Research Group's recent pamphlet A Europe of Nations, with a foreword by the Prime Minister, which certainly proposes substantial repatriation of powers to the nations of Europe, is supported by 80 centre-Right politicians from across Europe and which can be roughly described as coming from the centre of the Conservative Party?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister stated in his foreword, it is a very good document for debate. Occasionally the authors behind the document may claim more authorship for it than it actually has.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the Minister forgive me if I have become a little confused between the negatives and the positives? In those circumstances, can she positively say that, if any such suggestion were made in regard to the upsetting of the division of powers as was indicated by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, it would be vigorously opposed in principle by the Government?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the sort of balance of powers to which the noble Lord refers is indeed not so simple and straightforward. If I took a line now, it would be thrown at me for ever more. We are not at the end of our discussions on what will be debated and what will not. I shall take the careful path until we are ready to make a decision.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that, as we have now had a Euro-debate, we could all go home?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am sure that some Members would be very willing to accept the noble Lord's offer; but I suspect that one or two others might not. We shall have a debate anyway.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that the European Court of Justice is more a political court than a court of law, manned by non-lawyers and people who are not skilled in the law? Will she therefore agree that the separation of powers does not really exist?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, first, on a point of information, the European Court of Justice—as I am sure our noble and learned friend Lord Slynn would indicate—is indeed manned by lawyers, not by non-lawyers. We need a strong court to enforce
268
Community rules and obligations; the Community can only work if all member states are held to their obligations. The European Community needs an independent judiciary to adjudicate over disputes and to be the final interpreter of the treaties and the decisions that are adopted under them. Certainly some aspects of the court's jurisprudence may not be to everybody's liking. We are considering what proposals we might make to address the concerns positively in the 1996 IGC.

National Identity Card Proposal
2.55 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now consider the introduction of compulsory electronically-based identity cards.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has announced his intention to publish a Green Paper in the spring which will set out the possible options for a national identity card scheme and invite views upon them.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, as the Home Office has no idea whatever how many illegal immigrants there are, is it not very urgent for it to find out rapidly by using an electronically-based system of identity cards which can be instantly verified and which cannot be forged?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the whole purpose of having a Green Paper and exploring all the options—which will range from a compulsory scheme to a number and range of voluntary schemes—is to have just that sort of debate to discuss the possible benefits. One will possibly be to prevent crime; another may well be to give security to those people who have bona fide residence in the country and to help sort out those who do not.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the police now support a compulsory scheme?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in advance of the debate, we know the view of the Association of Chief Police Officers: it supports a voluntary scheme. Whether or not that will be confirmed as a result of the consultation process we do not know. At this stage it certainly supports a voluntary scheme.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that the introduction of at least a voluntary ID card scheme is inevitable. The vast majority of our people are now accustomed to carrying some form of ID card. First, is the Department of Transport going ahead with its plans to introduce a photo-ID card for all motorists by July 1996? Secondly, in view of the fact that investigations are taking place within departments in respect of the ID card, can the Minister give an indication as to the likely outcome and what form the consultation will take before it is introduced?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, we know that there is a great deal of support for an

269
identity card scheme. What we do not know is the nature of that support. There is a great debate about what form it should take. On a recent survey, 75 per cent. of people responded positively that they would support an ID scheme.
On the second point, it is true that plans are at the developmental stage to introduce a travel card. That is to conform with a European directive that there should be a common travel document throughout the European Community. Work is in hand to that end. A possible benefits card is also being developed at the moment. The travel card is due to be introduced in 1996. I cannot be precise about any further consultation on that. We are conforming to the law so far as the driving licence card is concerned.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend, in the course of her consultations, bear in mind that most of us already have a passport, a driving licence, two or three credit cards, a sort of halter that we put round our necks to prove that we are Members of the House of Lords and dozens of other pèces d'identité? Does she agree that the introduction of still further compulsory articles made of plastic will not necessarily serve any useful purpose?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. I think that that is what lies behind the popular view that this is not a threat. I have to say to my noble and learned friend that other people take a different view; namely, that somehow or other it is an infringement of liberties. My noble and learned friend makes an important point: we all carry numbers of identification documents on our person every day. Of the 15 European countries, 10 have schemes, of which six are compulsory and four are non-compulsory. Five European Union countries, including the United Kingdom, do not have such a scheme at present but are contemplating one.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister agree that, whatever may be the technical merits of identity cards, public confidence in the ability of this Government to introduce them fairly and to maintain confidentiality will be reduced by the proposed privatisation of the police national computer? Will she give an undertaking that, if such cards are to be introduced by the Government, they will not subsequently be privatised?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I will give no such guarantee in advance of the consultation exercise. I do not believe that there is a read-across. All aspects of introducing a card will be taken into account in the Green Paper. For the purposes of this debate, it will be a very green paper, because particular options will not be preferred by the Government in advance of the document. Perhaps I may correct what I said in an earlier reply. I referred to "travel document" when I meant to say driving licence.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, does the Minister realise that, despite what her noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham (who was Hogg) said, not many illegal immigrants will have either a plastic card to get into this House or a driving licence? Is not the whole point that we
270
ought not to be so old-fashioned? Should we not use modern means of identification? If we have an electronically-based card which we can all carry around, there would be no need to have anything else. The card can be used for money and almost everything. It is instantly verifiable. One will never be able to catch all illegal immigrants or stop people burgling and breaking into houses. So why do we not wake up and join the modern age?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, all those very colourful points made by my noble friend will be part of the consultation exercise. Perhaps I may also make a very important point. The noble Lord mentioned illegal immigrants several times in his remarks. Some identity card options might just help the prevention or detection of illegal immigrant offenders. But such a control would be in addition to existing controls. There is no intention whatever that identity cards should replace our current system of primarily ensuring the security of our frontiers.

NHS Health Care: National Standards
3 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will set national standards of eligibility for free continuing National Health Service health care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, on 23rd February the Government issued guidance on NHS responsibilities for meeting continuing health care needs.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that if such standards were established by the Government, clinical teams throughout the country would have to decide solely on the basis of medical need whether a person should be in hospital, as they should do? But will she confirm that the Government refuse to establish those standards because they know that some trusts are poorer than others, so the Government allow variations in health care not on the basis of medical need but because of cash? Is not that situation entirely wrong?
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords, that is not the case. Take the case of a person who has had a stroke. The result may be that that person can live a normal life but will have a limp. On the other hand, a person who has had a stroke may be so paralysed that he will have to have long-term care. It must be left to local clinicians to make the decision as to what care is required in conjunction with both the patient and the family.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many patients and their families were reassured by some of the guidance suggesting that there would be a right of appeal under the new system? For example, if someone felt that he might be pushed out of an NHS bed and into means-tested social care, he would have a right of appeal. But how can that appeal system possibly work fairly if there are no national criteria?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the guidance sets out a broad framework. When it was published it was very

271
much welcomed by a number of bodies, including the Association of Directors of Social Services, the National Carers' Association and the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts. So it has been warmly welcomed. It sets criteria in that framework. As the noble Baroness said, there is an opportunity for people to appeal. If they feel that the eligibility criteria published by individual health authorities are not met in their case, they will have the right of appeal to an independent panel.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not a fact that in the past many acute hospital beds were occupied by people with long-term and unimproving conditions that were not suitable for continuing hospitalisation over a long period? Was that not one of the reasons why changes were made?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. We believe that the National Health Service has a responsibility for continuing care. But it must be based on health needs. Where social care is required, we believe that it is the responsibility of the social services.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, in her reply the noble Baroness did not draw the attention of the House to the cutbacks in local authorities' funding, which means that they cannot pick up the jobs that health care is giving them. Does she agree that the real problem is that, although local authorities may want to do the job, they cannot do so unless the necessary cash is given to them?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is a total increase in social services funding for 1995–96 from £6.3 billion to £6.9 billion. Funding for community care services will increase from £4.6 billion to £5.1 billion. Funding for local authorities' new community care responsibilities will increase from £1.3 billion to £1.8 billion. I have a table giving those figures which I shall be pleased to put in the Library if it will help your Lordships.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the noble Baroness is always fair. However, I am very surprised at her Answer. Why does she think that the British Medical Association's spokesman in effect has said that it is the end of the free National Health Service? Does she believe that he was talking nonsense on behalf of his colleagues? Has she read the abundant evidence which shows that clinical teams throughout the country are being guided by the lack of cash allocated to them by the Government? Does that not mean that people needing hospital care are not receiving it, not because of the doctors but because of the Government's allocation of funds?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the guidance reinforces NHS responsibilities. I am not sure whether the noble Lord has had an opportunity to read it in detail. It makes clear that health authorities must arrange and fund within their resources a full range of services to meet continuing health care needs. But it goes on to say that it depends on the complexity and the nature and intensity of those needs. I feel that the BMA also misunderstood the guidance.

Boxing Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to prohibit the organisation of boxing matches for profit. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Taylor of Gryfe.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to he printed.

Health Authorities Bill
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Health Authorities Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 3 and 4,

Schedule 2,

Clause 5,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 6 to 10.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Inter-Governmental Conference 1996
3.8 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead Lord Jenkins of Hillhead rose to call attention to the need for the United Kingdom to play a positive role in the Inter-Governmental Conference of 1996; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not wish this to be a politically partisan debate. I have at least two substantial reasons for that. The first is the appalling effect which excessive attention to party politics has had, under different governments and over several decades, on Britain's ability to deploy an effective and consistent European policy. The second is that in my view there is an urgent need to revive the cross-party pro-European alliance which provided the Heath Government with its 1971 majority for taking us into Europe and which overwhelmingly won the 1975 referendum, despite indications six or nine months beforehand that public opinion was just about as unfavourable as it looks today. That same cross-party alliance, in a brief revival in your Lordships' House, secured a massive majority for the Maastricht ratification nearly two years ago.
However, there is no denying that the superficial mood in the country has become much less favourable than it was at the time of those several past events. But, as Sir Edward Heath himself pointed out in last week's debate in the other place—a debate which I found singularly instructive in a number of ways, to which I shall refer—if year after year a government do practically nothing to counter the drip, drip, drip of denigratory news about Brussels and everything to do with the Community and if they allow that to be almost the only European diet of the British people, enthusiastically magnified by a press

273
which is now overwhelmingly owned by those who have very little stake in the future of this country, one should not be surprised at the result. If one goes for a ride on a tiger, one may end up, if not in Riga, at least somewhere fairly unpleasant. This, M. Balladur has rather vividly been discovering in relation to his excursion on the back of M. Pasqua.
It is also undeniably the fact that 20 years of vacillation have reduced British influence in Europe to its lowest point since we joined in 1973. That political history was encapsulated by Mr. Blair, again in that instructive debate, when he said that he would prefer to be leading a party which had been anti-European and is now pro-European than leading a party which was pro-European and is now becoming anti-European. That fair, if damaging, summary was not very flattering to either party but tells us a lot about what has bedevilled British policy towards Europe. I do not want to be self-righteous about this—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My own party has never had the temptation of behaving weakly in government. I should like to believe it would not, but it has never been put to quite the temptations which other parties have had. But let there be no doubt that this sort of weather-house attitude towards Europe, in which one figure representing the Conservative Party comes out and the other figure representing the Labour Party goes in, and vice versa, has steadily pushed us away from the centre of influence and decision-making. There have been few greater illusions than the view sedulously propagated that everything in Europe has recently been going our way.
Its only rival for illusion is the belief, a constant triumph of hope over reality, that the Franco-German partnership is always on the point of breaking up and that either country would much rather be allied with us than with the other. I have heard that not merely recently but going back to the Schmidt/Giscard partnership, and going back even before that to the Adenauer/de Gaulle partnership. On the contrary, in my view, despite certain natural strains, it is a relationship which has steadily deepened and in which there are now such vested interests involved on both sides that it transcends changes of personnel at the top. The tragedy of our British position is that we have allowed ourselves to become a rather sour observer of this remarkable partnership, which is Europe's greatest gain compared with the 75 years from 1870 to 1945, and that subconsciously we are always hoping, generally vainly, that it will fray.
The peripheral position to which we have reduced ourselves is plain for all to see. It showed itself, for instance, in the fact that Sir Leon Brittan, much the ablest available candidate, was not seriously considered for the Presidency of the Commission because of his nationality.
Noble Lords Noble Lords: Oh,
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, it was totally understandable. Why should a group of countries have someone from a country which they feel has a half commitment—half in, half out—and might be off at any possible moment? It was totally and wholly
274
understandable. All that we could do was to play a charade between M. Dehaene and M. Santer, whose moment of glory in Mr. Major's eyes—the right man in the right place at the right time—was somewhat shortlived. As I have reason to know more directly than anyone else, Britishness was in no way a similar disqualification 18 years ago.
Then we had the Prime Minister's speech last week. That, also, I found yet another instructive aspect of last week's debate in another place. I thought he engaged with the subject more seriously and reflectively than perhaps has been his habit. He did indeed say some favourable things, and said them forcefully, about the Community, which made it a very exceptional speech. One could feel him almost arguing with himself in the course of the speech. And, on the whole, a politician arguing with himself is a more edifying spectacle than one arguing with his opponents. But when that has been said, I was struck and depressed by the totally reactive, as opposed to proactive role, which he assumed for this country, particularly in relation to the single currency, which was the subject to which he principally addressed himself: we will wait and we will see what Germany and France, attended by Benelux, decide to do and then we will react to that according to what at the time we judge to be in the best interests of the country.
This "attentiste" attitude has some advantages. It does not slam a door. It does not repeat the Prime Minister's unwise assumption of a short time ago that a single currency is a chimera. And it does not mount a ridiculous horse of monetary sovereignty, in a week when the activities of Mr. Leeson, following the somewhat different ones of Mr. Soros a couple of years ago, demonstrated the hollowness of a tight little island money entirely under its own control.
But this waiting attitude—see what France and Germany do—is totally incompatible with the view that Britain has a leadership role anywhere near the heart of Europe. It also shows an imperviousness to every lesson we ought to have learnt from our past experience. It was precisely this attitude which got us the worst of all worlds in our approach to the exchange rate mechanism. One of the recent weaknesses of the pro-Europeans is that we—and I deliberately say "we"—damn everything with faint praise and stress how moderate and reasonable and even half-hearted we are. As a result, increasingly, the best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity. A ratchet effect goes on and the position of the Government, responding to the passionate intensity, becomes more and more hostile. Therefore, eschewing half-heartedness and looking at our ERM experience, I do not hesitate to say that our major mistake was being the only one of the nine members of the Community at that time which did not fully participate from the beginning.
That was a decision which cannot be laid at the door of the present Government. It was taken by the previous government a few months before Mrs. Thatcher came to office. And vividly do I recall my sense of disappointment—perhaps more sadness than surprise—when I realised that the European monetary system, inaugurated under a British President of the Commission,

275
was to be without a full British participant. Thus was an important step taken on our journey to the periphery of Europe.
But the benefits of initial adhesion would not merely have been political and symbolic, important though those considerations can be. The object of foreign policy, after all, is to keep friends and win influence for British interests. The initial adherence would also have meant that we could have homed in on a correct and sustainable rate of exchange, rather like an artillery barrage ranging onto a target—an enterprise in which I have not engaged for approximately 50 years now.
In the early days of the European monetary system there were a great many fairly small adjustments of central rate which were all done without humiliation or upheaval. Eleven-and-a-half years later the position had become much less fluid and we lurched into the trauma of Black Wednesday without being able to get the rate right by trial and error. Moreover, from the beginning we would have avoided the wild exchange rate fluctuations of sterling of the early and mid- 1980s when we varied for no rational cause between 1.07 dollars to the pound, and approximately 2.40 dollars to the pound, the plunges producing interest rate panics and the surges adding to the destruction of too much of British manufacturing industry. We would have had the ERM stability from the 1980s enjoyed by all the others under our belt before we came to face the much more turbulent climate of the early 1990s. As it was, we just joined for the crash.
It is not a bad idea to try to see things partly through other people's eyes as well as through our own. Furthermore, we gave a great deal of fuel to the thought that everything went well in Europe with the ERM until we came in and mucked it up not only for ourselves but for others as well. That history does not provide much encouragement for our applying the same recipe in the future.
The single currency apart, what are the other issues which will confront us at the IGC? Frankly, I would not expect the Inter-Governmental Conference to attempt a great leap forward: it is doubtfully well-timed for that. But there are certain clear British interests which we should have in mind and which, properly handled, would not only serve those British interests but could put us much nearer to the mainstream and not skulking in an isolated corner.
On the assumption that at any rate part of the Government really want us to stay in Europe and see "an ever closer union", to which we have committed ourselves over and over again, functioning efficiently and constructively, although certainly without seeking in any way to obliterate different national characteristics and certainly without seeking to obliterate equally a strong continuing role for national governments—in my view those fears have always been a complete illusion—on that assumption of wanting things to work well and constructively, two British policy objectives would probably command the nearest approach to widespread agreement in this country. The first is reform of the common agricultural policy and the second is further enlargement, particularly to the east, so as to fulfil Europe's duty to the lands and cities indisputably European which, as it were, emerged with their eyes
276
blinking from 40 years of Iron Curtain oppression and which are now desperately short of security anchors, political support and a sense of international direction. Those two objectives are in fact clearly linked with each other, for without CAP reform, major enlargement is not possible. The Community simply could not afford to extend the CAP to the countrysides of Poland and Hungary in its present form.
But there is also a third, lurking British Government objective which is also a part of the nexus with the other two, but this time in a perverse way. That third objective at the back of the British Government's mind is to retain for each and every member a liberum veto and restrain or even eliminate qualified majority voting where it exists, to make qualification as high and as difficult to attain as possible.
Apart from the basic fact that a union of between 20 and 30 members will be frozen into immobility by such an approach, by a liberum veto, it is more specifically incompatible with the other two objectives. One will never reform the CAP under a unanimity rule, and without CAP reform we are blocked to the east. If the Government would face up to that dilemma, and also to the fact that it is no use complaining that Brussels is a remote bureaucracy unless you are prepared to bring it more under the control of the European Parliament and strengthen its links with national parliaments too, then Britain could have a constructive approach to the IGC which would win it more allies than it has seen for a very long time.
But that depends on the genuine desire to get the most out of British membership and to make things work. Alas, however, a note is increasingly struck not only on the Back Benches but to some extent in the Government itself, to which the only logical conclusion is that Britain should seek its destiny outside the Europe of the Community. If that is so, then for God's sake let it be clearly said. That would produce a cleaner and more honest argument. Nothing is worse than the desire to undermine and denigrate in every possible way without the courage of openly going to the conclusion. The core of the Government is in increasing danger of being pushed in that way, which is a recipe not only for minimising British influence but for making us disliked and distrusted as well as disregarded. Half in and half out is hopeless. But such is our store of old capital—moral and political capital—that with courage and commitment this country could still play a great role in Europe. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.29 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, will not be surprised to learn that I find it difficult to follow him in the more partisan parts of his analysis, so I am glad to be able to congratulate him on his insight that his present party has never needed to abandon its self-righteousness on this issue. I am glad to be able to agree with him when he stresses the need for Britain to play a positive role at the IGC. I hope that the

277
House will forgive me if an earlier commitment to give a lecture on this topic this evening prevents me from being here for the winding up of the debate today.
It is all too easy on this topic in this kind of debate to find ourselves not merely repeating each other, but repeating ourselves. Perhaps the House will therefore forgive me if I start with two texts from statesmen outside this House whom I have had the good fortune to meet in the past few weeks. The first is Kurt Biedenkopf, the Minister-President of Saxony, whom I met at a ceremony in Chemnitz last week. He said:
"Before we give consideration to further institutional development, the tasks facing Europe need to be properly understood and clearly defined".
I think that that is a fundamental proposition. I do not mean to imply by that quotation that there is no need for the IGC to consider such questions as the mechanics of qualified majority voting or the size of the Commission, but those should, in my view, be subordinate to consideration of the basic strategic questions.
On that, I turn to my second witness, President Eduard Shevardnadze, whom I chaired when he spoke at Chatham House recently. He asked this telling question:
"Why were the world community and Western nations in particular caught unprepared on the very threshold of this swift and consequently unmanageable transformation of the world"?
He spoke of having experienced for himself,
"all the horrors and nightmares of enraged, aggressive separatism. No less ghastly than the brutalities of Hider",
which pose a serious and continuing threat to the stability of our continent. That is why I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that the main task facing our European partners ahead of and beyond the IGC must surely he the evolution and implementation of a clear strategy for the rehabilitation of post-communist Europe.
I say that it is a task "for Europe" because we cannot necessarily expect American help or American leadership. Of course, we want that help—and I am sure that it will be forthcoming—but I do not believe that we can, or even need to, look to the United States to play the leading role in that task. I fancy—indeed, I fear—that the manifest reduction in the threat from the east may have done more than we know to weaken the magnetism that has drawn America towards Europe throughout the past half-century. We should not underestimate the gap that exists between Secretary of State Marshall and Speaker Gingrich, between President Truman and would-be president Dole. The United States was indeed the sponsor of the Marshall Plan for the rehabilitation of western Europe, and we should be eternally grateful for that leadership and generosity. That plan underlined our intercontinental interest in each other's security. That strategic truth has not altered.
But is it not now the time for Europe to take the lead? Is it not now the time for western Europe to take the lead in sponsoring the rehabilitation of eastern Europe—with, I emphasise, the help of the Americans—to ensure a much more closely co-ordinated economic and political strategy? Thus far, neither through the international financial institutions nor in any other partnership have we given sufficient effective, balanced guidance and support to the emerging countries of the east.
278
In my judgment, our economic approach towards eastern Europe should, as former Prime Minister Carl Bildt recently suggested, take a much more positive view of the scope for active market building between both halves of the continent. If we are able to remove the rigidities which hamper our own development—I agree with the noble Lord that they include the common agricultural policy—even cautious estimates suggest that enlargement could bring substantial long-term advantages for the whole of Europe—east and west alike.
The first Cecchini Report gave political momentum to the freeing of markets in western Europe with the benefit of qualified majority voting. A second similar analysis, pursued with vigour, could spread that benign liberalising process across the entire continent.
I should like to say just a few words about the single currency. The Prime Minister was right to make plain in the debate last week that the options are, and must remain, open for us on that issue. Whatever view we take upon the outcome of that debate, it would surely be wrong for us to play no part in shaping the development of the argument. In my judgment, a single currency should remain a long-term goal. As even George Soros has acknowledged, this week's turbulence underlines the desirability of that objective—but it also underlines the difficulties. The case needs to be discussed in relation to what we are trying to achieve and not by reference to a rigid timetable. That was one point on which my noble friend Lady Thatcher and I were glad to find common ground in our reaction to the rigidities of the original Delors Report.
I repeat that EMU should be discussed in relation to what it is supposed to achieve and whether the conditions, especially on unemployment and structural change, yet make it achievable. The process should not be hastened at the risk of mistakes which could entail great political cost. It is in that context that I hope profoundly that our country will play at the IGC a role not of reluctance but of commitment.
Our future is not to be found by turning our backs upon our European partners or by seeking to promote some nationalistic resurrection of the past. A Norwegian journalist wrote recently:
"Unlike the rest of Europe the British did not emerge humiliated from the War, but could—rightly—look back on 'their finest hour'. They have, strangely enough, kept a deeper dislike for their fanner German enemies than have the other West Europeans who experienced German soldiers on their soil".
I ask myself continuously: why should we alone be so reluctant to abandon the enmities and hostilities of the past? Has Europhobia in some form made us fearful even of the friendships of a wider world which all our partners are willing to embrace?
I return to Eduard Shevardnadze in London who asked:
"Could it be that in the year of the 50th anniversary of victory over the greatest evil of the century, we would fall short of victory over the multiple new evils threatening us, with the restoration of walls which divide the world"?
Is it not ironic that it should have been a former member of the Soviet Politburo who spoke thus in London of the need today for something like Churchill's vision of a world community as a force for action?
With Kurt Biedenkopf in Chemnitz, Saxony, last Sunday, I listened to a deeply moving performance by Saxony's Robert Schumann Philharmonie and

279
Manchester's Hallé Chorus and Boys' Choir of Benjamin Britten's "War Requiem". The stunned silence at the end of the performance suddenly exploded into a spontaneous standing ovation—far longer and far more spontaneous than any that has ever been achieved by any of my noble friends. If our peoples are capable of and, indeed, anxious for reconciliation and partnership of that quality, I pray with all my heart that our leaders can find the confidence and courage to achieve the same.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I begin by expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for initiating this debate. I cannot compete with the noble Lord when it comes to his magisterial and judgmental attitude towards the history of the past 30 or 40 years. I shall approach the debate with certain basic propositions which I should like to put before the House, some of which were considered by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and at some of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe. hinted.
However, before I do so, I should like to make one other comment by way of introduction. It is unfortunate that we are not being given a statement of government policy at the beginning of the debate. It would have been helpful if the Government had exposed some of their thinking early on in the debate so that the rest of us know the way in which their minds are supposed to work.
I should like to enumerate one or two basic propositions. Some are truisms, but the thing about truisms is that they are very frequently true. First, membership of the European Union is good for Britain. It is good for trade, good for investment and good for jobs—certainly when compared with any practical alternatives that may be on offer.
Secondly, the possibility of withdrawal from the Union is just not practical politics—leaving aside the question of the legalities. The issue of membership is settled and should be regarded as settled; it was settled in 1975 and British policy should be based upon that fact. Our future lies with our European partners. It is perhaps time that we started treating them as partners instead of regarding them with all the warmth and eager anticipation with which the east coast counties of this country regarded the approach of the Vikings.
Thirdly, in the future and particularly at the 1996 conference we must avoid the errors of the past in allowing Europe to develop in ways that we do not support and which are not in Britain's interest because we failed to play an active part in the negotiations. As a corollary, the other countries of the Union could well decide to move to greater unity without us. What of our opt-out then? In those circumstances it would not be an opt-out, but more of a lock-out.
We should also bear in mind that political union, federalism, or however one wishes to describe it, is not a practical proposition at the moment. As a country we should neither rule out the possibility of greater political integration, nor should we insist on it. That follows from what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and the noble and teamed Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, said.
280
As to the supremacy of national sovereignty, let us meet that argument head on. The supremacy of national sovereignty as the guiding principle of political action is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain on the part of individual nations, as more and more issues come to be decided on an international rather than a national basis. Frankly the world is becoming too small to permit us to indulge too closely in that sort of luxury.
It follows that our political institutions are neither sacrosanct nor untouchable. It follows as well that the European institutions are not set in concrete either. Their powers, their composition and their relationship with each other are clearly flexible and are going to change: some indeed have changed already, witness, for example, the powers and the position of the Parliament. I am sure that as the Union gets larger and more countries become members, the institutions will have to be looked at afresh. I share the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, on that point.
I think it is worth looking just for a moment at what the Maastricht Treaty says about this Inter-Governmental Conference in 1996. The treaty actually says that:
"a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened in 1996 to examine those provisions of this Treaty for which revision is provided, in accordance with the objectives set out in Articles A and B."
If in turn we then look at Articles A and B, they set out the objectives of the Union itself. I concede that the wording may be somewhat sonorous, but the objectives are fairly clear. Article A establishes the Union itself and Article B sets out its objectives. So the aim of this conference is clear, at least on paper. It is to consider how much progress has been made in the areas covered in the treaty towards the fulfilment of the objectives of the European Union. So far, so clear; and that includes some pretty fundamental areas. These areas include monetary union and a single currency, a common foreign and security policy, let alone citizenship and subsidiarity. The potential agenda for the conference is vast.
I suspect, though, that when the conference actually takes place other things are bound to be talked about, particularly enlargement. Again, I share the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, that if the 1996 conference can produce a concerted European strategy for expansion—by the inclusion of the east European countries—then it will be a success.
How are we to approach this conference? The question for Britain in many ways is not one of detail but one of attitude. Since the Government negotiated the treaty and accepted it in its present form, I assume that they agree with it. That may be naive, but it is an assumption I am prepared to make. In particular I assume that they are in favour of what the treaty refers to as
"an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe".
If they are in favour of that, I do wish that from time to time they might appear a little more enthusiastic about the process. The continual denigration in this country of Europe and all its works, sometimes even by Cabinet Ministers, is losing us status and influence in Europe. Our friends just do not know what to make of the current British position. Those who want to be kind to us assume that the Government's heart is broadly in the right place, as they would see it, but that for internal political reasons

281
they have to behave as they do. Those who are less well disposed towards us take advantage of the present situation to foster mistrust of Britain's intentions. Frankly, it is a mess, and I have to say that it is a mess of the Government's own making.
The trouble is that one just does not know where the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, actually stand. As I intimated at Question Time this afternoon, constructive ambiguity is one thing, but this continual balancing act is really quite another. Our policy towards Europe, whatever it may be, now looks as if it has been designed not with an eye to British interests but rather by what is thought to be in the interests of Conservative Party unity. I do not see how this can go on very much longer. Either the Government must be seen to be negotiating seriously in the direction that the Maastricht Treaty indicates, or they will have to make it clear that they are not prepared to see Europe move any further in that direction. What they cannot do is to say one thing and in fact mean another. What they cannot prevent is other countries moving in the very direction we have decided to avoid.
In so far as the 1996 conference will be concerned with EMU and a single currency, it would be absurd to rule out the possibility of a single currency now, as some would have us do. Does anybody seriously believe that, if conditions were right and there was the serious possibility of a single currency in 1999, the United Kingdom would be best advised to exercise its frankly meaningless opt-out and remain outside? I can imagine nothing more likely to put sterling under the most intense pressure than a decision by Britain to remain aloof. As for the effect on inward investment and jobs, I think it would be little short of catastrophic.
I have two brief pleas to make to the Government about the 1996 conference. First, we should go to the conference to try and make it a success; in other words, we should recognise that agreement is on the whole more desirable than failure, even if confrontation might help the internal politics of the Conservative Party. This time opt-outs will not do, and a statement in advance that we will veto any constitutional changes coming from the conference is frankly absurd.
Secondly, we should concentrate our efforts at the conference on two main objectives. One, which I share with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, is enlargement, which I mentioned earlier. Next, we have to consider the way in which Europe is groping towards the establishment of a common foreign and security policy. We have never had one in Europe and we have never succeeded in speaking with one voice. At lunchtime today I reread the debates in another place on the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. I well remember it. The House was recalled and the then Mr. George Brown spoke from the Labour Back Benches and made one firm point. He said, "Europe has not been heard. Why? It has not been heard because it cannot speak with one voice".
282
Until it can speak with one voice, we cannot expect to play the part in world affairs that, frankly, I am confident this country deserves.
3.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: My Lords, I speak very much in this debate as the man in the street and as a layman. Not only am I perhaps the only Bishop in the country, or perhaps in the world, who has no passport, but I remain a fairly unreconstructed English nationalist who occasionally murmurs to himself the scurrilous Flanders and Swann couplet:
"The English, the English, the English are best!
I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest!".
But worse than all that, I am a Northumbrian nationalist and it took me a long time to believe that there was life south of the Tyne; and I still doubt whether there is civilised life south of the Trent. Nonetheless, I grieve to see our reluctance to play a positive and active part in the life of Europe.
There are three things that I really should like to say to the politicians, to the Government and to those, whoever they may be, who will be taking part in the Inter-Governmental Conference. The first is to remember that we are Europeans in a Europe that goes beyond a European Union but has a common faith, a common history and a common background. That continuity with a remembered past, which will bind us together if we let it, is of vital importance.
I should like to give as mascots, as patrons, to our politicians two famous Englishmen—Alcuin and Boniface: Alcuin a Yorkshireman—a Yorkshireman through and through—born near Spurn Head, Helen Waddell tells us, although I am not sure that she is right, but near York certainly:
"springing from the fields and rocks above Spurn Head, like a true Yorkshireman he could boldly withstand even an emperor".
He had a European mind, but knew his own as well and never lost his national identity.
To the great schoolmaster of York, the request to be the schoolmaster of Europe, made of him by Charlemagne, produced a positive response. So he left his native land, but never forgot it. The letters he wrote to his friends among the English remain significant, important and deeply moving. There was a loyalty to England that in no way weakened his loyalty to Europe. Again, Helen Waddell tells us:
"They were men of vision, great statesmen, soldiers and scholars, often of approved sanctity like Alcuin and Paulinus, who spent their lives striving to build on the rubble of a shattered Roman Empire, the ideal commonwealth of the City of God on earth".
It is not an unworthy ambition to follow in those footsteps.
Similarly, Boniface—I cannot claim him as a Yorkshireman, he was a Devonian—had a total commitment to his brothers and sisters (his Saxon brothers and sisters in Europe) to share with them what he had come to learn not just of Christianity but of European civilisation. We do well to remember that the word "Anglo-Saxon" did not originally set us who spoke English against the rest of the world, but was to remind us of our bonds with the other Saxons—the German Saxons.

283
We were the English Saxons, with a common race, a common inheritance, and, thanks to Boniface, and Willibald and others, soon to have a common faith.
That we remember those things is of great importance. Although we looked back at the troubled history of Europe with sadness, we rejoice to see within the European Union that what again Helen Waddell calls, "the undying quarrel for the Rhine", at least seems to have ended. I long for us to take up again our role as Europeans in Europe, remembering those great men and women from the past; remembering our history; and recognising that it is ultimately a European history, and not merely an English history.
Secondly, I want us to beware of the wrong sort of nationalism. I am a nationalist. I do not apologise for being a nationalist, but we do not have to go outside the British Isles to see the perils of a nationalism that is unable to, see good in anyone but one's self. One does not need to go further than recent history in the Balkans, in the former Soviet Union, to see the terrible perils of a nationalism that says, "My country right or wrong". When I listened to our football supporters in Bruges, or Dublin, and just occasionally read the newspaper headlines—and, sadly, occasionally listen to our politicians—I believe that we are in terrible danger from the wrong sort of nationalism.
I want us to take into Europe our own nationalism—a consciousness of our individuality, and a consciousness of our individuality that makes us warm to the individuality of others, and, particularly at this time, warm to the individuality of those nations which have been put to the outskirts of Europe, and which it must be our calling—we who are a little bit on the outskirts of Europe ourselves—to remind them of our common concerns and our common interests. There is a concern for the east, for the Mediterranean, for which we in Britain should have a special calling. We should be ashamed of that yobbish nationalism which sometimes it is tempting to people, for their own purposes, to build upon. There is too much of it around. We want to fight against it. We raise it up at our peril.
Thirdly and lastly, we need to grasp the significance, or perhaps the lack of significance, of that philosophical fiction which we have come to call sovereignty. I know, of course, as a bishop, the 39 Articles. There we read:
"The Kings Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions…and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction".
King Canute was the first to discover the folly of that type of definition of "sovereignty". We now know that it cannot be like that. We have, for better or worse, taken the decisions that recognise that there is a variety of sovereignties. Somehow or other we hide from ourselves that that is so. We need to recognise the changed situation in which we find ourselves.
In my diocese of Sheffield there is the Dore Stone which recognises the moment when the Kingdom of Northumbria acknowledged that it was part of England—a decision that I do not believe it has ever regretted. It was not a humiliation for Northumberland to acknowledge the greater sovereignty of the Kings of Wessex. We have taken the same step already in our decisions on Europe, and yet somehow or other we pretend that we have not. We need to recognise the integrity and the importance of
284
European institutions, European customs. Somehow, the claim to righteousness on our part—that no one is ever dishonest in England, but always dishonest in Europe; that our Parliament is always wise and the European Parliament always foolish; that our governments never do anything wrong, but the European governments are always doing things wrong—is not borne out by the facts. It does not help us to "make the best" of the profitable situation in which we find ourselves as part of a greater unit than we were before—a unit to which we come naturally by geography and history, and, I dare to say, by religion.
I long for us to be less afraid of Europe and more ready to give ourselves, as English or British nationalists, wholly to a way of living with our neighbours that recognises their distinctiveness and their individuality, but recognises too that we have a common inheritance and a common calling, and that we can do things so much better together than apart.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure for a mere Welsh nationalist to follow a Northumbrian English nationalist with whom I share a religious affiliation, and to follow three noble Lords with whom I also share a cultural nationality. I use those terms deliberately because those noble Lords have set to the debate a strong moral and practical tone. I welcome that warmly, because the debates that we have had in the United Kingdom on our relations with the mainland—that is how I choose to call it and will call it throughout my speech; indeed, as the people of Anglesey call the rest of Wales the mainland—have been bedevilled by a lack of conceptual understanding and the use of a completely inadequate, negative vocabulary.
Here I beg to switch the tone, perhaps, from what we have heard already about nationalism. We are now entering into a century—the 21st century—which it is hoped will be a century of post-nationalism; by which I mean that the ideology which combines the notion of identity with a notion of fictional political power has to be undermined. Because we have in the concept of the nation state mixed up the notions of political power with the notions of citizenship and identity, we have created for ourselves in the 20th century a monstrous century with over 100 million deaths, induced by the notion of nationality, nationalism and differences of identity. That relates to the whole issue of citizenship, federalism and subsidiarity.
In the remaining seven minutes I shall dwell only on the notion of subsidiarity. In the context of this debate that is the most misunderstood term in the United Kingdom. As the right reverend Prelate will know, subsidiarity derives from early 20th century Catholic moral and social theology. It is about powers not relating to particular classes or states but about powers being shared in relationships. That is where the concept arises. It was reinvented by the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats, who were also within a similar Catholic moral milieu on mainland Europe. It was reinvented as a European concept precisely relating to the notion of shared levels of power.

285
In the United Kingdom it is assumed that subsidiarity stops at Dover. Subsidiarity is assumed to be about the relationship between the European Parliament, the Commission, the Union, this House and another place. Subsidiarity is not only about that; it is about all levels of governmental relationships and all levels of political powers. Within the discourse of the Community and the Union, that is how it is used. There is subsidiarity in the relationship between the Union and the member states but there is also subsidiarity between member states and nations and regions within member states.
That is where the United Kingdom debate appears to be entirely predicated upon the notion of maintaining the idea of the United Kingdom as a unitary state. The attitude of the Conservative Government—and, indeed, the attitude of some noble Lords on the Labour Benches—towards the European Union is based upon their British state nationalism. I distinguish between that and our British nationality, European passports and the notion of a Welsh, Scottish and English cultural nationality.
It is important-to make those distinctions because on mainland Europe the idea of affiliation simultaneously to different places and spaces and levels of government is not a problem. As the right reverend Prelate so clearly said, the affiliation of Northumberland to England meant that one could maintain both a Northumbrian and an English identity. Similarly, we in the United Kingdom need to construct the notion of a positive English nationality which does not become the English nationalism of our football hooligans. We need to construct a notion of English nationality that is not racist. We need to construct a notion of English nationality that is not nationalistic.
Some of us have laboured in different ways to construct the notion of a Welsh or a Scottish nationality that is not nationalistic. The whole issue on the island of Ireland is to do with the construction of a European notion of Irish co-operation that is not rooted in nationalistic traditions. The problem that we have is that England, because of its assimilation into the British state for which the Welsh Tudor dynasty must bear some responsibility, created a British form of nationalism which then became imperial. There was never an opportunity for a healthy English nation with its regions to develop.
The English are a supremely European nation. They could be nothing else in terms of their extraction, their relationship with the mainland and their culture. That is where in the past we in the United Kingdom have failed to understand our origins. Obviously, I speak as a Celt and in that sense the Celtic people are a submerged level of European identity and unity; pre-Roman and pre-Greek and everywhere dispersed. Those who are aware of the history will understand that the notion of being part of an identity that is not necessarily rooted in a single space or power is an important concept for our European future. After all, we were the people who believed in circles rather than straight lines. That kind of culture which believes in an encompassing circle is the one with which we must work within the emerging Europe.
I leave that Celtic whimsy and return to the IGC. Development in the context of the IGC will be incremental. It will be incremental for our other partners
286
in the rest of Europe. But, within the United Kingdom, the time is approaching when we must face a crisis of identity; when we must reunderstand our national pasts. What is happening now on the island of Ireland may help us to do that. A government who can respond clearly to the feelings of Scotland, Wales and the English regions must be able to understand that the relationship between regions and nations within the UK is intimately linked with what is happening on mainland Europe, where a Europe of the regions is an emerging reality whether we like it or not. Jordi Pujol and other colleagues on mainland Europe will not go away. The Europe of the regions is the Europe of subsidiarity and the federalised future.
The problem that the United Kingdom has is that because it has developed as a unitary state it is unable to relate to those developments. The sooner that we are able within this House and another place to reject the discourse of British nationalism and to adopt a way of speaking about our identity which does not relate to the notion of one centre of political power or one form of identity, the sooner we shall be able to participate more positively in the construction of the European Union.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I too am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for giving us the opportunity of debating these matters. I never thought that it would enable us also to debate Welsh nationalism. I have always taken the view that it is suicidal for an Englishman to become involved in matters affecting either the Welsh or the Scots. Therefore, I shall confine myself to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in introducing the subject. If the noble Lord really hopes that the Government will take what he described as a constructive approach to the Inter-Governmental Conference of 1996 he is an incurable optimist. But, of course, to be a member of the Liberal Democratic Party one needs to be an incurable optimist.
The problem with the debate in the form that it takes is that we shall have no government statement until the end of the debate when there is no opportunity for anyone to comment upon it. Whether that is because the Government have no policy, or that, if they have a policy, they are not prepared to reveal it, I am unable to say. However, the exchanges that took place today at Question Time suggested that the absence of a policy justifies the order that the debate is to take. So, as regards the Government's future intentions, we must proceed in darkness but we shall do our best.
I propose to speak only about one overarching issue. I do not propose to touch on any of the detailed matters which will go to the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference. The issue about which I propose to speak briefly will ultimately determine the attitude that is taken on every single issue that comes before the conference. It is whether we are going forward or whether we wish to go back. Will there be further steps in the direction of European integration or are we to try to resile on the steps that have already been taken and go backwards?
I shall illustrate that point in two particular ways. There are some Ministers in the Government, and certainly many Members of another place on both sides of the Chamber, who believe that we ought to turn the European

287
Union into some form of glorified free-trade area. That is complete and absolute nonsense and that is demonstrated conclusively if one looks at every single enlargement that has taken place in the Community since it was first established. When we first refused to join the Community—and we refused to join because at that time, no one was trying to keep us out—our reaction was to set up a rival organisation; that is, the European Free Trade Area. Within almost a matter of months, we scuppered our own creation and applied for membership of the European Community as it then was.
I shall not go through every single enlargement that has taken place since then, but the underlying trend is exactly the same. I shall take the latest enlargement which involved Finland, Sweden and Austria. They did not join the European Union in order to join a free trade area, glorified or not. They already had a free trade area and they had had that for many, many years in the form of EFTA—the European Free Trade Association. They had gone further than that. They had the European Economic Area which expanded the free trade relationship in a further direction. But that was not the limit of their ambitions. They felt that they had to join the European Union, and that they have done.
Let us look at the countries of central and eastern Europe which now wish to join the European Union. Why do they wish to join? Is it just to join a glorified free trade area? They could have had that anyway. They already have the European agreements and they could progress from those to the European Economic Area which still exists. But no, their ambition was to join the European Union. In other words, no country, including ourselves, which has joined the Community since it started ever set out to join what was merely a free trade area. The attempts to regress and turn the Union into a free trade area will not stand up to a moment's examination.
Then there is endless talk about a multi-speed Europe, a multi-tier Europe, about variable geometry and eccentric circles, about a Europe à la carte. That is all absolute nonsense and none of those will work. Of course you can have derogations. There have been derogations ever since the Community was founded, but the whole point of a derogation is that it is merely a breathing space that is given to people in order to enable them to catch up. All those other ideas are the creation of massive institutional arrangements in order to accommodate varying, disparate and conflicting views. As institutional creations, none of them will work.
However, something that will work is something like the relationship which existed between the European Union and the EFTA countries and then the European Economic Area. But the point to remember about that is that they are not differing degrees of membership of the Union. In fact, they are a relationship between two entirely different bodies.
The fact that has to be faced—we need to face it and it is no good pretending that it does not exist—is that there is a core of countries in the Union which are determined to go ahead in the direction of greater integration. They comprise at least Germany, France, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg and they will no doubt be joined by others. There is no way at all that we shall be able to stop those
288
countries going ahead in the direction of greater integration. It is no good talking about vetoes or blocking majorities or anything of that sort. The determination is there and it will be achieved.
We have to decide whether we are going to go along in the direction of greater integration, with all the opportunity of influencing that process and ensuring that our anxieties are taken fully into account and, in the end, being members of a cohesive whole, or whether we are going to marginalise ourselves and stand on one side. In that event, our influence, which is already gravely diminished, will be diminished even further.
From the point of view of the economic and political future and its future in terms of security and defence, I have no doubt whatever where the true judgment lies. I hope that the time will come when the Government in turn realise that that is the position.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, there has been a remarkable harmony of view in the speeches that we have heard so far and I agree with much that has been said by all noble Lords. But the time has surely come to disturb a little that harmony by asking where the biggest obstacle lies to the achievement of the sentiments that have been uttered on all sides of the House this afternoon. It lies fairly and squarely with the Cabinet and with the Conservative Party. Therefore, I intend to discuss one or two matters about the Conservative Party, and I hope that I shall not offend too much any tender consciences which there may be opposite.
The peseta and providence have jointly saved the Prime Minister for the time being from the critics who have been snapping at his heels for so long. But I forecast that the lull will not last. They will be at him again before long. The irreconcilables among them will not let go so long as he fails to meet their fundamental challenge as to where he stands on the issue of sovereignty.
The argument in the Conservative Party—and it is in the Conservative Party—is taking place on two different levels. First, the questions which the men of business, the trade unionists, the economists and the financiers ask are will monetary union and a single currency keep down inflation? Will they or will they not lower interest rates? Will they stimulate growth? Will they reduce unemployment? And, generally, will they assist their businesses? Those are the practical concerns of practical people who ask whether it will work.
The second argument is basically the position of so many members of the Cabinet—people like Mr. Aitken and Mr. Portillo, who is a young man in too much of a hurry—and Mr. Lamont, who is outside the Cabinet, supported by their Whip-less sceptics. They would hesitate for an eternity before they would surrender—I had better not say a gram—an ounce of British sovereignty. Where have they been all these years? Since World War II Britain has been giving up bits of sovereignty through trade agreements and in our defence arrangements and so on whenever we thought that it was in the interests of our people to do so; and so obviously have our partners who have entered into agreements with us. They too have given up bits of their sovereignty because it seemed to be in our joint interests to do so.

289
Frenchmen and Germans have not found it difficult to combine a pride in their countries and different cultures with a strong sense of being European. In this country also I take the view that the growing experience of working with mainland European business men, with others in the professions and with skilled work people travelling in and out of Europe and working side by side has resulted in a growing understanding among the people of this country that we are no less English, Welsh or Scottish because we are also Europeans and that our national identity is no less strong because of that.
I wish that the Prime Minister would recognise that. I wish that he would say it clearly and take less notice of the sceptics. He would not ease his path with them, but he will not do that in any event. But he might be surprised by the strong favourable response which he would receive by giving a lead to our fellow countrymen. That would evoke support from a great many of us. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that we should be reviving a positive approach among all of us who take that point of view.
Sooner or later; the Prime Minister will have to face the issue of sovereignty. The sooner he does so and says what I believe he really feels but is frightened to say at the moment, the sooner we can move ahead in that field.
The Conservative and Labour Parties are in agreement that Brussels should not become a superstate—nor that every form of economic and monetary union would lead to that. The Prime Minister is quite unconvincing when he pretends that a Labour Government would give everything away to Brussels. That certainly was not what we did. Giving an imitation of John Bull does not really suit his style; indeed, it is not in his character. It would be far better if he were to give that up.
A week ago I wrote some early notes for today's debate about monetary union. I included a paragraph that I should like to read to your Lordships. I wrote:
"The real test is not whether some member states can fulfil the required criteria for monetary union at certain favourable moments in the ups and downs of the economic cycle, but whether they can sustain those conditions over a long period. That is when the test will come".
When I wrote that I did not know that Spain would illustrate my point so quickly by devaluing its currency only a few days later. I speak as one who came to the conclusion some years ago that a form of monetary and economic union would be beneficial to Europe's position in the world of the 21st century. But I make that assertion subject to two conditions: first, that the system is so well adjusted, and the exchange rates are properly fixed, that it is capable of being sustained for an indefinite period; and, secondly, that its terms will not inflict the hardship and social evil of large-scale continuing unemployment on any of the member states which join.
In a number of member states at this moment their high levels of unemployment are not due solely to the ups and downs of the economic cycle but to long-term and permanent changes in patterns of trade and production caused by differential wage costs and productivity levels and, to some extent, by the effects of removing barriers to trade. In other words, as the economists say—so I am told—it is structural and not cyclical unemployment. Those changes will lead to semi-permanent high levels of unemployment, with their social costs and consequences, in some
290
of the member states unless mitigating action is taken to enable the displaced workforce to be re-employed. The first essential is a high level of education, with the flexibility which comes from that, and the retraining of those displaced, as well as sufficient capital investment in new industries and services to replace the old ones.
If that were to come about, Britain would need to be particularly careful not to repeat the error made when we entered the exchange rate mechanism a few years ago at the unrealistically high rate of 2.95 deutschmarks to the pound. Today's rate of 2.25 or 2.30 deutschmarks, or round about there, is more than 20 per cent. lower than the rate at which we entered. Owing to the vagaries of the market, I believe that it is a little too low at present. However, that emphasises both the fact that there are such vagaries in the market and the benefits that a fixed exchange rate would bring; but it must be at the right rate if and when such rates are fixed.
That will not happen in 1997. So let us put that to one side. An economic and monetary union will not take place at that time. It is difficult to forecast the future, but it may be—indeed, I think it will be—that in 1998 or 1999 (and we shall discuss such matters in 1998) that the economic skies will not be very much clearer than they are today. That is to say, there will continue to be high structural unemployment with member states at different stages in the economic cycle but with a nucleus of countries, with Germany as the anchor, whose economies will be durably convergent and capable of forming an economic and monetary union.
If that turns out to be so, the decision about the Union will then turn on the political will of the member states concerned and particularly on the political situation in Germany. Britain will have an option—thank goodness the Prime Minister negotiated that! I hope that we shall be able to exercise it in favour of joining if and when the time comes. But those who take my view must not allow the sceptics to make all the running in favour of a referendum. If there is at the time of decision a great difference of opinion in the country, we should be ready to put the issue to the people and fight it. I believe that we would win.
If we are to get the best result for Britain, we must apply our great technical skills to constructing a practical scheme that will not rely upon unrealistic assumptions and hopes. We are more likely to achieve that aim if our negotiators are believed by the other member states to be playing a constructive role in the discussions that take place at the IGC in 1996 with the intention of achieving a positive result.
That is not the position today. Instead, we have a paralysis at the centre of government on the matter—deciding only to be undecided, irresolute rather than resolute and positive only for inaction—deeply harmful to Britain's influence in the negotiations that lie ahead. The verdict that I have reached is that if we are to exercise the influence in Europe that our technical knowledge, our economic size, our history and our experience ought to command, it will require a different government than the present one.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, it is a great honour to succeed the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, in today's debate. The

291
noble Lord always speak wisely and with great and eminent experience. We are debating a major issue introduced so effectively by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. It is both important and timely. I believe that the issue is a very simple one: would it be more in our national interest to take up a positive attitude at the Inter-Governmental Conference in 1996 or a negative attitude?
All those who have spoken so far have been in favour of a positive attitude. I share that view. I believe that that can be demonstrated by analysing the issues which are likely to be raised on that occasion. My noble friend and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, referred to the importance that enlargement will take in those debates. I believe that that is likely to be almost the dominant subject. Enlargement, which has been supported continuously by all British Governments, will be one of the most important political and economic developments of our time, arising out of the removal of the Berlin Wall. We shall be responding to that issue. I very much hope that British contributions to that debate will be positive.
As my noble friend pointed out, it is quite clear that, if we are to achieve enlargement of possibly another 12 countries from central and eastern Europe (thus making the total membership of the Community 27) with the total population rising from 345 million to 480 million, there are many things in the existing Community that started with six members some 40 years ago which will have to be renegotiated and rediscussed.
As has already been mentioned, the prime issue in that respect is the common agricultural policy with which we were landed as a country because we were so unwise as to walk out of the Messina negotiations in 1955. Had we stayed there, we would have negotiated something quite different. As it was, when we subsequently joined the European Community in 1973 we were confronted with that policy. Now, 40 years later, we have a unique opportunity to get that situation corrected. I very much hope that we will receive confirmation from the Minister when she responds that the Government have worked out what they want to say on that very important issue. The European Union could not afford to apply the same system with agricultural policy if it were enlarged to the degree envisaged. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply in that respect.
Apart from that, we have to complete the single market to ensure that new members come into a market which is highly developed. We have already made substantial moves in that direction. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, whom we had the benefit of hearing a short while ago, played a crucial part in that process. However, there is more work to be done. There are some sectors, such as energy, transport and telecommunications, where access is still restricted. Here, also, I believe that Britain can play a positive role. I say that because we have moved forward in those areas in our own country and can offer to our friends in the Union ways in which this could be achieved. That is the second area in which I believe we can be positive.
As regards competition policy, it is in our interest that we have a fair, effective competition policy and that policy must have a Community imprint. There is no
292
point in our working out our own competition policy for our own enterprises if every other country within the single market works out its own policy. There is a need for a common approach. One of the weaknesses in the European competition policy at the moment is the subsidies and state aids which some countries still provide to their enterprises. We have eliminated that in Britain; they have not. Here we can show the way. That is therefore a third way in which Britain can be positive to serve our interests and those of the Community.
As regards financial responsibility, we are continually urging the more effective use of the resources of the Community. We are also raising the question of the elimination of fraud. I do not think we can entirely blame the Commission for that. All member countries in one degree or another are responsible for some of the fraud that goes on. However, the Inter-Governmental Conference will be an opportunity for readdressing that question. I think that here, too, we can be positive.
I wish to touch next on social policy. This is rather more controversial. I feel that we made a mistake to opt out. The social chapter is a list of aspirations. So far, very little of those aspirations has been translated into practice. By opting out we have lost the opportunity of influencing the conversion of the aspirations into reality. I believe that there is an increasing recognition among our partners in the European Community that social charges have got out of hand and have to be reduced. In my opinion, we could have played a much more effective part in that debate had we not opted out. Nonetheless, I hope we can play some part in that issue.
Environmental policy is another major issue which arises, particularly when we are talking about bringing in the countries of central and eastern Europe where, for all sorts of reasons, their environmental policies have been lacking. We must work out ways in which European Union policies can be adapted to apply to countries which, for reasons they are probably not responsible for, have been unable to come up to our standards. That is another area in which we, with our notable achievements in environmental matters, can take a lead.
There will obviously have to be institutional changes as a result of the enlargement of the Community. The question of the Parliament has often been mentioned. I happen to believe that the role of the European Parliament should, if anything, be increased but there is a case for creating a second Chamber which could consist of, as has been suggested, people nominated from the existing parliaments in the member countries. In my opinion, the relationship between the national parliaments and the European Parliament is important. We must work closely together. I hope that some thought has been given to that.
Finally, I turn to the question of the single currency. I regret that this issue has been politicised at such an early stage. What we ought to be doing is seriously considering —as the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, mentioned in the final part of his speech—the economic pros and cons. There is not the slightest doubt that we have already lost much control over monetary policy. In fact, in my opinion we lost most control over that on a precise day, 24th October 1979, when the noble Lord,

293
Lord Howe, was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and exchange controls were abolished. I fully accept that that should have been done, but we have to recognise that as a result of that abolition, and with the free movement of currencies throughout the world which has multiplied since, any individual government's control of its currency is limited. The only way to cope with that massive surge of currency movements—we have seen that in recent days—is to form a larger group. The big advantage of a single currency would be in that connection. The disadvantage could be that we could lose control in changing our rates of interest. Those are the issues we should be addressing. To sum up: I believe we could play a positive role in this negotiation on all the issues that I have mentioned.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will not be speaking. I assume that I shall not now have 18 minutes rather than nine in which to speak! On the other hand, I am particularly sorry because I would have wanted to disagree with the noble Lord and at the same time say how nice a fellow he is even though he tries so hard to be so nasty at times.
In the short time at my disposal I propose to concentrate on EMIJ and the single currency. I make it clear that I am in favour of Britain being a part of economic and monetary union in principle. I shall make clear why I say "in principle". The argument about the loss of sovereignty, as my noble friend Lord Callaghan pointed out, is of course something of a nonsense. We are talking about pooling sovereignty with other sovereign states, not about the loss of sovereignty in that sense. I believe, with my noble friend Lord Richard, that it is absolutely vital that we are inside the Community, playing a large part at the core of the Community. If we are not, we will be outside and that would he a disaster for our industry and for investment in this country.
Unlike my noble friend Lord Callaghan, I regret the opt-out that the Government took on the Maastricht Treaty for three reasons. First, I believe it was unnecessary for few will be ready to do what we are discussing—as everyone has said—in the timescale envisaged. Secondly, we shall be excluded because of that—and have been already—from crucial decisions on EMI and the Central Bank. Thirdly, we shall be left on the sidelines if we are not careful rather than being at the heart of Europe where I wish to see us.
My criteria for joining EMU were set out clearly in the Maastricht Treaty. They were, first, a high degree of price stability and inflation close to the three best performers. This the Government claim to have achieved. Secondly, sustainability of the financial position which we have without an excessive deficit. Again, the Government claim to have achieved this. Thirdly, observance of normal fluctuation margins inside the exchange rate mechanism and two years without a devaluation. Again, the Government claim to have achieved that. I am happy to congratulate the Government on having achieved that. How long it will last is another matter, because the question really
294
concerns the durability and sustainability of convergence. Those are the crucial issues and they are mentioned in paragraph 1 of Article 109J of the treaty.
That achievement of a high degree of sustainable convergence, to which my noble friend Lord Callaghan quite rightly referred, is vital because if we join in an economic and monetary union and do not have that sustainable convergence we are in serious trouble. However, I have other reservations beyond those which the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out. First of all, I have reservations as regards a high degree of sustainable convergence. Secondly, who on earth will assess that we and other member states have achieved that high degree of sustainable convergence? Apparently it is not to be the UK Treasury, which is perhaps as well. It will be the Council acting on reports by the Commission and the EMI not only on the criteria I have referred to but also taking account of the development of the ecu, the results of the integration of markets, the balance of payments on current account, unit labour costs and other price indicators. That is a somewhat difficult task for one country; for 15 or more, to put it mildly, it is even more difficult.
I turn next to the European Central Bank. As at present proposed, it is to be a wholly independent central bank. I know that some can see the advantage of that. But it takes out of the hands of mere politicians the idea of controlling inflation: that it should be in the hands of central bankers who know more about these things. With great respect to central bankers, I prefer some control by politicians, who at least have to be elected on a reasonably regular basis in a democracy, even though they may get it wrong from time to time. But we in this country have already sold the pass on an independent central bank. Our Chancellor has given the Governor of the Bank of England that power. There are monthly meetings and the minutes are published later. Being a naive sort of fellow, I assume that the Governor and the Chancellor do not severely massage the minutes. We therefore have, effectively, an independent UK central bank.
That brings me directly to the question of a single currency and my third reservation. It is not as to whether we should join. I believe that we must. It is as to how and when. The single currency issue has caused the greatest anger and emotion among those on what is called the Eurosceptic side. I cannot understand why that should be because it is not going to happen now; it is not even round the corner. I believe that we can ignore the present panic in relation to the deutschmark; that is a quite separate issue. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who asked why a Minister was not opening the debate. On this crucial issue at the centre of the arguments, a Minister can only say that the policy is to decide not to decide. I have a great affection, as she knows, for the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. But she cannot say anything else on that aspect of the problem. She can only say that the Government's policy is to decide not to decide.
The single currency needs all those criteria to be met. Then by 1st July 1998—that is only three years away—by a qualified majority vote and taking account of the opinion of the European Parliament, the Council will

295
decide which member states fulfil the necessary conditions. With great respect to the European Parliament and the Council, they, no more than any UK chancellor, in July 1998 will he in a position to decide on sustainability and durability of exchange rates and other factors. They will not be able to. It will not be possible in three years' time. It may be for Germany but not for many others. That argument certainly applies to the exchange rate problem. I agree with my noble friend Lord Callaghan and the Governor of the Bank of England that to lock into a fixed exchange rate when one does not have that sustainable convergence could be disastrous for any member state which did so. So it will be some time before we are in a position to join.
If and when we do decide, whether it be in three years, 10 years or whenever, the argument on the other side of the debate is that it is a major constitutional issue. In my view that is a bogus argument because in practice it is a purely economic and financial issue, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has argued. The bogey put forward by the sceptics is quite wrong and should not be deployed., But if my reservations are met, and sustained and durable convergence can be obtained, then I am very much in favour of joining in a single currency and economic and monetary union. But that would be primarily on economic and financial grounds. At that stage—and it may be a long way ahead—we would no more be giving up our basic constitutional rights than would Germany, France or any other member state.
As I have argued before in your Lordships' House, to talk about a federal Europe is another bogey. The plain fact is that if we had the kind of federal Europe which is spoken of, member states would probably have greater subsidiarity than they now have. So that argument is another bogey which sceptics use against the Community and one with which I totally disagree.
In any event, for the reasons that I have given, the time when we shall be ready to join economic and monetary union and a single currency is way ahead. I doubt—and I regret it—that it can be achieved by 1st January 1999. But I hope that we shall be in a position to join. If we are in such a position, since I wish to play a positive role in the IGC next year—I refer to the terms of the Motion—I hope that we shall make the position crystal clear.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome the opportunity that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has given us to speak on this important subject. In some speeches there has been a suggestion that we have been playing a negative role in Europe to date. I remind noble Lords of the very positive things that have been achieved: the single market, attacks on fraud, and so on. I must confess that I was a little disturbed by what the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, said, involving criticisms of the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party. It was implicit in his remarks that the Labour Party had been a consistent supporter of Europe. However, as we all know, no party has ever changed sides more on that specific subject than has the Labour Party. The noble Lord also suggested that business was critical of the
296
stand now being taken by the Government. However, all the information that I have—I include information from a luncheon today at the CBI—is that business is strongly supportive of the line taken, and laid out in another place by the Prime Minister recently.
I shall have an opportunity to refer to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in a moment. However, I believe that there are areas in which we should play a positive role, and that we have a major contribution to make before the 1996 conference. We have already done a great deal of work on fraud. The Select Committee of this House has set up some clear guidance on things that should be done. There is some disappointment that they are not being done in the way that we suggested. But I believe that there is a positive role for the Government, and indeed by mechanisms such as the Select Committee of this House in that field during the time ahead.
My second point refers to the CAP. A number of noble Lords have referred to the unsatisfactory nature of the policy and how impossible it is to operate it at the same time as we seek to achieve enlargement. The two do not go together. I doubt whether it is possible to have a common policy which will cover such diverse agricultural regimes as Finland, Greece, Denmark and Portugal, for example. To achieve a common policy which suits all those member states seems extremely difficult. There was some tinkering with the policy in 1992, but it was only tinkering, which I do not believe will survive long, certainly with the growth of Europe which we hope and expect to achieve. Repatriation of the CAP would be a long step backwards. However, that may be the only alternative unless in the meantime we can produce some policy which fits those disparate agricultural regimes.
I turn to a subject which has been predominant in the debate: the single currency. I shall not enter into the arguments relating to why or why not a single currency is desirable. It has been debated fully. I strongly endorse the line that has been taken. It was set out clearly by the Prime Minister in a speech in another place recently. I believe that a single currency, monetary union, must lead to a degree of fiscal union. If one has a fiscal union, I find it difficult to envisage how one can avoid political union.
It may be many years before a decision has to be taken, but I believe that we should consider the alternatives. There is a role for a common or parallel currency which could serve many of the purposes that a single currency would achieve, without bringing with it the complications and downsides of a single currency.
One may well ask why we want a single currency. Some want it because they believe that it produces a certain political control. Putting that on one side, however, the answers given by most people to why we want a single currency are the following. Some people say, "If I am travelling abroad, I take £1,000 in my pocket. I start in London, I cross every frontier in Europe and come hack with no money left, it has all gone on exchange controls". I am sure that noble Lords have heard that many times, but it is nonsense. Anyone going to Europe today need take no cash except perhaps tips for porters; otherwise one takes a credit card and

297
Euro-cheques. Whether or not there is a single currency is therefore immaterial. There are those who want a single currency because it would assist trade. I agree, it would and to that extent it has some plusses. However, if today one accepts an order to supply goods to Hamburg for delivery in three months' time, it is possible and easy for the bank to arrange straight away for the money which will be received in sterling when the goods are delivered in three months' time. Banks now produce low value cross-border payments and I believe that that can be accelerated and made cheaper, and it should be done. It would avoid some of the difficulties which might otherwise exist.
Of course, there would be currency risks. We have seen what happened this week in Spain and Portugal. Thank goodness we are not in a single currency with them at this time. I suggest that in a common or parallel currency we should be able to protect ourselves against that type of risk with the hard ecu that was thought through some years ago. It was, I believe unfortunately, abandoned, but a type of hard ecu should be reconsidered as a common or parallel currency which could be introduced without our being forced into painful decisions, appearing to be reactive to a single currency. We would be proactive in suggesting an alternative which would serve the people of this country and business and industry well.
That course has many advantages. It would overcome the political, economic and practical difficulties of a single currency. It would enable the achievement of a desired objective to have a currency which is weighted so that a sudden change in one of the exchange rates would have a diluted effect on any transaction. It would leave everyone with the option of whether to use it. People could decide whether they want it, whether they prefer to deal in sterling or marks or to use what, for these purposes, I call the "hard ecu".
That policy could evolve into a single currency over time. If it did, it would only be because it was wanted and had been truly product-tested. It would have gone through all the processes and we would see how it operated and whether it worked. It would be a voluntary decision whether to use it. That would be a proactive way—to use the description of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead—and we would not sit back waiting to say "no" to a single currency, if that were the decision. In the meantime, we would take a positive role in developing an alternative, if we pushed the suggestion forward, examining it to see whether it would serve Europe better than any of the other courses.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Roll of Ipsden: My Lords, I apologise to the House if, as seems likely, I have to absent myself before the end of the debate. I hope that the House will, as usual, be indulgent. With other speakers, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for having initiated the debate on a subject on which he speaks with great experience and authority. It comes soon after the debate in another place which was
298
overshadowed in the public interest and in the effect it had on public opinion by the political arithmetic of the moment.
The House has the opportunity today—which it has already taken—to show once again that it can debate a serious subject seriously. There can be no doubt about the seriousness of the subject. The problem of our relations with our neighbours in Europe, of their aspiration for unity and our reaction to it has been fateful for 50 years. It is a fair guess that it will remain so for many years to come.
Recently, I have indulged in the liberal use of that freely available commodity, hindsight, to review some of our policies over the past 70 years, including our policy towards Europe, based on my experience. I am afraid that the list is pretty lamentable, whatever views one may take as to what should or should not be included. The uncertainties, hesitations, ambiguities and equivocation and often the downright hostility to what was going on on the continent rank high in the list of errors. Perhaps second to none, in view of the amplitude of the concerns it covers for our well being, is our policy towards Europe.
I said that I wanted to draw on my own experience. The Motion refers specifically to the negotiations which are to take place next year in the Inter-Governmental Conference. On that subject I shall say nothing except that I agree largely with what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Callaghan and Lord Barnett. I add one point which is often overlooked on monetary union. It is that closer monetary arrangements have a powerful influence in promoting economic convergence. The emphasis has been almost entirely the other way, yet not only can the opposite be demonstrated in economic theory, but the experience of the countries that belonged to the exchange rate mechanism before we joined it bears out that contention. That is something that should not be forgotten.
I had the privilege for over 20 years after the war of being much involved in European matters, in the inception and development of policy in Whitehall and in its execution by means of international negotiations. When I look back at my own experience, I am struck by two facts. One is that, despite the ravages of war which so impaired our strength, at that time we still had enormous assets at our disposal—military and strategic, diplomatic and political, even economic and financial and certainly intellectual and, above all, moral.
If we leave aside the special position of the two super powers, and if we look particularly at Europe, the sum total was infinitely greater than that of any other country at the time. It would have entitled us, had we so wished, to take the leadership in the European movement. Indeed, at that time, our liberated allies and our former enemies were thirsting for leadership and looked to this country for it. It was an opportunity which I am afraid we threw away.
Another point is that from that time on we carried with us an enormous amount of ideological baggage which prevented us from taking a simple, free and down-to-earth view of our interests in regard to the European movement. The components were many and varied. There were specific ones like a misguided belief

299 s
in the durability and significance of the sterling area; a misguided belief in the durability and significance of many economic arrangements with the Commonwealth which proved to be evanescent. Above all, there was the fact that the view across the Atlantic seemed much more seductive than the view across the Channel. That was due to the half real, but also, alas, to the half illusory belief in the special relationship with the United States. We carried that through; in the Marshall Plan already those vociferous tendencies were present. We refused to join the Coal and Steel Community, maybe largely due to the nationalising proclivities of the Labour Government of the time. Certainly, some of us believed that the Treaty of Rome and the European Community were far too liberal. Others believed that they were far too dirigiste. Obviously, they could not be both at the same time.
'At any rate, when we came to make the first attempt to join the EEC in the early 1960s, despite the vision of Harold Macmillan and the skill and determination of Edward Heath in one and a half years of negotiations, we failed. Of course the proximate cause of that failure was the veto of General de Gaulle. But that veto, in my view, was facilitated very greatly by the uncertainty of our own position at the time, whereby we had to address two very different audiences—our prospective partners in Brussels and public opinion at home—at one and the same time in two different voices. At any rate, in the end the General prevented us from joining.
While I am on the subject of the General, perhaps I may mention one point to which the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, indirectly referred. I believe that everybody here is aware of the fact that nobody could have been more mindful of the interests of his country than was General de Gaulle. He had a most exalted view of the grandeur of France and of the overriding duty to safeguard her position. But he, too, in the end came to the view that that purpose was best achieved inside the Community rather than outside. It may well be that the prospective entry of a powerful newcomer was not at all welcome to him. I believe that he genuinely had an element in his make-up which convinced him of our "un-Europeanness", perhaps our "anti-Europeanness", at that time. At any rate, it was another 10 years before we joined the Community and started on the laborious way back to retrieve our position.
The next test came in 1979, when the Community instituted the European Monetary System, for which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, alongside Helmut Schmidt and Giscard d'Estaing, must take credit. When it came, we joined it—but even then, barely half-heartedly. We did not join its most important operational part, the exchange rate mechanism. Even then I thought that the grounds for that refusal were sophisticated, in the worst sense of that word. It was again over 10 years before we joined the ERM. When we joined, we did so—as the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, has already pointed out—at far too high an exchange rate to the D-mark; and moreover, by all accounts, without adequate, perhaps without any, consultation with our partners. This was not merely a question of courtesy. In joining the
300
exchange rate mechanism, we put our partners under certain specific financial obligations. That certainly required careful consultation on the terms of our joining.
However, we extolled both the exchange rate mechanism and our membership of it as the finest things that had happened since sliced bread. We maintained that position right up to the moment when we had to abandon the ERM. When we did so, we declared triumphantly the next day that we now had a fiercely competitive exchange rate. I know, as do many noble Lords, that economics is a many splendoured that sort of double talk really will not do.
Now we are faced with the prospect of the negotiations next year on the back of the Maastricht Treaty. All I can say is that there are several broad requirements if we are to make the negotiations successful. My remarks are very much along the lines of what the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has already said. We have the opportunity next year to retrieve a part—perhaps a large part—of the position that should rightly have been ours half a century ago. Whether we shall in fact do so, remains to be seen. We shall certainly not do so if we go into the negotiations with that curious inferiority complex that regards Brussels as an overwhelming bureaucracy. Of course it has those tendencies and, like all bureaucracies, it requires constant vigils. But the idea that it is a sort of malevolent monster—as I heard last week, when a Member of another place declared that to work constructively with Brussels means (if I may use her elegant turn of phrase) "rolling over on our backs with our legs in the air"—really is an absurdity. It is an affront to the loyal and capable people who represent us in all the institutions of Brussels. We must get rid of that attitude.
Furthermore, we must at last demonstrate—not on this or that particular issue, but right through the negotiations—that we believe what our neighbours on the Continent have believed for so long; namely, that the unity of Europe is an important objective and one that we hold dear. It had a powerful rebirth after the war, first, because of a determination that the fratricidal conflicts that had disgraced the century should never happen again, and, secondly, because of the belief that the world power map, economic and political, was radically changing and that the unity of Europe was a correct response.
If that was true then, what about the changes that have taken place more recently to which reference has been made? I refer to the collapse of the Soviet Union; the changes in central and eastern Europe; even the changes in that great power across the sea, the one remaining super-power, in its interests, its orientation, its foreign and economic policy and so on? Surely it is more true than ever that we must all hang together. Otherwise, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately. If we enter the negotiations in this way, we may retrieve some of our position. If we do not, I am afraid that, contrary to the wishes of the Prime Minister, who wants this country to be at the heart of Europe, we may well end

301
up in a very different part of the anatomy. Moreover, we shall be making Europe all the poorer and all the less effective.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, referred to the remarkable harmony of this debate and undertook to disrupt it. However, I do not believe that he really tried. I think we were all relying on my noble friend Lord Tebbit to do that without really trying. We certainly regret that he has been unable to do so. I have no such ambition. But I should like to look briefly at the reasons for the increased public hostility to Europe to which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister referred in the debate last week.
My right honourable friend Sir Edward Heath had no doubt at all about the reasons for that. He said flatly that nothing had been said in the past 15 years by the Government in favour of Europe; there had just been unjustified condemnation. I do not believe that my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, who made an admirable speech this afternoon, would quite go along with that; nor would I. But we would perhaps agree that there is a substantial amount of truth in it. Very often, the positive case for Europe has not been put, and that has had a considerably deleterious effect on public opinion.
A much more important influence on public opinion has been that of the British newspapers—if indeed they can properly be called either British or newspapers. We have had an almost continuous barrage of British, or rather English, nationalism. It is not the sort of English nationalism that was referred to so well by the right reverend Prelate, but a nationalism and anti-Europeanism on the part of the owners and editors and of some British politicians. Such people's nationalism is extremely selective. They do not turn a hair when great swathes of British industry are bought up by foreigners and come under foreign control, or when the same thing happens in the City. But they get extremely worked up when there is even a thought that British sovereignty, so-called, may be infringed; and when the European Court of Justice finds for a British subject against the British Government, they whip themselves into a frenzy of nationalist hysteria—always carefully failing to consider either the merits of the case or the fact that the British subject has won his case and has benefited.
As has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and others, the most virulently nationalist of our newspapers are owned by foreigners. They are multinational corporations. That no doubt explains their benevolent attitude to foreign multinational corporations buying up British industry. So we have a press that is in large part foreign-owned, stoking up resentment against the foreign countries that are closest to us. Oddly enough, the multinational corporations do not seem to have realised that they are sawing off the branch on which they are sitting. If ever Britain does become the sort of stridently nationalist and unpleasantly xenophobic country that they seek to bring
302
about, such a nationalist state would lose very little time in taking over and in seeing that our newspapers and television were owned by English nationalists.
In any case, the nationalism of our Euro-haters in the press, in parts of the Conservative Party, and indeed in the Cabinet, is, as I said, remarkably one-eyed. They are less concerned with real control over our affairs than with the trappings of sovereignty, of which the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and many others have spoken. So long as Britain retains its so-called parliamentary sovereignty—whatever that means in 1995—they are happy for everything else to be multinational or foreign controlled. In fact, as noble Lords will agree, no country today can be economically sovereign, not even the United States—certainly not Britain. Furthermore, I do not believe that our Euro-haters in the press and elsewhere are concerned with patriotism in the Burkean sense. As he put it:
"to make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely".
Instead, they concentrate on abusing our foreign neighbours. The English football hooligans to whom the right reverend Prelate referred are a caricature of our Euro-haters; but the caricature is recognisable.
But in reality, the strident English nationalist and anti-European propaganda has much more to do with ideology than with patriotism. Over the past 15 or 16 years, we have become probably the most Right-wing country in western Europe. That is quite new in our history. I do not think that it has ever happened before. In consequence, we are out of step with our European partners who have kept to a sensibly centrist course. So the Far Right English nationalists look to the even more Right-wing United States, although the United States does not look to them or even at them. And they disapprove of our allegedly socialist and bureaucratic partners in Europe.
In consequence, they—and, I am afraid, sometimes even the Government—talk what to me seems an extravagant amount of nonsense about such matters as the social chapter. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister winds up, she will tell us which parts of the social chapter any reasonable, one-nation Tory could or should find objectionable. In any case, if the Government became a good deal less Right-wing, many of their difficulties would disappear and their position would be greatly strengthened both at home and in Europe.
I very much hope that the Government will play a positive role in the Inter-Governmental Conference and that on Europe it will also be more positive both in the country and the party. If they put the positive case for Europe, as my right honourable friends the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary have recently done, they will soon find that public opinion will spring back to its customary position in the centre and away from where it is now and that British politics will become a great deal more healthy than they recently have been. But the Government must give a lead.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is always refreshing to listen to and to follow the noble Lord, Lord

303
Gilmour. The views that he has just expressed perhaps explain why he had certain difficulties with the former Prime Minister. They were views that I believe were well worth hearing.
I propose to put forward today from the Back Benches views which are personal to me about the Inter-Governmental Conference and certain proposals that I should like to see coming out of that particular deliberation. There is a story, which may be apocryphal—I know not—about Mr. Portillo (or perhaps it was Mr. Lilley). The Minister went to a press conference and a very penetrating journalist asked him, "Minister, why is it that you and so many of your colleagues are so hostile to the European Union? Is it ignorance or apathy?" The response was "I don't know and I don't care".
Unfortunately, it often seems like that. I do not see that that attitude can in the least help Britain to be at the heart of Europe, as so many of your Lordships so obviously wish. It was extraordinary that not so long ago the Prime Minister himself indicated in terms that he wanted to see progress stultified so far as the Inter-Governmental Conference was concerned. That was an extraordinary proposition in the light of the challenges facing the European Union in the years ahead, not least in terms of first deepening and then widening it. It is as though somehow or other the Government have lost confidence in their ability to persuade others in the European Union. I believe that, if we were seen to be more fully involved in the debates as full members of the European Union, our voice would not go unheeded.
There is an emphasis on the negative, the veto, the opposition to any extension of qualified majority voting and curbing the power of the European Court of Justice. Those are matters which arose at Question Time today and about which I sensed a certain degree of ambivalence on the part of the noble Baroness who replied. Nevertheless, Mr. Portillo has supported it. There is the whole question of the opt-outs, to which reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour. The opt-outs have already cost us the possibility of siting the Central Bank in this country. That is a rather serious loss. But there is also the meaningless opt-out in relation to the social chapter. The Government's view is simply being ignored by the many conglomerates which have interests in this country and the rest of the European Union; and so social policy is being enacted in practical terms.
I believe that the Government are drowning in a mounting crescendo of contradictions. They welcomed qualified majority voting—quite rightly in my view—to facilitate the extension of the single market. They acquiesced in an extension of qualified majority voting so far as concerned the environmental chapter of the treaty, when they agreed to Maastricht. Now, when they proclaim their determination to secure substantial changes in the common agricultural policy, not least in terms of how that will apply to a widened Europe, they mount an onslaught on qualified majority voting, which is the only practicable means of achieving that and many other objectives. How do they contemplate widening the Community unless many of the institutional situations
304
with which we are faced today are substantially reformed? That will require powerful and positive decisions to be made at the Inter-Governmental Conference.
I want to add some observations to the discussion that we had earlier today about the European Court of Justice. If the Government or any members of the Government are serious about curbing its powers by saying that politicians should be able to review or revoke decisions of the European Court of Justice by qualified majority voting at the Council of Ministers—which, in itself, is a contradiction in that sense, because here they are talking about an extension of qualified majority voting—it would deal a very severe blow to the rule of law on which the European Union has to be founded. It is quite wrong for Ministers even to contemplate that idea. As Dorothy Parker once said, in a totally different context, "I don't think that idea should be lightly tossed aside; it should be hurled aside with great force".
We have to ask how best we can protect British interests. As was said at the very beginning of the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and the Leader of the Opposition, it can only be done by our being a full member of the European Community and by adopting a starkly different position from that which the Government have opted to take on so many issues.
I want to refer next to the whole question of the democratic deficit. Not much has been said about that today but a great deal was said about it at the European summit. Many bold declarations were made about how it was necessary to introduce more transparency, particularly at the level of the Council of Ministers. Unfortunately, very little progress was made, but I noticed some very helpful support from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, in a rather different capacity. Not so long ago, in April 1994, he said:
"The Council of Ministers is probably the only legislature in the free world that meets behind closed doors, and that state of affairs should not continue".
That is a pretty authoritative source, sitting where he does today. I hope that he continues to share that point of view and that he has some hope of influencing some of his colleagues in that regard.
What he had to say then is absolutely right. It is clear that decisions which are so central to the interests of the citizens of the Community should be divulged to them in a way that does not happen today. I wonder whether it would not be appropriate to enable the President of the European Parliament, or at a lower level the members of the relevant committees, to be present at meetings of Councils of Ministers. That might be a good way of ensuring that fairness should rule.
I also believe that the powers of the European Parliament need to be enhanced still further beyond the Maastricht Treaty. It is, after all, the only democratically elected institution. It should have the power to initiate legislative proposals where the Commission has failed or refused to do so over a period of years—it does not matter for how long—when the Parliament has requested that a particular proposal should be brought

305
before the Commission. It should have the right to approve the nomination of the President of the European Commission.
Of all the policy areas which are undertaken by the European Union, and in particular the Commission, the environment is by far the most popular. That has been revealed in European poll after European poll. It is perhaps wrongly seen by so many people as a kind of court of appeal against the anti-environmental activities of member states. But, contrary to the view of the Foreign Secretary in his discredited "nooks and crannies" argument, I believe it is essential that when it comes to the question of implementation and enforcement of European Union environmental laws—there are far too many breaches—powers should be provided to the European Commission or the European Environmental Agency to enforce the laws along lines comparable to the enforcement of European Union competition law. There should be a small inspectorate and action against the undertaking and not simply against the member state which is in breach. There should be the imposition of a fine to stop the mischief in its tracks and the right of appeal to the European Court of Justice. I do not believe that the power which has been vested in the court by Maastricht is anything like sufficiently practicable. The taxpayer would pay if fines were levied against member states and certainly not the polluter.
Time demands that I finish and so I shall end on this note. I believe passionately that we have to play a real part in the development of the policies relating to the future of Europe. It has to be a more democratic, vibrant, purposeful and efficient Europe. It is essential that we should exercise our influence. Arguing for Britain and arguing for Europe are absolutely synonymous, That is my profound belief. I hope that it will he reflected in our attitude at the Inter-Governmental Conference.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, ghosts in this House, of whom there are many—in fact there may well be more than there are Members present —would remind us that Britain spent the last part of the 19th century not making up its mind satisfactorily over Ireland. It looks as if there is a danger that Britain may be condemned by historians for having made the same kind of mistake in relation to the end of the 20th century over Europe; because, as many noble Lords have pointed out, Britain's voyage to the heart of Europe has been one of the most round about journeys ever undertaken since Christian embarked on the Pilgrim's Progress. We now know, at the end of the 20th century, that good novels do not necessarily have to have a happy ending.
The European Union, as it is today, was conceived by Monsieur Monnet largely for three reasons: first, in order to achieve common economic policies which would avoid the catastrophes of 1914 and 1939; secondly, to try to achieve a European economy which would be a satisfactory challenge to any conceivable rival; and thirdly, to try to ensure that Europe's overall
306
political interests were borne in mind in the destiny of the world. The first of those aims has been achieved; the last two, as yet not fully.
Behind all these policies was the sensation that the European nation state in the 1950s—even the largest European nation state—was not large enough to be effective, a point of view which most of our colleagues and partners on the European Continent now accept by second nature but which many members of our own population do not seem to have done. Of course, M. Monnet did conceive with his colleagues that, in the long run, they should try to achieve a United States of Europe—M. Monnet had an action committee for that purpose—but the fact is that neither he nor they ever sought to achieve a federal European state with a federal government, a federal civil service and a federal police.
On the contrary, they always conceived the present situation, which is that the directing body in Europe is the Council of Ministers, a group of individuals who are responsible to the nation states—their own nation states, their own parliaments and their own electorates. The absence of coercive power at the level of the Union, as we now call it, is the most remarkable, interesting and in some ways extraordinary aspect of this great political innovation. The nation states carry out what the Union decides. There are no Community agents to carry out those decisions. So how can there be a serious danger in what has been achieved up until now of a federal state, as so many Euro-sceptic members of the Conservative Party assume?
It is fair to say that this idea of shared sovereignty, so well described by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is a new one and something which is a challenge to classical ideas of political philosophy, but there is no reason why such innovations should frighten us.
There is of course the possibility that the functioning of the European institutions may seem not to be able to work in the end without the establishment of a federal state. I have often thought that myself. Certainly it is true that the area of competence between the state and the Community is not clearly defined, even after Maastricht which devoted so much attention to the idea of subsidiarity. Certainly the construction of a federal constitution would resolve more easily than any other solution the question of the democratic deficit, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred. However, the probability is that the existing institutions, basing their legitimacy on the continuation of the nation state collaborating with other nation states as we now have, will be able to work quite satisfactorily for the foreseeable future.
I believe that the test is European Monetary Union. If Europe can achieve a common currency without a federal structure then surely it—we—can do anything. The question of whether to have a full federal structure can be delayed indefinitely and at least until such time as the maximum number of candidate states will have joined in something like the year 2020. That is the year when many of us in this House will look forward to repeating this debate and having a full and final discussion on the matter.

307
All these innovations have sat ill to some extent with this country. Britain has felt ill at ease with these tremendous innovations. It is perfectly understandable why, in the 1950s, many felt that our nation state still with imperial power was adequate for our foreseeable needs. In 1995, however, it is much more difficult to understand why that attitude should survive. It certainly seems to have survived even though we are, if anything, more ill at ease with the European Community than at any previous time.
This is particularly a matter within the Conservative Party. It is a party where one Conservative hostile to the European Community can accuse another in favour of it of being "a Pétainist" adapting himself to the new European order, as one such person did to me only two nights ago. This mood derives not from national pride or even a memory of past greatness but from a new mood of provincial nationalism which is extremely destructive.
I wish to say two more things. First, I strongly believe that my noble friend Lord Cockfield was correct in saying that it is an illusion to suppose that we can return to something like a common market and a simple customs union between nation states after 40 years of European integration. Anyone who believes that is like someone coming into this House and supposing it to be primarily a cricket club. Anyone who believes that we should try to establish a customs union instead of what we have already should have the courage of his convictions and advocate, like Mr. Norman Lamont, full withdrawal.
Britain outside the European Community is not an impossible concept. Many of us would like to know more about what those who claim that as a possibility believe the outcome would be. At first sight it would appear to be a rather bleak and austere possibility. I wonder whether those who advocate such an eventuality would allow those of us who remain in this country in those circumstances to maintain ecu bank accounts.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I fear that I am rather ill-prepared to stem the tide of so far mostly uncritical Euro-enthusiasm. I am bolstered by the fact that further down the list of speakers there will be support coming to my help. We have missed the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.
I say that I am unprepared because I learnt of this debate only this morning. I have just returned from Italy where, some will be shocked to hear, at the invitation of the British Council I have taken part in a debate with an Italian, Professor Comba of Turin, on the issue of free trade and economic co-operation. I hardly dare hope that the remarks I draw from my paper will be as well received here. I was totally astonished. Older people in Italy drawn from the Oxford and Cambridge Society, among other exemplary bodies, acknowledged that Italian enthusiasm for Brussels had hitherto been due to total disillusion with their own political and economic muddles. They said that anything would be better than Rome. Older people in Italy regretted that younger Italians did not share that view. They were much closer
308
to the Thatcher view. They described it as the Berlusconi and Antonio Martino view of the last government.
I was shocked to hear the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, speak about a "simple customs union" as though it were to be despised as a marginal addition to economic policy. On my argument the Treaty of Rome is based on the central idea of promoting the lasting peace of which we have heard, by replacing economic nationalism with a framework for a competitive common market. That was a central notion of the Treaty of Rome. I shall not provoke hostility by developing the theme that follows from that beyond saying that the case to economists was that in place of protectionism and autarky, which caused so much trouble before the war and which Adam Smith had denounced as mercantilism, the founders of the EC principally backed the notion of integration through economic trade and investment by removing tariffs and non-tariff barriers to the free movement of goods, services, capital and people.
When apologetic British spokesmen say that we are isolated or marginalised in Europe and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, says that if we had been in it earlier we would apparently have refashioned the entire operation to our taste, they ignore the totally different tradition in political economy and economic philosophy on the Continent of Europe from that prevailing in this country. Classical liberalism never won the intellectual ascendancy on the Continent that it achieved in Britain during the 19th century. Apart from a few isolated economists such as Einaudi, Rueff, Erhard, Ropke and a few others, the prevailing philosophy owes much more to the intellectual tradition of Catholic social doctrine. That is closely linked with corporatism, which is a somewhat elusive concept. I argue that corporatism is redolent of the seven Cs, beginning with consensus and conformity, going on to co-operation and centralism, and then collectivism, carve-up and not forgetting corruption, and all the time increasing coercion. That is the corporatist tradition.
The impact of the Catholic social doctrine on the Continent has been reinforced by the way in which proportional representation has led to fragmentation of government support. It has enfeebled governments—and Italy is a classic case—where party apparatchiks become very powerful; there is a premium on coalition, compromise and backstage deals between political elites disregarding entirely public opinion and always favouring a consensus which has little merit necessarily to the balance of argument in the case.
In 1971, before the referendum, the Institute of Economic Affairs, in which I must declare an interest, having run it for some 30 years, produced a classic paper with a most important title, Rome or Brussels? It posed a real choice between the liberalism that was inherent in the Treaty of Rome and the burgeoning bureaucracy that was already visible in 1971 in Brussels. Since the 1980s, it has daily become more clear that the bureaucrats of Brussels have triumphed altogether over the Rome liberalisation.
This week, the same institute (without my wise guidance) produced a further paper, which I am allowed to advertise, called The Centralisation of Western

309
Europe—not by what the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, would call a "Euro-hater" or a "Euro-hooligan" but by one of the leading German economists, Professor Roland Vaubel. I advise your Lordships to watch Vaubel as a likely entrant in the next 10 or 15 years for a Nobel prize. Vaubel shows that instead of encouraging trade, integration, closer relationships and interrelationships through trade based on mutual recognition, whereby the products and standards that are acceptable within any member country can be exported freely throughout the whole Common Market, the Commission and its apparatchiks have exploited the plausible pretext of "harmonisation" and "level playing field" to set about flattening and homogenising the very differences in costs and qualities on which a large part of free trade fundamentally depends.
Helped by the Single European Act, which had the aim of completing the market by 1992—it is still, alas, incomplete—we had the great development of qualified majority voting which was necessary in place of the old veto. However, as a result—an unintended result—there has been a tidal wave of Brussels legislation. According to Vaubel, at the last count there were 24,000 regulations and 1,700 directives. He argues that despite recent talk of "subsidiarity", they are growing at the rate of 1,500 regulations and 120 directives per year.
What emerges from Vaubel's study, which is a very close and intricate economic analysis of the whole operation, is that there has been a tremendous development of lobbying. He reveals that there are now 3,000 lobby organisations and 10,000 lobbyists in Brussels. He quotes the calculation that 70 per cent. of Community legislation and subsidies is concerned with special interest groups, including the common agricultural policy. He explains that lobbyists find it easier to tackle the bureaucrats who enjoy enlarging their bureaux and who are not subject to the same restraint of democratic control as politicians, who can often tell a lobbyist on the make.
The noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, asked what was objectionable about the Social Charter. I probably have the time to answer that question for him. It is perfectly clear that when you introduce free trade in a Europe that has had a history of Colbert restrictionism over the decades you will have a varying impact on different parts of the market. Some countries will fare worse than others and their interests will be badly affected. The only solution to that is to develop a flexible labour market. That is a phrase that the Liberals find rather distasteful, but a flexible labour market has enabled the great countries of the Far East, such as Hong Kong, to adapt to changing opportunities and to shift resources, such as labour and capital, into industries where the prospects are better. Instead of that, the EEC backs the Social Charter. You even hear nominal Liberals like the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asking what is wrong with it and saying that we should get in there.
For the information of the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, among the aims of the Social Charter is the imposition of uniform requirements on all aspects of working conditions, including redundancy, maternity leave, pensions, social benefits, hours of work—and ultimately
310
a European minimum wage. The protectionist intent of all that—not protecting standards, but protecting economies against the impact of change and trade from abroad—became clear in 1993 when M. Jacques Delors—happily departed to, I hope, more agreeable activities—launched the bizarre idea of incorporating into the GATT negotiations a "global Social Charter". The idea was to prevent European standards of living being undermined by what he called "social dumping" from low-wage Asian competitors. He had not looked closely enough to find that the effect of trade is always to tend to equalise standards of wages upwards, so that in Hong Kong we have seen people who were paid a handful of rice in my youth now enjoying wages and benefits that are at least on a par with the English standards.
Since the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has allowed us a little extra time, I must, I am afraid, deal with the question of nationalism, which is constantly being put forward. My argument in conclusion is that for Britain to play its most helpful role in Europe, it must stand by its guns and develop its different vision of Europe. That is a perfectly honourable position, as opposed to being in the middle with constant compromises being struck against the development of the free movement of goods and services and all the rest of it. There is nothing despicable about nationalism. It does not mean narrow chauvinism and the "trappings of sovereignty"—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me, but the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has not given every other speaker three extra minutes. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has already been speaking for more than 12 minutes.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I apologise to the House, but perhaps I may complete my sentence.
Adam Smith, David Hume and those other great men saw international free trade as a way in which independent nation states could co-operate together, pooling such sovereignty as was necessary to remove barriers, but not getting drawn into deep political involvement and engagement with other countries.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I too welcome the initiative that was taken by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, in calling for this timely debate. Similar debates are taking place throughout the European Union. Indeed, I left such a debate in Brussels only this morning. Your Lordships may be interested to hear that many of the things that were being said in that debate have been said here this afternoon. In other words, there is a similar pattern throughout the whole of the European Union in preparation for the Inter-Governmental Conference.
Many people fear that that conference will take a leap towards a centralised, high-spend and interventionist Europe —a Europe dominated from Brussels; a Europe run by bureaucrats and a Europe that weakens our sovereignty. Sadly, much of that fear has been generated by Euro-sceptism at a time when we ought to be working for what is best in Britain, for what is best for Britain in Europe and when we should be shaping events

311
rather than continually reacting to them. My noble friend Lord Boardman made that position quite clear when he referred to the many issues in which Britain has led the field and from which we are now benefiting.
So, a flexible decentralised European Union is the way forward, as we see it, to allow the growing diversity of the Union politically and economically to develop. That enables sovereignty to be shared in areas of common concern which require obligations and legal action in those areas to which we are now accustomed, such as the single market, external trade, the environment and many other issues of which we are all aware. It allows for more flexible arrangements, based on inter-governmental co-operation in areas such as foreign policy and internal affairs. I believe that that will be central to the debate in the IGC. As many have recognised, it also provides the forum for enlargement which is fraught with dangers and yet which is full of opportunities. If we are to press ahead with enlargement, as I am sure that we are, we have to face up to and deal with the huge repercussions that that will have in every area of the European Union and then determine how that fits into the liberalisation of trade under GATT.
That means finding practical solutions to so many issues like the cost of the common agricultural policy and its structure—the cohesion and structural funds and institutional reforms. I share the view of many that the common agricultural policy cannot operate in an expanded Europe in its present form. Your Lordships will be aware that the Ministry of Agriculture has called a few of us together to consider the future of the common agricultural policy, and I look forward to being able to present my own views on that later this year. Detailed proposals can be expected to cover areas for inter-governmental co-operation in the fields of foreign policy and defence, as well as in interior and justice matters.
Many of your Lordships have mentioned the importance of subsidiarity. That obviously needs to be entrenched further into the workings of the Community and the influence of larger states needs to be strengthened. The European Parliament will need to focus more on scrutinising and holding Commission activities and spending to account. The recent hearings which we held for the new Commissioners were a good example that the European Parliament is taking its new responsibilities very seriously indeed. Nor should the legislative role of the European Parliament be forgotten. This role was, rightly in my view, enhanced by the Maastricht Treaty and no doubt the 1996 conference will need to build on what was agreed in 1991.
I do not think it can be said too often that the Parliament complements; it does not contradict competences exercised by Members in the other place. The so-called co-decision procedure, for instance, which was introduced by the Maastricht Treaty, gives in certain areas a right of veto to the European Parliament. That veto is in no sense a right taken away from national parliaments, which have no right of veto over European legislation. Parliamentary scrutiny is not a zero sum game. But the democratic legitimacy of decision-making needs the scrutiny and involvement of national parliaments.
312
In his opening speech as President of the European Commission, Jacques Santer said:
"the Commission should do less, but what it does it should do better".
I am sure that my noble friend Lady Chalker will say, "Hear, hear" to that, particularly in the context of Lomé and overseas aid.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Hear, hear!
Lord Plumb: My Lords, another issue which has been raised is fraud. Fraud has to be tackled and we must make sure that there are tough controls over spending. These issues and the many other voting changes will require proper debate, and I know that our own Government would want some convincing that we need to go further on qualified majority voting and on any extension of Community competence. I am sure that any move towards a more centralised or more intrusive Community—a move to abolish the veto or to aim for a centralised European super-state—will be vehemently opposed, but I do not expect the Inter-Governmental Conference to make proposals which would significantly change the constitutional position of the United Kingdom.
However, I suppose that the main fear concerning many people is what they see as a threat that we may be dragged into the EMU and a single currency. The principle of a multi-speed Europe, even a measure of variable geometry, is already central to the EMU provisions of the Maastricht Treaty. So before a member state proceeds to the third stage of EMU it is required to meet the convergence criteria, covering inflation budget deficits, exchange rate stability and long-term interest rates. If a majority of member states meet these conditions, then a single currency may come into being in 1997—if so decided by Heads of Government acting by a qualified majority. Of course it is likely that those conditions for EMU will not be met: there would need to be proper convergence on economies coming together right across Europe. For sterling to join EMU would have meant that we would have needed to be in the ERM for two years and that there would need to be an independent Bank of England. The economic realities in March 1995 indicate that economic and monetary union is unlikely to happen in the next 18 months, and perhaps in the 18 months beyond that.
Whatever the outcome of this conference, Members in another place and Members of your Lordships' House will have the opportunity to take the decisions they want, when they want, knowing that our Prime Minister's ability and success in negotiating Britain's opt-out give us time for full parliamentary debate before agreeing to any timescale for a single currency.
Let me conclude by saying that compromise is necessary for reaching an agreement. I do not see the changes in 1996 as a gigantic upheaval, but at the same time I do not believe in the status quo being an option either. Change is manageable, but only on the basis of flexibility and compromise.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too would like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, on

313
bringing forward this debate today. I am particularly grateful to him for telling us that he was in fact part—indeed the leader, I think—of the cross-party pro-European Alliance. This is part of the fight back, a fight back which I suppose started when, from 1970 onwards, he and his fellows drove us into the EEC by securing 69 votes from the Labour Party on a three-line Whip; so we have been warned, and some of us will take that warning.
It is gratifying that so many of your Lordships are speaking at this stage of the debate, which is likely to be a long one. But of course this must not be the only debate, and certainly it is not the most important debate. I think it should be seen rather as the aperitif rather than the main course, or even the hors d'oeuvres.
I, with other people, shall expect the Government to come forward with their own proposals for discussion not only in Parliament but throughout the country as well. It is no use, on this occasion, hiding behind some absurd posture of protecting their negotiating position, because everybody in the country is now interested in this subject. They want a wide-ranging discussion upon it. It is up to the Government to set the agenda for that discussion and to listen to what this House and the other place have to say and to what the people of this country have to say. Indeed the people are increasingly sceptical, not only about the benefits of further integration but also about the supposed benefits Britain has so far secured. My own position about the European Union and our membership has always been clear. I find myself in all sorts of strange positions. In the 1970s I was accused of being an extreme Left-winger, because I was then what is termed a Euro-sceptic. I now find that I have been pushed right to the other side of the political spectrum and have become suddenly a political Right-winger, although I have stood still. The argument has in fact moved from side to side.
However, many people, hitherto content with the prevailing fashion, are now using arguments about the European Union that I and others have been using 'over a very long period of time. Let me quote from last Wednesday's Daily Mail— not a Socialist newspaper by any means, nor a Euro-sceptical newspaper. What does it say? It says:
"A non-sceptic former Minister attacks the claim that the EU is this country's only life-line."
The main headline of the article is "The Great Euro Myth". It goes on to say:
"Today, pro-EU MPs will argue that Britain's trading future depends on the Common Market. The truth is that we're dealing ever more with the rest of the world."
That was last Wednesday, 1st March. Who said that? Mr. David Howell MP, former Transport Secretary and now chairman of the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee.
So the argument is indeed moving on, and people who hitherto have been very much in favour of Europe are now saying that there is indeed life outside the European Community or Union —call it what you will. The noble
314
Lord, Lord Jenkins, moved for Papers. Unfortunately, he did not mention what Papers he wanted. I shall mention what Papers I and many other people want.
Lord Hooson: The Daily Mail!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I quoted from that, so I shall pass on if you do not mind. It was a good quote, if I might say so. I want a cost benefit analysis. I want to know, on the basis of a cost benefit analysis, whether we have done better on trade; what have been our monetary contributions; what has been our loss of resources—the common fisheries, for example; the additional costs of food; the cost to industry, private individuals, and the public purse of implementing Euro-decisions such as transport decisions and decisions on water quality and the quality of our beaches. Without such an analysis, we cannot decide where we want to go.
In the Motion we are asked:
"To call attention to the need for the United Kingdom to play a positive role".
I want us to play a positive role. I have always wanted us to play a positive role in Europe, but on my terms, not on the terms that have been forced upon the country by so many people, including the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.
What do I think the Government should be saying at the IGC? First, they should be saying that the constant attempt by the European Union to grab ever more power is disruptive of our national life, our political system, and our economic performance, and will not help Europe in the long term. Secondly, the conference should be told that the British people believe in a Europe of co-operating nation states, not a centralised, corporatist, bureaucratic superstate, because that is what some people want. Let us make no mistake about it. So the British Government should make clear their position on that.
Thirdly, the Government should say that the existing institutions are expensive, unwieldy, bureaucratic, and not suitable for the sort of Europe Britain has in mind. Fourthly, they should therefore propose that the European Council become the policy initiator, and that the Commission be reduced to the role of a Civil Service with the task of implementing Council decisions—no more, and no less.
The European Parliament, which costs us some £600 million a year at present, should be disbanded. It should revert to an assembly to which national parliaments would send representatives. In that way we should indeed be helping with the democratic deficit. The European Court must cease to be the engine of further legislation, and must be a law court rather than a political court. It must be made crystal clear that the United Kingdom will decide who may and may not cross its borders. I hope that the Minister will give us that assurance tonight.
On qualified majority voting, that must not be extended under any circumstances. The existing system must more accurately reflect the population strengths of member states, and, where expenditure is involved, it should reflect the amount of money that is contributed to or taken from the budget.

315
Economic and monetary union, complete with a European currency—that is, over the next 10 years—is an unattainable and dangerous dream that could have nightmarish consequences for this country and for Europe itself. We should say now that Britain rejects the EMU and a single currency, and will not contribute any further to the work that is now going towards achieving that end.
Finally, on foreign affairs and defence, it should be made absolutely clear that Britain will have nothing to do with a European army, and that our foreign policy will always give priority to the national interest. The Motion called for a contribution to the debate. I hope that I have made some contribution.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, whom I too congratulate on initiating the debate, said that it would be better for those who wished the United Kingdom to pull out of the European Union to say so openly. I should not be speaking on this' matter unless some important people had not been saying so openly. I regard the proposal as so astonishing and unrealistic that something should be said about it,
We have to look at the history, and the noble Lord, Lord Roll of Ipsden, did that to great effect. But there was one historical event that he did not mention with which I had a connection at the time. That was the French proposal in 1953 for a European defence community. That proposal was put forward by the French in response to American pressure for German rearmament and as a means of integrating the armed forces of the six to control or contain German rearmament.
The six, especially France, were desperate that Britain should, if not join it, at least associate itself with it. But Anthony Eden would have none of that, and partly for that reason the proposal collapsed.
The next step was to create the Western European Union, which was based, of course, on inter-governmental co-operation. It still exists, and not on the integrated model, but those in the six who believed in European unity were not content with that and the next step was the Messina Conference which prepared the European Economic Community.
The desire among the six for British participation in that conference was every bit as intense as the desire had been over the European defence community. If we had gone in at that time, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, we could have shaped the European Economic Community very much to suit ourselves, so great was the desire of the other members to have us in. But, again, we refused to take part. We sent an observer for six months, and then withdrew even the observer. Sir Anthony Eden possibly expected that that conference would collapse, as had the proposal for the defence community.
As we all know, that led on to the Treaty of Rome, and a scheme for a European Economic Community, designed by the six, for the six, with features highly inconvenient to the UK. As the French would say, "The
316
absent are always wrong". Within a very short time we made our application for membership, but, of course, by that time de Gaulle had come to power in France. He did not want us in, for reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Roll, mentioned. So we were rebuffed in 1962; we were rebuffed again under a Labour Government in 1966; and we eventually got in in 1972–15 years after the creation of the Community. We had to accept the Community largely as it was, and not as we would have designed it.
Given that background, I regard it as astonishing that any responsible politician can suggest that we should now leave the Community. It makes no sense economically when over half our visible exports go to the Union and when we get much more inward investment than any other member country.
Politically it makes no sense when the world looks increasingly to the European Union in foreign policy and not to its individual member countries. The mere talk of withdrawal does no good for our influence in day-to-day negotiations inside the Union. I do not believe that the British people want to pull out. They may be maddened by some of the Commission's sillier schemes—when it involves itself in what the Foreign Secretary has called the nooks and crannies of our national life—but the British people believe that we should stay in and use our influence to secure change.
We should play an active role in every aspect of the preparations for the conference, including preparations for a possible common currency. When considering where to put our main emphasise in the conference, a relevant factor is the likely growth in the number of members of the Community. We are told that within a few years there may be as many as 27 members. We must ask ourselves whether such a large Community is to develop by Community action, Commission initiative and majority voting, or is it to put the future emphasise on inter-governmental negotiations.
I have difficulty with the idea of a Community of 27 members operating in an integrated manner across the board, as my noble friend Lord Cockfield appeared to suggest. I recognise that a looser form of approach may slow down the momentum. I am not calling for the return to a free-trade area, but I believe that, in the long run, a looser approach with such a large number of members will take us further.
At any rate, the looser concept lies behind the second and third pillars of the Maastricht agreement. I hope that at the conference we shall put great emphasise on developing co-operation in foreign policy and security and in Home Office issues such as anti-terrorism steps.
I put in the same category the Prime Minister's welcome proposals for the development of the role of the Western European Union, without infringing NATO's role but drawing on its capabilities and working on an inter-governmental basis. I hope also that we shall put great emphasise on pushing forward the doctrine of subsidiarity.
I also warmly support the Prime Minister's view that we should decide not to take a decision now on membership of a single currency. That view was strongly reinforced by the currency turbulence of the past week. In particular, it is unnecessary for us to take

317
a view now because we have the privilege of the opt-out obtained at the Maastricht conference. The question does not now arise and it is nowhere near right for a decision to be made. Other countries are not deciding and every day makes it more likely that a decision must be postponed for a considerable length of time. There are many uncertainties; we do not know the necessary terms and conditions nor how many countries and which countries will join. If the Spaniards, Portuguese, Greeks and Italians were members—and some of them have expressed an interest—it would be a different kind of single currency than if they were not. We do not know the implications for the pound sterling of staying out.
I believe that the words of the Governor of the Bank of England, in a speech on 21st February, are extremely relevant. When commenting on monetary union he said:
"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 we have a great deal still to do in continuing to explore both the economic and technical conditions that would need to be met before any decision could be made. The important thing at this point is that we all carry forward, this work patiently and with an open mind".
I believe that those are wise words.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, there is a great danger of our country giving the impression to its mainland partners that we are becoming the Don Quixote of Europe—that is, tilting at windmills, seeing grave dangers where none exists, and seeing friends and recognising them as enemies. Where we see opportunities, we concentrate on the problems attendant upon them and not on the opportunities themselves.
As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, the reason for that is the control of the media, the prominence given to the Euro-sceptic view of the media and its resorting to a nationalistic line. I come from Wales and am a Welsh cultural nationalist, but I have always hated political nationalism. I know that the easiest thing to promote in this world in order to stir up people's subconscious anxieties is nationalism. The press have done that, and it is a dangerous trend.
We should look at the reality of Europe. When we consider the state of Europe in 1945 and its state today, 50 years later, we see that the progress has been enormous. The greatest instrument in achieving that progress has been the Treaty of Rome. There is no doubt about that. Even the countries outside are pressing to come in. Sweden, Finland, Austria and our own country having spurned the original offer, wanted to come in.
Surely, at the present time Europe needs sustained, confident progress towards the goal of some future form—probably in the distant future—of a united Europe. This country needs to find its own role within Europe and to be confident and constructive in ensuring that we are fulfilling our role as one of the leaders—not the leader but one of the leaders—of Europe.
I wish to suggest three requirements that should be operating on the minds of our leaders for the 1996 conference. The first requirement is to reassure our fellow Europeans that we are intent on making a success of the European concept. Today that reassurance is
318
necessary. A few years ago I would not have thought it necessary but now it is the No. 1 requirement. Furthermore, we should not be about employing tactics to try to defeat the firm objectives of the Treaty of Rome or to try to enlarge the Community in such a way as to change its essential nature and reduce it to a mere free-trade area of disparate development.
Our history on the subject is not reassuring to our European partners. Already we have had a list of the opportunities that have arisen. We as a country have never been at the heart of Europe; we have had opportunities to be so, but we have nearly always rejected them. There was, in particular, the invitation to the Messina Conference. We were so disdainful, patronising and dismissive of the original European Community concept. We set up EFTA as an inadequate and ill-fated rival. We must be aware of the fact that throughout we have seen steady and determined progress towards the goal of an integrated European Community but the leadership and the confidence has not come from us.
Despite our history and our claimed present economic success, we give the impression that we are a country completely uncertain of its future role or of its ability to hold its own in such a role. We have in Europe many friends waiting for a sign of positive leadership and a real and constructive contribution towards progress to a successful European Community. We need friends, and we have them; but we need to reassure them above all that we are not up to the old game of attempting to divide and rule.
The second issue that is important to recognise is the single European currency. It is my belief that those who are really shaping the future of Europe will, unless something totally unforeseen happens, have forged a single European currency by the end of this century—and that is only five years away. The potential political, economic and sociological benefits are obvious; but they are largely long-term benefits. The dangers are also fairly obvious; but they are very much in the shorter term. By and large, the politicians can see the longer-term advantages and the bankers see the shorter-term difficulties.
But surely a European currency will be in the premier league of currencies. We shall be competing with the dollar and the yen on an equal basis. Those countries whose economies and performance enable them to accept the single currency will be in the first division of Europe. That is inevitable. Those countries which are unable to achieve the criteria will he in the second division until they are able to do that. The pace setters of Europe will have achieved what they intend to achieve. If one looks at the history of the common market, they have achieved very much what they set out to achieve. If there is to be considerable enlargement, there will be a third division, too. That is a problem to which I shall turn in a moment. All will benefit, although a very strong compensatory regional policy will be necessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, indicated, to have an ameliorating effect on the developments which will inevitably take place if there is a single currency.

319
Whatever scepticism is stated by the Government at present, as a country, we can never afford not to be in the first division. We should make every effort to be there by the turn of the century. In passing, perhaps I may mention that I agree totally with Sir Edward Heath's demolition of the argument for a referendum on a single currency. One can imagine the enormous benefits for the speculators and those who are able to manipulate the media if there were a sustained campaign as to whether we should have a single European currency within this country. As Sir Edward said:
"Barings would be child's play compared with what the speculators would do then".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/3/95; col. 1079.]
The third matter that I wish to mention is the common agricultural policy. On that, I disagree to a degree with what my noble friend Lord Jenkins said earlier. It has few friends in this country but it has many in Europe. I remember many years ago an extremely distinguished German politician explaining to me that in his view, parts of Europe have been saved from becoming Communist by the agricultural policy of the common market. One can imagine the depopulation that there would have been without that protection in Europe. People would have flooded into the industrial cities, and industrial and agrarian unrest would have resulted from that. He was giving his opinion to me well over 25 years ago but his opinion was that in France and Italy, there would have been Communist Governments.
I believe that we underestimate the support that there is for the common agricultural policy in Europe. I say that as a warning because whereas it will be possible to modify that policy, it will not be possible to change it basically within the foreseeable future—and I see the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, nodding in agreement. We should be warned that if there is to be a choice between expanding the Community and scrapping the agricultural policy, the majority of opinion within Europe will be for retaining the CAP and not expanding. It may be that that will lead to a discussion at the next summit as to whether associate membership as opposed to full membership of the common market is an appropriate step for the eastern European countries. I say that only in passing.
It is extremely important to recognise that if we are to be at the heart of Europe, what is needed in this country is a change of attitude: to see the enormous opportunities which exist, and not be put off by the problems which undoubtedly arise on the way to realising those opportunities.
6.25 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I have listened with care to some noble Lords who are normally labelled by the press as "Euro-sceptics" and to others who are labelled as "Euro-enthusiasts", including the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, himself—and I, too, am grateful to him for giving us an opportunity to debate this important subject.
I have to say that I agree with a lot of what has been said by both camps. So what does that make me? Well, I am certainly not a Euro-agnostic, and for the reasons that I shall try to explain.
320
Back in 1975, when we had the referendum, I voted to stay in Europe, and I do not regret that because I think that membership of the European Community has yielded great benefits for the United Kingdom. Walls have come down. There is no doubt, however, that some aspects of the Community's affairs have not been handled well since the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, stepped down as president in 1981. Under Jacques Delors, the European Commission seems to have created the impression of a sort of unaccountable hydra-headed monster wallowing in its own waste and profligacy and causing deep disquiet among the peoples of the member states.
It seems to me, therefore, that the Government have got it about right with their policy which was so well enunciated by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place last week. Indeed, I would argue that the leadership shown by the British Government within the European corridors of power has lit a slow fuse of awareness of the frailties of some European Union institutions throughout the peoples of the nations of Europe.
It is acknowledged that we are much better off in Europe than out, but the Government are right to have set for themselves an agenda which will attack some of the structural nonsenses that are limiting the benefits that we and the other members are reaping from the Union and which are beginning to cause natural concern not just in this country but in other member states.
There are some who would argue that we should join Switzerland, Norway and Iceland in an EFTA-type free trade affiliation with the main Union as part of a trading block only. I reject that argument. We must remain an integral and dynamic part of the Union if we are to maintain any influence over its affairs. We must retain our positive place at the main negotiating table in order to reject federalism, to reject a system that appears to tolerate fraud and corruption, to fight waste and to keep up the pressure on the nonsenses promulgated by the common agricultural policy.
The Government emerged very well indeed from the last Inter-Governmental Conference in Maastricht with firm opt-outs from the Social Chapter and the monetary union timetable. Speaking in another place only last week, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made it clear that, in his view, this 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference has followed on too quickly after Maastricht. I think that we would be wrong to regard the 1996 conference as some great momentous milestone event. It is merely part of an ongoing process in which we should play a constructive role.
The Prime Minister summed up the position very well in his speech at Leiden University in September 1994, to which some other noble Lords have referred already. He said:
"I see two pre-eminent tasks for the period ahead: within the Union, to build a cohesion and confidence which has diminished in the past few years: in external policy, to extend security and prosperity to the countries to our East."

321
My own view is that the Union will certainly not be ready for any new initiatives by 1996, but should be looking forward to a period of consolidation—a period of bringing into effect some of the things that we are trying to do already.
It is vital that we do not add to the already overburdened Brussels machinery by initiating at the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference any more new initiatives before those already on the agenda have been adequately tackled.
Let me say in conclusion how very important I believe it is that we should support the Prime Minister and the Government in the difficult task that lies ahead as they prepare for the next Inter-Governmental Conference. Speaking in 1888 in Caernarvon, the late kinsman of my noble friend the Leader of the House, the Marquess of Salisbury said:
"We are part of the community of Europe and we must do our duty as such".
That is as true today as it was then, but we must work to build a sensible Europe, a Europe that recognises the importance of Vive la difference!—in short, a Europe that will retain the support of the European people as a whole by encouraging and enjoying the richness of the individual and unique cultures of our continent.
I believe that Her Majesty's Government have their feet very firmly on the ground on the European issue and they have my very strong support in the difficult, but extremely worthwhile task that lies ahead.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the response to the demand from the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party asking for a positive response from the Government and for a positive attitude to be put forward has generally—to me at any rate—been a little disappointing. We have heard a number of statements like, "We must go forward and we must not go back"; "We must not be at the sidelines: we must be at the heart of something or other"; or, "We must avoid variable geometry, going round in concentric circles or adopting triangular attitudes". On the whole, they do not seem to be a frightfully satisfactory contribution to the demand for some positive information as to which way the Government intend to go.
I trust that there will be other occasions upon which I can inflict my more detailed eccentricities in the matter on your Lordships' House. However, I venture to suggest—without, I hope, causing undue alarm—that we are not talking about abstract things, or we ought not be: we should be vitally concerned about people, not concepts or institutions.
Unfortunately, on the Continent of Europe there are vast numbers of our people, millions in fact—and I am talking about our people in the European sense—who are living under disgraceful conditions. Indeed, them are millions of people who are unemployed and that situation shows no sign of abatement. Moreover, within member states themselves, apart from Luxembourg which can be roughly equated with the City of Bristol, there are considerable disparities of income and wealth.
322
Housing conditions vary throughout the Community and are certainly very bad in this country. There is a whole series of matters to which responsible politicians ought to be addressing themselves. In view of the uncertainty of the political situation in the United Kingdom, I speak to both the Conservative Party and to my own party because there may be an abrupt transition, without notice, at any time. Therefore, my advice is quite impartial on such matters.
We must decide how we can get the close co-operation which we all want. I speak, unashamedly, as a socialist and have been one since November 1935. It has always been my concept of my party that there should be as much internationalism and far less jingo nationalism than there is. I also extend that to Europe. I am all for the utmost co-operation not only between the peoples of Europe but also between the politicians, whether they be in opposition or government, who represent the people.
How do we reach that stage? I suggest that the role of the Commission as a dynamic force in the European Community passed roughly at the same time as the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, finished his mission, or almost finished it, on the completion of the single market. Even though it has not yet been quite completed, that essentially marked the end of an era. It marked the end of an era to which limits were originally set by Mr. Edward Heath when he took us into the Common Market. I am all in favour of any measure that enhances the single market throughout Europe.
However, what we have begun to experience is something totally different. We have had a situation where the Commission has been flooding the Council of Ministers with our proposals, with which it is ill equipped to deal by virtue of the time available to individual Ministers. There has been a continuous flow of proposals which has not abated, as I shall show, to a hapless Council of Ministers for which we provide 29 Ministers in accordance with Article 146 of the treaty. They assemble every few weeks or every month to have laid in front of them a draft presidential communiqué prepared for them in advance by the insistence of the Commission and thereafter debate how it should be amended and how much of it should be agreed. Anyone who has attended those conferences will know that I speak the truth; that is exactly what happens.
Surely the time has come, especially in view of Ministers' positions at home in their own countries, for such a situation to be changed. When there is large-scale unemployment and distress, it is the duty of Ministers to think and act constructively in their own countries. When extensions are required in order to promote co-operation in Europe among member states, members of the Council and Ministers should be the initiators of when they want to meet and what they want to discuss with the aim of obtaining the maximum possible agreement. Consequently, it follows from that that the Commission, which under M. Delors boasted that within a number of years 80 per cent. of the legislation of member states would be supplied from the centre, should cease to be and that it should lose its exclusive right to make proposals.

323
The Commission can make such proposals when it likes, but the Council should be able to look at them and say, "No, we don't want to look at that just now, thank you". The Commission itself should be unbundled and divided into three parts, with the status of very highly paid and respected civil servants. The first would be a commission of the single market; the second would be the treasury board composed of the nine spending directorates in the Community, plus half of two others; and the third would be the overseas trade commission. But the Treasury section should be made directly responsible to the Council. By these means the Council could then obtain much more effective control of its own space, much more control of its own time and be much more responsible to its own nationals and to its own parliaments.
Those are just a few of the proposals which in due course I hope to elaborate upon to your Lordships in future debates of this kind. But one thing is quite certain, unless integration—by that I mean the utmost co-operation—is accomplished upwards through member states, ,the idea disappears that it can be inflicted from on top by the Commission itself and can he imposed upon the Council, with the option of the Council to have a debate on it, probably postpone it, and possibly read newspapers while it is being read out to it.
If we are to have a Europe which means anything at all and which may ultimately, and one hopes, culminate in the ultimate world government that will be required to deal with global warming and things of that kind, we have to liberate our own politicians from the virtual dictatorship exercised by pressure which has been enshrined in treaty, and pressure which should be removed. If that is done, perhaps we can find a greater degree of agreement within the House. No one is opposed to greater co-operation among member states. What one must always be opposed to is the endeavour by a bureaucracy to dictate and to bring continuous pressure to bear. We want a free democracy and we want the politicians to be closer to their people.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, I, as others, welcome the opportunity of debating the part that we should play in the Inter-Governmental Conference of 1996. The basis on which we must start all such discussions—this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, earlier—is to remind ourselves that we are firmly committed to being in the European Union; and that being in the European Union, our whole history—both political and economic—demands that we make a substantial contribution to its development and success.
I hope that, after the speech of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister last week in particular, we have had an end to manoeuvres that, at best, would blur our position or, at worst, hint at our possible withdrawal. I have always felt that one of the differences that exist between the various members of the Community is that while in the case of most countries the approach to a proposal is too general, with often too great a reluctance to face up to the practical difficulties involved, our approach to any proposal tends to start at the other end. It
324
is not that we do not understand the idea; but what we are concerned with is what will be the practical steps that will be involved; and what will be the practical results?
The two approaches to these problems must often lead to disagreements. Probably there are often faults on both sides. But patience, discussion and a steady willingness to negotiate will make sure that the reality of the problem is unavoidably revealed, which then greatly increases the chance of agreement. Being in the European Union was never going to be easy. The original concept of a Community of Six has completely changed with the dramatic increases in numbers that have taken and will take place. The changes inherent in the development and expansion of the Union themselves demand constant scrutiny and, from time to time, changes in the structure and practices of the institutions themselves.
To this end, I welcome the significance of the establishment of the Reflection Group. I am amazed that I am the first speaker this afternoon to have mentioned the existence of the Reflection Group. That has inspired a number of studies that are now being undertaken within the member states—and not least of course here at Westminster. These studies will form an important basis for the recommendations that the Reflection Group will be making to the IGC when it meets next year. In that regard I am grateful—indeed, I think we all should be grateful—to the House of Commons research department for its paper No. 95/27. That paper shows that already certain views are becoming clear in the studies that have already been announced in the various states in Europe. Already it can be seen that now that practical details are having to be discussed rather than general aspirations the UK is in no way isolated in its views. I give three examples. I hope that this is congenial to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and coincides with some of the remarks that he made.
First, the relationship of the Council and the Commission must be examined. I think that the noble Lord was quite right to spend much of his speech dealing with that important matter. I do not blame the Commission. If the Council does not do its job, the Commission has to. If one has a weak board of directors, the management tends to take over and that is not good for the running of a company or indeed of any authority. The Council, in summary, in the past has been too weak, and means have to be found to strengthen it in possibly the way the noble Lord wishes, or certainly in some other way. In my view, that must be a matter for consideration at the conference.
The second point is the increase in the numbers in the European Union. The structure of all the institutions must be examined. As the numbers go up, we cannot continually automatically keep on increasing the numbers working in the institutions because that will blur the effectiveness of the actions that are necessary within those institutions. I am glad that the matter of national parliaments has been raised by several speakers. National parliaments must in some way be more greatly involved. It has always seemed to me, as one who is a nominated Member of the European Parliament, that the connection that we then had with

325
our national parliaments is now missing. If that relationship can be restored, I believe that that would be to the benefit of the Community.
Having studied the House of Commons research paper and the helpful information it contains, I am struck by the almost complete absence of one vital ingredient—and that is the need to establish financial discipline. The Reflection Group, when it meets in June, has a mandate to draw up an inventory of what have been called "real problems" as opposed to imaginary problems to be tackled by the IGC next year. But let there be no mistake: whatever size and shape is designed for the European Union; whatever powers and rights it takes to itself; whatever influence it hopes to create within itself, or with the world outside, there has to be established within the European Union the firm basis of a sound and respected financial discipline. There must be established not only financial regularity and value for money systems; there has also to be developed audit controls that are capable of checking the workings of such systems. Above all, there has to be established the acceptance that where wrongdoing is discovered, proper discipline and punishment will follow. When our Minister, Mr. David Davis, goes to the Reflection Group meeting in June, I hope that all aspects of financial control will feature at the top of his list of matters to be discussed.
Finally, I have already said that being in the Union was never going to be easy; and certainly steps taken in the past seem not to have produced the result for which we had hoped. All that we did in 1977—the establishment of the European Court of Auditors, the Budgetary Control Committee in the Parliament, and revision of financial regulations—have not worked in the sense that they have not produced the results for which we had hoped. For me the lesson of where we went wrong in 1977 is now clear. The truth is that we only half did the job. I must admit (I suppose naively) that I had assumed that once the fraud and shortcomings were discovered, something would be done about them. But in fact that was not so.
What should we do to put that matter right? It means that thanks to the Maastricht Treaty, the Court of Auditors now has greater powers to insist on such action. But that alone is not enough. If the economic union is to develop, as it must, high on the inventory of the "real problems" (as the chairman of the Reflection Group calls them) must be the commitment of all the member states to the establishment of successful financial controls.
6.52 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, Britain must enter the Inter-Governmental Conference with both a flexible and open mind, reflecting the diversity and complexities of issues relating to Europe. A clarified strategy, however, needs developing from what has been a fractious and hitherto counter-productive debate.
In shaping a constructive IGC we must pay heed to two important factors: first, the need for an informed debate involving the British people, thereby encouraging
326
a clearer understanding of key issues; and, secondly, the development of a fixed IGC agenda as agreed by member states.
The quality of debate is hampered by the self-serving interests of party politics. Divisions of opinion over Britain's destiny in Europe will inevitably transcend party allegiances. Main opposition parties serve no practical purpose by feigning unity in the vain pursuit of political point scoring. Arguments appear static because there exist strong tendencies towards over-simplification. Britain's future stand cannot be neatly confined by a commitment either to opting in or opting out.
The Europe of tomorrow should not be seen as a straight choice between federalism and free trade. We must avoid blanket policy making. Every issue must be considered and evaluated according to its individual merits and drawbacks. Choices will have to be made, but the Prime Minister is right to suspend judgment until the appropriate time. Caution, as opposed to haste, should be our guiding watchword.
There is concern over the scale of change that the IGC might bring. The conference cannot satisfy British expectations unless it follows an enlightened national debate encompassing our long-term vision of Europe.
We can exert a strong influence provided that we are not hindered by the federal fear factor. Britain can be at the heart of Europe, shaping policy, without being chained to it.
The IGC should address the institutional challenges posed by enlargement. There must be in place a plurality of streamlined institutions and effective mechanisms ready to deal with problems posed by expansion into eastern Europe. We must steer away, however, from over-centralised bureaucracies. Institutional reforms are necessary in the drive for increased transparency and accountability. The relationship between various existing bodies such as the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament should undergo review as well as the CAP and the current system of qualified majority voting.
Certain institutions can be made to work to the benefit of both the EU and individual nations. The European Parliament can provide a democratic legitimacy to newly developed international political structures that will arise from the pressures of enlargement. Their creation should not be seen as a direct threat to the independent powers of nation states. Britain must view the IGC as a forum for positive debate. There are encouraging signs that she will do so.
A common European defence policy incorporated within the Western European Union has its merits, provided that its objectives are clearly defined and do not duplicate those of NATO.
In justice and home affairs the IGC should encourage inter-governmental co-operation. No single nation appears immune to the spread of internationally organised crime and worldwide drug trafficking.
Monetary union is not scheduled for discussion in 1996, and rightly so. Britain's future is not exclusively linked to prospects for a common currency. Britain's opt-out clause is pragmatic rather than anti-European—

327
a point not lost on our stand with the Social Chapter. In years to come we must fashion an economic policy best suited to the interests of our people. The IGC' s success, however, not only depends on our own attitude, but also on the attitude of all participating countries. The pre-conference hype must be facilitated by European dialogue examining those issues in need of debate.
The French and Germans have already hinted at pushing for far-reaching constitutional changes while Britain prefers deferment on such questions. The European debate is too often marked by a heightened sense of fear through ignorance. The world's rapid socio-economic transformation warrants increased European adaptability and harmonisation. We should not fear change, provided that it is diligently undertaken within an acceptable timetable.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, debates on Europe in this House are always decorated by the contributions of former commissioners, and this afternoon has been no exception. The one thing that they all have in common is what I can only call a degree of retardation in their understanding of what has happened since they occupied those important posts. Perhaps it is the chocolate that they eat in Brussels which gives them that feeling—it is the only good thing that ever came out of Brussels.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, spoke of a great, powerful core block of European states, with France and Germany to the fore, striving to create a more integrated Europe. That was true; but is he certain that it is true today? It seems to me that there is some unwillingness to look outside this country and therefore too great a willingness to regard the scepticism in this country as unique to Britain.
On French television yesterday evening, M. Giscard d'Estaing said that he did not propose to stand for the French presidency because he found that his accent on Europe as a cause raised no echo in the French electorate. That is a very considerable admission by someone who, as the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and others know—indeed, it was mentioned in the course of the debate—played a major part in the development of some of the Community's policies and institutions.
However, even if we say, "All right, we cannot know what goes on abroad, let us concentrate on what goes on in this country", the debate has been heavily weighted on the side of Europhilia—if that is the right word—but I have found no one who has even recognised the main reason, that there is a strong movement of opinion away from the notion of European integration. Even the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, agreed with that. It is a simple fact that people believe that the laws under which they live should be made by people elected by themselves and interpreted by judges in whose impartiality they have confidence. The feeling is that laws are made externally. I am no animal lover—I prefer the cause of the Welsh farmers to that of animals—but it is striking to me, as it has been striking to people throughout the country, that the Minister of Agriculture could say, "Whatever I should like to do, I cannot do it because I would be breaking European law".
328
We are assured that it is a new legal order. All the jurisprudence of the court is based on that. The trouble is that we have got into a legal system in which our own traditional inclination to obey the law, which is not universally accepted in other member states, may conflict with our national interest.
I should like the Minister to comment on this example. Let us take the matter of borders. Is it or is it not the case that Brussels can insist that in future we demand visas from members of friendly Commonwealth countries who fought with us, when the European countries did not? The Australians, the Canadians may all happily obtain visas and no doubt we shall make it easier for them. However, it seems to me that that fact strikes the ordinary citizens of this country as unacceptable. They believe that in many ways, through family ties, language and past history, they are closer to members of the Commonwealth than to people across the Channel.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I know that this is a timed debate, but has the noble Lord never had to obtain a visa to go to Australia?
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I have not been to Australia since visas were brought in there, but it does not alter my case. I believe that there should be no visas either way within the Commonwealth.
There are many such instances which explain why there is a universal complaint—I know that the Labour Party is riding high at the moment, but even members of that party have complained—that the younger generation do not regard party politics as an interesting way of spending their time. The youngsters prefer single issue causes, whether it be animals, women or other issues. The reason is that political parties exist in order to man (or woman) our Parliament. If Parliament becomes a second-rate assembly merely registering what is done elsewhere, why should people take party politics seriously?
All noble Lords are agreed that we live in extremely difficult times. We have world challenges to face which are greater than those within the European Community. But if we are to face them, it is essential that we do not build up legends about ourselves or Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said, on the basis of a conversation with a German informant a quarter of a century ago, that the common agricultural policy saved France and Italy from going communist. France and Italy were saved from going communist by the infusion of American financial aid long before the common agricultural policy was even dreamt of. In so far as it is desirable always to cushion the movement of people away from the land and into the cities—which is a world problem—that can be achieved, as it was in this country before we entered the Community, by the country's own financial compensatory mechanisms. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, says that the common agricultural policy helps to put money—and I have seen them on the ground—in the pockets of part-time Bavarian farmers or the barons of the wheatlands of northern France. To put that against the absolute necessity of giving some feeling of confidence in Europe to our neighbours to the east seems to me one example —and I could give many

329
others if this were not a timed debate—of where we are mythologising the Community. It is not the Community which has brought about peace in Western Europe. Peace in Western Europe came as a result of the experiences of war. That could have been done without M. Delors, without the European Court and without the Commission. It would have happened anyhow. The United States and Canada do not go to war or threaten to do so. They have no common political institutions. Let us look at things as they are and cease to build up myths about them.
7.6 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, your Lordships have so far had a comprehensive debate today with diverse contributions from several experts and a most moving speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield. It is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who is always most entertaining and I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for initiating the debate.
The lack of serious debate before the previous Inter-Governmental Conference in Maastricht resulted in a great many misunderstandings and problems. I hope that this will not be the case with the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference. We should not lose sight of the significance of the IGC and therefore not get sidetracked into other areas that are not and will not be on the agenda such as, in particular, economic and monetary union, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, rightly said.
I wish to touch on just a few points without delving into too much detail. My aim today is simply to emphasise three areas which I hope will be seriously addressed in the months to come. I shall not venture into the sea of acronyms, of QMV, CFSP and WEU. These issues will all be discussed in great detail with our European Union partners, but this is neither the place nor the time for me to go into them.
The Inter-Governmental Conference will rightly consider the defence and security pillar of the treaty. The Cold War may be over. Nevertheless, we still live in a very fragile world. We cannot overlook the fact that Russia is still heavily armed and not perhaps the most stable of nations as it slowly moves from a command economy to the free market. The United States is ambivalent towards European defence. For several years now senators like Sam Nunn have lobbied for burden sharing. As we are aware, it is for Europe to take on more defence responsibilities herself. This pillar will be of paramount importance to preserve peace. 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. Furthermore, the justice and home affairs pillar offers possibilities which will be developed and will be discussed at the Inter-Governmental Conference.
I shall just mention one of the worst scourges in today's world: drug abuse, responsible for so much crime in our society. This is a growing cancer which has always existed but never on such a horrific scale. It is a problem which, I am sure all noble Lords will agree, is impossible to solve in Britain alone. It can only be done
330
in co-operation with other nations, working closely together. I urge the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, to keep this in mind. It is one of our greatest evils today.
In this connection I should like to raise a few fundamental questions with your Lordships. Where should the balance of power lie? Is the balance of power between governments and the European Union institutions satisfactory? Is the balance of power between governments and national parliaments satisfactory? I am certain though that closer co-operation between national parliaments and the European Parliament is essential. But how should it be structured?
As the discussion develops, it is vital that this time the general public should be accurately informed so that everybody can understand what is at stake. I have full confidence that our Government are putting together a robust set of practical proposals, in particular in these areas, and that they will play a positive role in the Inter-Governmental Conference. These proposals will be thoroughly thought through, the paramount concern being how to make the European Union function better, to the benefit of its citizens.
Let us not forget that Britain was the driving force behind the enlargement of the European Union to the east. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, the political agenda of Europe changed. Even though it will take time for the countries of central and eastern Europe to comply with the European Union's requirements, ultimately membership is their aim, and also ours.
The first step has been taken by members of these countries by means of the Europe agreements. For enlargement to succeed it will be necessary for the European Union itself to adapt its policies and institutions to accommodate the new members. That has been the case in the past. These changes will have to be carried through, and any arrangements decided in the Inter-Governmental Conference will have to work for a European Union of possibly more than 20 members.
Perhaps we should not lose sight of the original aims of the Community of peace and prosperity for all its citizens. Let us hope that these noble aims will be bolstered by the outcome of the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, there is a basic misunderstanding of the nature of the European Community. It is, of course, a customs union, a free trade area in one sense. It started as a customs union. It also started from the Coal and Steel Community, which is a dirigiste organisation. These two axes jointly constitute the basis of the European Union. Many people like one but not the other. For a long time the Labour Party did not like the customs union free trade aspect of the market, and M. Jacques Delors sold us the dirigiste angle, saying, "Come with us and we will give you good social and labour conditions".
The problem is that those two aspects come in a package. On the mainland of Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, called it, there is no problem about

331
this. But in Britain we have a problem, in that we like either one or the other. That will remain a problem. What it points to is a kind of dirigiste logic that was accepted—and not just in Europe. In the post-war period, that sort of logic was accepted here as well. It no longer is. People want much more democratic control over bureaucratic decisions. Therefore the democratic deficit in the European Community has to be addressed. First, as my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington said, the European Commission has to be made properly subservient to the elected members, and be seen to be so. And secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, a second (if I may use the word) federal chamber has to be added, where national parliaments are represented on a permanent basis, so that they know what the European Union is up to.
I believe that we are also all agreed that the common agricultural policy has to be reformed. If it is not reformed, the logic of expansion will become so expensive that it will not be possible let other countries into Europe. Even if the Community were not expanding eastwards, the common agricultural policy is an affront, not only to common sense but to good economic theory, and therefore it should go.
In the few minutes that I have, I want to concentrate on the question of monetary union and a single currency. I agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Roll. It is a mistake to think that convergence should come first and a single currency later. I have always held that this will be an extremely costly cart-and-horse idea.
Let me give an example. Within the UK there is a single currency, but there is no convergence. That is why we have inequalities in regional unemployment. If convergence did exist, the unemployment statistics would be uniform across the country. Most national economies have a single currency but they do not have convergence. We tackle the problem by other policies, such as regional policies. Therefore it must not be thought that convergence is required before a single currency is established. Indeed, a single currency may hasten convergence.
What will, however, happen, is that, because of the way in which conditions for convergence have been laid down, many countries will undergo an especially deflationary experience in order to get convergence. When convergence comes about and we have a single currency, a second dose of adjustment will have to be made as a result of the single currency. Therefore, the deflationary logic of a single currency will stay.
A single currency has the advantage that expansionary policy could be pursued. But that requires not just a single currency but a powerful single fiscal authority. Whether it follows logically or not, I do not care. But if you want to pursue Euro-Keynesian policies, you require a European-level state authority which can pursue Euro-Keynesian policies. Such policies do not come from scattered states which have sovereignty. I always thought, therefore, that the single currency experience was delayed far too long. I would have preferred a single currency now, and convergence later. I have said this before—but that is surely pure madness and we will not pursue it any further.
332
Many noble Lords, and others outside this House, have tried to argue that there is something called real convergence that we ought to worry about, not just nominal convergence, and that we ought perhaps to wait until our productivity and unemployment are in line and all sorts of other indicators are in line. That is Utopia. As I said, there is no national economy which satisfies those conditions, and no European economy ever will.
However, it is possible to say that the nominal conditions that have been laid down are not appropriate. They do not make much economic sense. They are easier to check for. It is easier to satisfy yourself that the deficit is less than 3 per cent., that the debt/GDP ratio is whatever it is, or that the exchange rate has stayed in a certain band. But all these are nominal magnitudes which do not have any economic logic to them.
Let us take, for example, the deficit. We ought to have a clear interpretation that a deficit is a deficit only on revenue account and not on capital account in the budget. That has to be perfectly satisfied. It has to be said that this deficit should be over the cycle. These matters should be properly defined, perhaps at the IGC. Secondly, looking at the debt/GDP ratio, the debt should be net; it should be only that debt which has been incurred for revenue purposes and not for capital purposes. If there are assets to be offset against the debt, those assets should be netted out, and the debt/GDP ratio should be calculated net of the assets that a national economy possesses. Thirdly, in referring to exchange rate conversions, we ought to worry about real exchange rates and not nominal exchange rates. As it is, we have realised that nominal exchange rates can move in and out of the stable band before you know it. It is very easy to destabilise. I predict that if we said that we would have a single monetary authority on 1st January 1999, starting on 15th December 1998 the markets would go haywire and all conditions would be violated. That is exactly what will happen.
I think therefore that we ought to concentrate on real exchange rate movements. We should ask ourselves whether or not the real exchange rates of countries are reasonable. If real exchange rates are not in line, it is no use having nominal exchange rates in line, because they do not have much influence on the real economy. They only influence the speculators who are moving their money around.
If those three things are added, as it were as addenda or notes to the Maastricht Treaty—not as revisions of the treaty but interpretations of the treaty—then I believe that we can talk much more seriously about whether or not there is convergence. What has already happened, as some noble Lords have pointed out, is that the Netherlands, Germany, perhaps Belgium and Austria (certainly the Netherlands and Austria) are already in a de facto single currency regime. There is no doubt about that. Austria has been shadowing the deutschmark for many years, as has the Netherlands. Whether France and Belgium can get up to that level—Ireland as well—we do not know.
In a sense, everyone is becoming too excited about a single currency. The Maastricht Treaty states that if a country is not ready, it will not be allowed to join

333
anyway. There is no problem of being forced to join if one is not eligible to join. If a country is eligible to join, I do not understand why it would not join. The only freedom that one has outside the single currency is the freedom to devalue. Over the past 50 years the British data show that depreciation of the pound, internally and against the deutschmark, has been horrendous. Nobody can tell me that the past 50 years of monetary sovereignty have been a great success in our economic life. We have wasted monetary sovereignty and it is about time that we had some sensible policies.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, with tonight's list of speakers as long as it is, I know, coming in the last quarter of it, that all the technical details that could be said on this subject have already been said. I shall not attempt to add to that long list of advice about the technical side of the issue. I want to talk about tactics. My points, for what they are worth, are addressed to my own Front Bench. It is, of course, just my luck, that at the time when these pearls are to drop, the Minister is no longer in her seat. However, I have every confidence that my noble friend will pass on faithfully the points that I make. Still, that will be hearsay rather than direct evidence from the person presenting it.
Starting with the opening speech, most of the speeches that I heard were sermons. I have a high regard for the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. He is one of the most experienced and knowledgeable Members in this House. I remember that he and Tony Crosland were the leading intellectuals who were so excellent at keeping the debates alive in the other place in 1948 to 1950. So I am speaking of an experienced operator. But tonight his contribution was something of a sermon rather than a speech. My noble friend, when she reads it, will see that that is what it is. There was not much content in it. Indeed, funnily enough, most of the other speeches were what I call sermons. In fact, the paradox is that the one speech that was not a sermon came from a professional sermoniser—the right reverend Prelate. He had his feet on the ground. It was a real speech and a genuine contribution. He matched my noble friend Lord Cockfield, who also always speaks in language that one can understand; the message that he puts over is always quite clear.
The tactics about which I shall speak have the following basis: whether we remain as the Government or some other party succeeds us in government—whatever will come after next year's conference—unless that party carries the nation with it, it will make no success of anything. The nation has to be behind the Government. It is clear to me that we have come so far in the progress toward a federal Europe mainly as a result of tactics which I personally have witnessed and in which, unfortunately, I have had to take part.
I remember the debate which decided the matter in October 1971. The Motion before the House was:
"That this House approves Her Majesty's Government's decision of principle to join the European Communities on the basis of the arrangements which have been negotiated".
334
On that Motion the vote was 356 in favour and 244 against. The 244 votes comprised mainly the socialist vote. In those days, their doubts about the absolute inviolability of the rightness of merging into Europe along those lines was not so keen as it seems to be today.
I wonder what caused that change. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, reminded me of the occasion when Jacques Delors came to this country. The noble Lord said that M. Delors had pointed to all the advantages of the social sections and the improvements that they would bring. That was not my recollection of what happened. The Trades Union Congress invited Jacques Delors to speak at their annual conference but it was not on that kind of level. The information that I gathered at that time was that Jacques Delors, the French socialist, came to the annual meeting of the Trades Union Congress and made his view perfectly clear to his colleagues in the British socialist parties. He said, "You will never get your socialism in England through Westminster. There is a good chance of getting it through Europe". It was rather a coincidence that almost overnight, on the strength of that argument, the 244 socialist vote (which was on the record at the time that we agreed to go into Europe) was switched around. So I am not at all impressed with talk about the sudden belief that the change on the other side of the House has come as a result of all the wonderful things that would happen as a consequence of joining the EEC.
They want their socialism and I understand that. I want my capitalism because I believe that it is better for the people and the country if we follow what is known as capitalism. The other side think differently. That is what the great argument will be about for a long time to come.
The talk is that we ought to give more powers to the European Parliament. I am rather inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that, if we really want this Union to work, it would be better if that were a nominated parliament rather than an elected one. My noble friend Lord Plumb and my noble friend Lady Hooper, who sat with me when I was elected to the European Parliament—I went there to try to find out what it was all about—will remember that the time I spent there trying to make a contribution was spent in attempting to persuade my Conservative colleagues in the European Parliament that their duty was to be there as British representatives in order to put the British point of view on the issues. However, a number of them had gone native—I suppose that that is the term to use. One was not communautaire if one did not think in those terms. I did not succeed with many of them.
How did the Members of Parliament, with all the dangers that showed themselves, allow that situation to come about in October 1971? I was an active member and think I understand who at that time was ambitious in politics. Within five years of being elected I had been made a Minister. I was a Minister for eight years. But I resigned as a Minister in 1961 when this move towards Europe came up again. I instinctively felt the dangers of it. Why did the Government win despite that feeling among many people? They won because they said, "Don't be afraid. We have the veto. Nothing can

335
happen. We can stop everything". But the veto is hardly there anymore. The other member states now want majority voting and so the protection of the veto hardly exists. After Maastricht they have produced the new protection which is called subsidiarity. What does "subsidiarity" mean?
When my noble friend comes to reply—she is an outstanding Member of the Government—will she define what subsidiarity really means? Will it go the same way as the veto? Does it mean that individual nations can decide for themselves when they feel that their domestic problems are theirs and no one else's? We want no more double meanings. We want this nation to succeed and I want the Conservative Government to be the government that sponsors that success. They can do that only if they carry the nation with them. One cannot carry the nation if one has "clever-dick" excuses for moving in a direction in which one does not want to go.
7.31 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can certainly confirm the description of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls of his role as a Member of the European Parliament, a role which he happily continues in your Lordships' House. What I am going to say will horrify him more than a little because I am speaking this evening both as a former Member of the European Parliament and also as a member of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe. It is my fond wish that those two institutions should in the future—it will he the long-term future—merge and operate together so that we have a real and true Europe.
I realise that that issue is not a topic for the IGC agenda in 1996, but that goes for a number of matters that have been raised in the course of the debate today. I mention it in any event because it illustrates the fact that nothing stands still and that as soon as we reach agreement in one set of circumstances external changes occur. We are then faced with new challenges and new decisions have to be made.
As a further general comment perhaps I may say that the more I travel in those countries of central and eastern Europe which are already members of the Council of Europe and which aspire to membership of the European Union the more I realise that our culture, history and identity in this country are as much dependent on influences from central and eastern Europe as they currently are dependent on influences from the Celts, whose contribution was so well described by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, many hours ago at the beginning of the debate. Indeed, in this context I very much liked the reference made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield to St. Alcuin having a European mind. I believe that many Members of your Lordships' House who have spoken today have shown that they too have European minds.
What nearly everyone has agreed is that we should be positive and constructive. I certainly subscribe to that view and I was also pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Boardman pointing out that we have quite a good record in that respect. But let us not forget that the success of the Inter-Governmental Conference next year
336
does not just depend on us and our attitude. Every member of the European Union will have to be positive in deeds as well as in words. So, instead of perhaps always being rather inward looking, let us concentrate on encouraging our fellow members as well as ourselves about the future of our participation in Europe.
In saying that, I agree with all those who have said that the continuing debate in the lead-up to the IGC is vital. My noble friend Lord Plumb referred to the international meetings and discussions in which he is currently involved and my noble friend Lord Shaw of Northstead referred to the work of the Reflection Group. I know that at a national level a number of preparatory measures are taking place, not least the setting up of a sub-committee of your Lordships' European Communities Committee. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that his hors d'oeuvre in the debate today will certainly be followed by a main course somewhat later in the year when no doubt we shall have the opportunity to debate the report of that sub-committee. I hope that this debate and others we may have will help to send out the right signals in order to prepare the right climate for a successful conference next year.
Some of today's debate has ranged considerably wider than the topics likely to be debated at the Inter-Governmental Conference. I was grateful at the outset to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for bringing us down to earth by referring back to the source document, the Maastricht Treaty, and outlining the agenda that it spelt out. But we cannot expect at this stage—it is too early—to spell out in detail every single issue that will be examined at the conference. In saying that I certainly look forward to hearing my noble friend reply to today's debate. In spite of some of the criticisms that have been made it is entirely appropriate that her contribution should come at the end of the debate. Otherwise, we would have received the criticism that she was not prepared to answer and respond to comments that were made in the course of the debate.
Although anticipating her reply and the information that will bring us, I believe that the Government's agenda for the Inter-Governmental Conference is clear and positive. For example, in relation to subsidiarity, it has been spelt out time and again that we are in favour of seeing subsidiarity entrenched even further into the workings of the Community. In relation to a clearer definition of the roles of both the European Parliament and national parliaments, it is quite clear that the Government believe that the European Parliament certainly has the main role of focusing on scrutinising the Commission and holding it to account for its activities and spending but that nevertheless an important constitutional role remains to national parliaments to contribute to the democratic legitimacy of the European Union decision-making process.
The Government have made it quite clear that they agree with the remarks of the new President of the Commission, which were quoted by my noble friend Lord Plumb, that the Commission should do less but that what it does it should do better. The Government have always made it clear that enlargement is most important.

337
Another issue is the strengthening of intergovernmental co-operation in the fields of foreign policy and defence. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has made it perfectly clear on a number of occasions —I am aware of this as a member of the parliamentary assembly of the Western European Union—that in European defence it is the time for a practical step forward in accordance with what has been agreed at Maastricht and that the European allies should now extend their ability to make a contribution to international crisis resolution, to peacekeeping and to helping with specifically European concerns where NATO is not involved. I believe that is all very clear.
As a final comment as regards the general and positive approach as opposed to the positive detail of what is going to be discussed, I wish and hope in your Lordships' House in a debate of this kind that we shall not hear in future noble Lords talking about "Europe" and "us". By all means talk about "the rest of Europe" but please do not let us make that kind of differentiation because it is not a, question of "them" and "us". I believe very firmly that we are part of them and they part of us.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I entirely endorse the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, that the United Kingdom should play a positive role at the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference. That positive role in my view should be to articulate the feelings of the people of the European Community, as opposed to the aspirations of their elites. It is no good trying to influence or change their minds—at any rate the elites of the core countries of the Community, the original Six. For the most part, they are deeply, sincerely and passionately integrationist, federalist and intent on creating a United States of Europe as a rival to the United States of America and Japan, with a single foreign policy, a single army, navy and air force. To do them credit they have made that perfectly clear time and time again.
But most of the ordinary people of the Community do not want a single army, navy and air force; they do not want substantially greater integration, more bureaucracy or more probing into the nooks and crannies of everyday life by people living hundreds of miles away and speaking a different language both literally and metaphorically. The narrowness of the referendum results in France, Denmark, Finland and Sweden, despite the massive propaganda facilities and substantial financial resources available to modern governments and establishments, amply demonstrate that, as does the revelation that three-quarters of the German people now oppose a single currency.
That is understandable since there is no point in replacing the deutschmark with the ecu unless the latter is going to be potentially more inflationary than the deutschmark. With 15 nations having an input into the administration of the ecu, it is bound to be more inflationary. Despite the apparently cast-iron safeguards written into the Maastricht Treaty, one can be certain that the moment widespread civil disturbances break out in one or more Mediterranean countries in consequence
338
of deflationary policies being pursued by the central bank, the purse-strings will be loosened, interest rates will be lowered and the ecu will be effectively devalued against the dollar, the mark and indeed the Swiss franc.
On the Continent, when rules and regulations which are apparently set in tablets of stone run up against realpolitik, one can bet that realpolitik will always win, as the abatement of the massive fines imposed on Spain and Italy for the overproduction of milk and the continuing illegal subsidy to Air France and other semi-nationalised French companies fully demonstrate.
There is no time to say more about the disadvantages of the single currency except to commend to your Lordships an excellent article by Mr. Tim Melville-Ross, the Director General of the Institute of Directors, in The Times yesterday. Even he does not give all the manifold arguments against, but he gives a good few of them.
Strictly speaking, the United Kingdom's role at the 1996 conference should be confined, first, to opposing any extension of majority voting, with the possible exception of voting which affects the future of the CAP—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, had a perfectly valid point in that regard. Next, the United Kingdom should urge much greater caution about a single currency as opposed to a common currency—otherwise known as the "hard ecu"—so well advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman; oppose greater powers being granted to the European Parliament, inevitably at the expense of national parliaments; and oppose any moves towards a single foreign policy, or a single army, navy and air force.
But these are all defensive moves. What of more positive ones? When departing from the strict agenda, as people invariably do, the United Kingdom representatives should take every opportunity to extol the inspiring clarion cry sent out by the European Research Group in its recent pamphlet A Europe of Nations to which the Prime Minister contributed a foreword. The group's programme has been contributed to by political figures from no fewer than 20 European countries: all the 15 European Union countries with the exception of Austria, Greece and Luxembourg, together with representatives from the Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Switzerland and Turkey. That is truly Europe, unlike the truncated EU version that dares to usurp the name.
It goes without saying that the contributors to this pamphlet are every bit as pro-European as the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, Lord Howe, Lord Richard and others. It is simply that they take a different view of the way in which Europe should develop. Among their important recommendations are that the Visegrad countries should be admitted to the European Union by 1st January in the year 2000. Long before that we should have dismantled all the tariff and non-tariff barriers against the importation of agricultural and manufactured goods from those countries which are such a disgrace at the moment.
All power should be assumed to rest with national governments unless explicitly stated otherwise in the treaties. The ambiguous principle of subsidiarity should be codified and strengthened. The European

339
Commission should be reduced to the role of a civil service carrying out the will of elected Ministers and lose the right to initiate legislation. The European Parliament should be prevented from competing for power with national parliaments and should focus simply on scrutinising the work of the Commission. The European Court of Justice should be strictly confined to a specific judicial role interpreting the plain text of the treaties. The doctrine of the acquis communautaire should be abandoned. Responsibility for agricultural policy should be returned to the member states, The WEU should be decoupled from the institutions of the European Union and remain purely under the control of its member governments.
I suggest that that is a programme to enthuse and inspire ordinary people throughout the Community. It is not a blueprint for a simple free-trade association so criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, but rather a variant on l'Europe des patries aspired to by General de Gaulle. The fact that in the French presidential election race the federalist, M. Edouard Balladur, is losing ground to the Gaullist, M. Jacques Chirac, ably assisted as he is by the openly Euro-sceptical M. Philippe Séguin, is an encouraging straw in the wind.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has often quite rightly reminded us that the Treaty of Rome aims at an "ever closer union between the peoples of Europe". Indeed, but bureaucracy, enforced harmonisation and constant interference in the aforesaid nooks and crannies of everyday life have the opposite effect. They create hostility between peoples. Conservatives often talk about getting the state off people's backs. It is only by getting the potential superstate off the backs of the peoples of Europe that one will pave the way for genuine harmony between them.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, to whom we are indebted for this debate, started his speech by regretting that the cross-party pro-European alliance which existed in the 1970s appears to have grown weak in recent years. I imagine that the last five hours will have done something to reassure him—were he to be in his seat—that that alliance is still very much alive, at least in your Lordships' House, although I would agree with him that it has grown weak. I believe that it has grown weak because its arguments have grown weak and out of touch and are now often reduced to slogans such as, "We must be at the heart of Europe"; "We attract inward investment because of our membership of the Union"—as opposed to the market; "We must get in wholeheartedly and influence things our way"; "We'll be left behind by France and Germany who are going ahead with the Union anyway and that would be a bad thing", and so on. I fear all these slogans strike me as tired and out of date. They might have been relevant to the Europe of the 1970s when Germany's economy was booming and ours was labouring under Socialism, but none of them is justifiable today.
Listening to the first 10 speeches this afternoon and to several other speeches later, it struck me again, as it struck me at the time of our debates on the Maastricht
340
Treaty two years ago, that another alliance is at work in this country and in Europe. It is perhaps a somewhat subconscious alliance, but it consists of politicians and bureaucrats, and I fear that it has grown out of touch with the aspirations of the people.
I have to say that that alliance is very well represented in your Lordships' House. Indeed, the majority of speakers in today's debate made their careers in politics or the bureaucracy. We have been privileged to hear a number of politicians and bureaucrats who have been very influential in setting up the Europe which we see today, and it is absolutely understandable that they are reluctant objectively to see it as it has become, which is very different from what they hoped it would be. Of course, that is only to be expected from at least one former Foreign Secretary, a former Prime Minister and from several ex-Cabinet Ministers, former European Commissioners and MEPs. I suppose that it is a bit like looking at your own baby when it is born. You tend to find it difficult to recognise the warts and other distortions which may be apparent to other people less involved in its creation.
Be that as it may, I have been quite depressed this evening to see how their mood has developed since our Maastricht debates in 1993. They now seem to take our loss of sovereignty for granted. They no longer pretend that Article 3b of the Maastricht Treaty, the infamous subsidiarity clause, is a shield against the further plundering of that sovereignty, as we were constantly assured by the Government in 1993; and they view monetary union as the certain and final surrender of that sovereignty with equanimity.
Well, I have to tell them that many of us—indeed, a growing number of the people in this country and Europe; possibly now a majority—do not share those cosy and unreal feelings which seem to pervade the political and bureaucratic club. We who are not politicians and bureaucrats, we who have worked, and work, in the real world of commerce and industry are not cursed with having brought us to where we are now in Europe, and we wish to see the IGC deliver a substantial repatriation of powers to the nation states. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, have already enumerated some of the powers which we wish to see repatriated, and so I will not repeat them now.
But we certainly want to see subsidiarity mean something, which at the moment it does not, or, if it means anything it means the opposite of what the Government assured us it meant in 1993. It means that the Community decides what nation states will be allowed to decide.
If my noble friend on the Front Bench thinks I exaggerate, could she perhaps answer the questions I put to the Government on 24th November 1994, the last day of our debate on the gracious Speech? What has happened to the initiative, inspired by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, to withdraw 25 per cent. of all Community legislation, which he has assured us was agreed at the Corfu conference, and how does that fit with the Community's determination to

341
maintain its doctrine of the occupied field, whereby once it has acquired a power, it never gives it up? Is the acquis communautaire dead or alive?
Would my noble friend accept that the Commission's work programme for 1995 runs to 72 pages and that it only pays lip service to subsidiarity? Is she aware that M. Santer has admitted that there will be some 52 of what he calls "new priority legislative proposals"—or one a week? A "new priority legislative proposal" is roughly what should be the equivalent of a Bill in this country—except that we import so many of them by delegated legislation. Does my noble friend accept that EC directives and regulations rose from 1,602 in 1993 to 1,800 last year, of which the regulations—which do not have to be sanctioned by national parliaments—rose from 1,160 to 1,579? It is one of those regulations which threatens the UK glasshouse lettuce industry, which employs 12,000 people. It is the absurd, continuing so-called "fine-tuning" of the single market which threatens the survival of the London bus, and much else. For instance, we are soon to have a directive harmonising the construction of lifts. In this respect, perhaps I can repeat a request to my noble friend. Can I ask her to explain to the bureaucrats in Brussels that a level playing field and a market are a contradiction in terms?
As to monetary union, does my noble friend agree that eventual monetary union would he likely to lead to a harmonisation of interest rates and taxation, and inescapably to political union? Can I ask her and those who favour monetary union whether they have thought of an ever weaker ecu after such monetary union, dragged down against the currencies of the vibrant economies of the world by Europe's sluggish, bureaucratic and over-politicised regime? Is that a prospect that they have really examined objectively?
Finally, can I ask whether it is such a terrible crime at least to contemplate tearing up the Treaty of Rome and all its works? As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggested today, until we have an unbiased cost-benefit analysis of our present membership, it seems impossible to know how unwise that suggestion might be. That was another question that I put to the Government on 24th November—again I got no answer. Certainly, the Europhile slogan that we get our inward investment because of our membership of the Union does not bear examination. Most of our inward investment comes to us because we have access to the European market, because thanks to the policies of this Government we have good labour relations and low inflation, because we are not saddled with the ruinous social chapter, and because we speak English. I cannot believe that the prospect of our monetary and political union with our weaker brethren in Europe can be much encouragement to potential investors.
So, the key question becomes: would the French, the Germans and the others deny us access to the European market if we left the Union, bearing in mind that we trade in deficit with Europe and have done so for 20 years? It seems most unlikely, but I do not imagine it is a question which we have ever dared to examine dispassionately. May I suggest that it is time that we
342
did so so, that we might discover the strength of our negotiating position, which I feel sure is much stronger than at the moment we dare to hope? Only then can we enter the IGC negotiations in a suitably objective and positive frame of mind. Unless we can persuade our partners to create an altogether less stultifying framework for the free nations of a prosperous Europe, we should be determined to leave the Union, especially if that means leaving the European economy stuck in the slow lane of world economies which it so richly deserves.
7.59 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, ended the debate from the Back Benches opposite by making a clear case for what he described as "tearing up the Treaty of Rome". Whether that would constitute a positive approach for the Government at the IGC, as he seemed to believe, I am not so sure. However, I believe that I speak for all noble Lords who have spoken—even, I am sure, for the noble Lord, Lord Pearson—when I thank my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead for launching this debate and for devoting one of the rare Liberal Democrat days to discussing the need for Britain to play a positive role at the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference.
Compared to some of the debates that we have had over the last year or two on these issues, which have very often been ill-attended—indeed I have often felt ill-represented in your Lordships' House—this debate has been extraordinarily well attended. There has been a wide variety of views and it is very clear that the great majority have supported the proposition of my noble friend that the Government should take a positive attitude when the IGC is called. Whether we are going to get a positive attitude from the noble Baroness the Minister this evening I am not so sure. I think I share the lack of optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, on that matter. Regarding the question of whether the Government are at the heart of Europe, of course we all know that the noble Baroness's heart is in the right place but we shall wait to hear what she has to say to us tonight.
The noble Lords, Lord Pearson and Lord Beloff, both raised the point about the state of public opinion on the European Union in this country and they argued that it had turned pretty negative. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, speculated why. I will give him one strong reason. During the 15 years this Government have been in office there has been a generally negative attitude from them over the possibilities of British membership of the Community—not totally and all the time but, generally speaking, over the whole of the last 15 years. I am bound to say that I think it has immensely damaged Britain's capacity to influence European developments in our own legitimate national interests, as well as depriving Europe of a positive British contribution.
With one or two notable exceptions, there has been no Cabinet leadership on the benefits of British membership of the Community. The minorities in Parliament, who have a principled view of a deep dislike of Britain being part of the European Community, have had a field day, attacking the Community all the time:

343
sometimes over serious issues of sovereignty and the sharing of sovereignty and sometimes over the minutiae of the behaviour of the European Commission in the matter of such great issues as the curvature of cucumbers and similar matters.
There is always a need for constructive criticism of the European Community and of the Commission. I am not, as has been pointed out, a totally dispassionate witness in that capacity, but the Commission is like any other political and bureaucratic institution: it is fallible and it makes mistakes. What I think is important for people in this country and Members of your Lordships' House, in making a judgment about British interests in Europe, is a sense of proportion concerning these criticisms. For example, the level of Community fraud is obviously a crime and a scandal. The reports of your Lordships' Select Committee have made a notable contribution to getting the Community at last to take more effective action about this.
However, all Community public expenditure taken together—the CAP, the Cohesion and Structural Funds, the lot—amounts to 1.25 per cent. of the Community's GDP, compared to an average of about 50 per cent. of GDP accounted for by national government spending in Union countries, where there is ample scope, as we all know, for criticism of bureaucratic national practices. This must be seen in proportion against the fact that membership of the European Union has been the reason why Britain has attracted over 600,000 new jobs since 1979. Nearly half of all Japanese, American, Korean and foreign investment into the European Union comes to this country. London is a magnet for overseas banks. There are 520 banks from 76 countries, with the Deutchesbank just moving its foreign investment banking from Frankfurt to London. Someone told me recently that there are more German banks in London than in Frankfurt.
This inward direct investment and the outward flow of financial skills would both be seriously adversely affected if a single European currency were to emerge with Britain choosing to remain outside. Apart from the quantifiable economic benefits of British membership, there are the unquantifiable benefits of Britain playing the role it ought to play in making the Union an effective force for peace in an increasingly fragmented and fanatical European continent. We are, in fact, in danger of turning our backs on our history and leaving the leadership of the European continent to France and Germany while we become petulant spectators on the sidelines.
The Government appear to hope that major issues of change can be avoided by the IGC, but the Maastricht Treaty agenda itself includes important matters. As the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, pointed out, it includes the question of the future of the Western European Union and the development of effective foreign policy and defence arrangements. These are very big issues. I think she is perhaps optimistic in feeling that the issue of the timetable for economic monetary union will not come up, or that issues like enlargement and the massive unemployment that still remains in a Europe, where the
344
recession is retreating, will not be issues raised at the IGC. Whatever the treaty says about the agenda, I think that member countries will bring their own agendas.
So what are the real options for Britain at the IGC and beyond? The Government's preferred option appears to be the claim that they can convert the rest of the Union to their concept of a minimalist Community, concentrating on international competitiveness—obviously very important—and on the expansion of the free trade concept to which the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield referred; also opting out of social policies and, I suppose, praying that a final decision on a single currency and economic monetary union may be delayed indefinitely. I prefer to call that not an option but a pathetic illusion. Sir Leon Brittan dismissed it in a sentence recently when he said in London:
"Those who stubbornly believe that EMU is not going to happen are simply overlooking the level of commitment which exists in the rest of Europe".
The danger of the Government's present approach to the IGC, with their talk at times of vetoes, is that it would cast us in this country in the role of wreckers. We would be seen as preventing the majority in the European Union from moving forward to tackle the undoubtedly formidable problems of combining enlarged membership from east and central Europe with efficient and democratic decision making. As the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, said, we would not in any case succeed. The only wrecking that would be done would be the wrecking of what remains of our influence among our partners on the mainland of Europe. In that situation, which I profoundly hope does not happen, the lesser evil would be to step aside and let those who want to move faster towards integration do so; but it would be a sad second-best action for Britain.
I hope that the Minister will allow me to say that I find a strange paradox in the behaviour of the Prime Minister. On Northern Ireland, Britain's other overshadowing problem, he has shown vision and determined courage; yet Ulster is an issue which arouses deep traditional fears among Conservatives and it also involves questions of sovereignty. Over Europe, if he had chosen to show the same leadership he could have put Britain truly at the heart of Europe. I hope it is not too late for a change of attitude on the part of the Prime Minister and the Government.
We are an island nation with a fortunate history, protected from foreign invasions. We have undoubtedly an insular psychology. The grand vision of a European union, with all that can mean in terms of peace and prosperity for the citizens of Europe, demands a high quality of leadership from governments in all the countries concerned. There are difficulties in all the countries, but this is particularly so in our country. I end by pleading with the Minister and, through her with the Government, to respond to the Motion moved by my noble friend and to make a positive contribution to the "Group for Reflection and to the IGC that follows it.
8.9 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for raising this issue. I hope that he

345
will be pleased at the quality of much of the debate that followed his speech. I was interested in the fact that he started by saying that this was not really an issue of party politics. To me, in the real world politics are party politics, and if this is not a political issue, I do not know what is. I hope that it does not mean that the noble Lord is pursuing his withdrawal from the arena of party politics. Joining the Liberal Democrats is of course a first step in that direction, but I hope that he will stay with us in party politics for some time to come. He has a lot yet to contribute.
I noticed also that neither his speech nor that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, mentioned what might be the view of the Liberal Democrat Party of the agenda for the IGC. I did not hear one suggestion from any Liberal Democrat speaker about their party's policies and the way in which they should be presented at the conference. Perhaps they will find some other opportunity to enlighten us, but in the world of party politics we expect—I shall attempt to provide it—not merely negative comments but some commitment to a policy position.
Nevertheless, it is clearly right that there should be an open debate before the IGC. We must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for opening that debate in your Lordships' House. It was notorious that before the Maastricht Summit public debate was very restricted indeed. Whether it was for the conspiratorial reasons which have been adduced by a number of noble Lords I rather doubt. But it is still a fact that there was not much public debate before Maastricht; and that many of the proposals at Maastricht came as a surprise to the ordinary people in Europe. As a result, the ratification of Maastricht was a very much more difficult process than it ought to have been.
The noble Lord, Lord Shaw of Northstead, rightly referred to the work of the Reflection Group which has been set up under the French presidency. I shall want to say a word or two about the contribution to that Reflection Group of the European socialist delegate, Elisabeth Guigou, but it is not just that; there will be more preparation. Under the Spanish presidency there will be an extra Council meeting in Majorca in September. We can expect a more serious attempt at wider debate, and that must be welcome.
Of course, we must be realistic about the scope of the IGC, because listening, as I have, to almost all of the speeches, I have heard many which are about issues that are very much wider than the treaty revision issues which will be coming before the IGC. I was surprised to find that so many Members on the Conservative Benches were anxious to have a re-run of the debacle which hit them in another place last Wednesday. I should have thought that they were so badly burnt then that they would not wish to go over that ground again. I was also a little disappointed to find a number of noble Lords wishing to go over the ground of the 1993 Maastricht ratification debates because the IGC' s role is very much more limited, as has been suggested, and I cannot avoid repeating some of the valuable points made at the very beginning by my noble friend Lord Richard.
346
Article A of Maastricht says that the purpose is ever closer union among the peoples of Europe. But then Article B, in specifying what should happen at the IGC, refers to improving the effectiveness of Community mechanisms and institutions. That is what the conference will be about, rather than some of the wider policy issues which have been referred to. Of course the Community mechanisms and institutions have a purpose. Their purpose—I summarise rather than expound—is to promote economic and social progress; and to promote economic and social cohesion. There is reference to the establishment of a European monetary union and possibly of a single currency. There is the whole issue which has not been referred to, interestingly, of the common foreign and security policies which are expected to lead to a common defence policy and possibly in the future to common defence. There is the issue of Union citizenship; there is the issue of close co-operation between member states—note that it is co-operation between member states—on justice and home affairs. And all of that is within the context of subsidiarity. That is what is set out in Article B of the Maastricht Treaty.
Article 189b goes a little further, because it refers to co-decision procedures, which I take to be jargon for talk about majority voting and unanimity. I want to come back to that issue also later. Finally, the first declaration refers to bringing energy, civil protection and tourism into Community competency.
Those are all important issues. The revision of the treaty to give effect to those objectives is not unimportant. But I suggest that much of the debate will be secondary to the two fundamental changes which are taking place in Europe which could blow away much of the discussion that will take place at the IGC.
The first, of course, is enlargement. What appears to be the case, almost without it being discussed as a matter of principle, is that we in Europe—I mean what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, calls the elite as well as the people—have accepted and welcomed the idea of the enlargement of the European Community. The result of that is that we shall land up in 10 or 15 years with a Community of 27 members, rather like—I am sorry to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, is not in her place—
Noble Lords: She is.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, she is in a much more distinguished place, and I beg her pardon. We shall end up with co-terminality between the Council of Europe and the European Community—a very welcome prospect—but we should think about the effect of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to the effect on enlargement of the CAP. I put it the other way round. I cannot see how the CAP in its present form can survive with 27 members.
Similarly, I cannot see how those additional 12 members will come in if we are going to be just a free trade area. They want much more than that, but they do not want federalism. We cannot have federalism with 27 states. So much of the discussion about the ultimate result of ever closer union—if people are afraid or

347
hopeful of federalism coming out of it—will be blown away by a Europe of 27 member states. That is one of the factors which will limit the scope of the IGC.
The second of course is the whole concept of what the Prime Minister called a multi-track, multi-speed, multi-layered Europe; in particular the single currency issue which has been referred to by many noble Lords.
Let us first make it clear that we in the Labour Party do not propose to abandon unanimity as a criterion for much of the decision-making of the European Union. As Robin Cook made clear in the debate last week, we shall still be demanding unanimity for fiscal and budgetary policy; for foreign and security issues; for changes to the Treaty of Rome and other areas of key national interest. But at the same time the Government's policy of opting out, in particular on the Social Chapter, has meant that there is, in practice, majority voting, with the UK being left out of many of the important issues—social and employment issues—which are being considered by the European Union. Therefore, we have majority voting and a diminution of our sovereignty by our own decision to opt out of some of the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty.
More important is the issue of the single currency. Let us agree that we shall not have a single currency in 1997. Only five member states have reached the stage of convergence, even on the existing criteria. They would have to get there quickly, certainly by 1997, if in 1999 there was to be convergence on the 1997 principles.
But 1999 is going to be very different. No longer will it be a requirement that a majority of members of the Community—that is, eight member states—shall achieve a convergence and decide to impose a single currency. By 1999 there could be a core of member states going it alone and raising for us the different issue, which we have not yet faced, of what happens if there is a single currency which we are invited but not required to join; in other words, if there is an inner circle with all the political and economic fragmentation that that might bring about.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Desai who criticised the convergence criteria set down by Maastricht for a single currency. I agree that the definitions are unsound. My view is that they are central banking criteria rather than governmental criteria and that, if they are achieved, the result is likely to be an equilibrium, but an equilibrium at a low rather than a high level. Far more important than any of those are full employment, growth and convergence in productivity. My noble friend was right in saying that we cannot wait for that, but at the same time we must expect it and must work towards it.
I have left myself little time to do what I wanted to do; that is, to set out in more detail the policies that were set out in another place last week. I believe that the Labour Party has a vision for Europe that goes beyond the day-to-day policies. The vision of a democratic and social Europe was set out by Elisabeth Guigou. That is where I begin to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, who spoke of the need to bring with us people rather than politicians.
348
Incidentally, I strongly object to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, saying that he is not a politician, unlike other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. He has been a distinguished insurance broker for most of his life and I have been a market researcher for most of mine. However, when we are here we are both politicians and we take a party whip. The noble Lord cannot escape responsibility for being a politician simply by denying it.
That vision of a democratic and social Europe is one to which the Labour Party adheres. We do not believe that the leadership so far shown by this Government—there is always time for repentance—has indicated any sign that they understand the issues before Europe and this country which will arise at the Inter-Governmental Conference next year.
8.23 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for initiating this debate. We have heard a series of notable speeches. They have covered the entire spectrum of views. However, if one necessarily starts on the left-hand side of the circle one might end up on the right-hand side, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, appeared to indicate he had.
We have had a long debate about much more than the positive role that we should play in the Inter-Governmental Conference in 1996. On the whole, the debate has been remarkably constructive about the future of the European Union. It will be important to read carefully what all noble Lords have said and I shall enjoy doing so. Certainly, the many contributions have been helpful in presenting the real balance of opinion in this country, as the Gallup poll showed last Friday and as my noble friend Lord Blaker explained today.
Perhaps I may comment on not having spoken earlier in the debate, for which I was chided by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. When such a Question is tabled the Government spokesman does not normally speak twice. If the Government spokesman spoke twice, the amount of time for Back-Benchers to speak in the debate would be reduced. Furthermore, as a result of tonight's performance, I am certain that this is but the first of a number of debates on the Inter-Governmental Conference that might take place during the next one, two or three years, or however long it takes to reach a conclusion.
I wish to be positive. We are members of the European Union, not because of idealism or romanticism but because our European Union membership is in Britain's national interest. Of course there are costs to membership; any organisation has to have rules and we will not always like them. But the benefits of our membership outweigh those costs, as my noble friend Lord Oxfuird indicated tonight. Indeed, we always do our best to obtain a sound cost-benefit analysis but whether others would necessarily have the same premises and therefore arrive at the same conclusions is obviously a further debating point between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon.

349
Membership of the European Union means jobs, investment and prosperity that we would not otherwise have had. From what I saw in the days when I was fully employed by industry and in the days since, when I have been a politician, I have no doubt about that. However, I am still fundamentally interested in making industry work. We must use our European Union to help industry, British and European, to create a greater economic base for our people.
The Union is the world's largest trading bloc with 40 per cent, of world trade. Britain is more dependent on trade than any other large industrial economy. We are the world's fifth largest importer and exporter and the European Union now takes 53 per cent. of our visible exports, as my noble friend Lord Blaker said. The single market, though not yet complete, offers our businesses huge opportunities. Britain is selling croissants to the French, smart cards to the Germans, pizzas to the Italians and—especially for my noble friend Lord Beloff—chocolates to the Belgians. I hope that he will be eating English, chocolates if he buys them in Belgium because he will find the quality superb.
Our trade surplus in financial and business services with the rest of Europe tripled from £1 billion in 1983 to £3 billion in 1993. During the past six years our car exports to Europe have more than doubled. In 1994 we produced more cars than for 20 years.
Membership of the European Union has reinforced the position of the City of London as the world's biggest foreign exchange centre. More than 70 per cent. of European foreign exchange transactions and 90 per cent. of European cross-border equity deals go through London. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said, the Deutschebank has just moved all its foreign investment banking from Frankfurt to London. Those are exactly the issues to which my noble friend Lord Boardman referred. London is the financial centre for the European Union.
European competition laws mean that, whatever the inhibitions of national governments, barriers to trade are coming down across Europe, and so they must. We have all heard the arguments about airlines, but British Airways is now flying from London to Orly Airport, a route which was for so long wrongly protected for Air France. But we must go on and go further.
We have become a magnet for inward investment and, directly or indirectly, that has brought more than 600,000 well-paid jobs to the UK since 1979. We attract one-third of all inward investment into the European Union. In the past two years alone there have been more than 400 inward investment decisions, safeguarding around 100,000 jobs, many in areas of high unemployment. The reason that those companies are attracted to Britain is because we provide an open, deregulated environment for business. They would not come unless we were also active, committed members of the European Union, pushing the Union down the open, free market path that it has followed since we joined.
Membership of the European Union has allowed us to promote free trade, open market policies across the world. The GATT deal was clinched by a British
350
Commissioner—Sir Leon Brittan—negotiating on behalf of Europe as a whole. That is a huge step towards the open, world-wide trading system which the UK has always supported. Britain, with its dependence on foreign trade, will benefit more than most from the completion of the Uruguay Round. The GATT deal is worth about £500 for every household in this country and the combined value to Britain of the single market from the GATT Round is estimated at between £20 billion and £35 billion.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness would wish to be fair and to complete the trading picture by stating quite correctly that the deficit on visible trade with Europe over the past 10 years has amounted to £72.9 billion.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this country does not live by visible exports alone. It lives by invisibles too. The overall cost-benefit analysis, which is what I was being asked for at one point in the debate, must take into account visibles and invisibles.
It is against those benefits that we need to balance our net contribution to the budget. Britain and Germany used to be almost the only net contributors. Now Germany contributes almost five times as much as we do. France now makes a similar net contribution to ours. The Netherlands is not far behind. Italy, Sweden, Finland and Austria have all become net contributors too.
That development has brought a very welcome change in the attitude of member states to budgetary discipline and value for money. I say that because Britain has been fully involved in all those arguments in Europe and it has been winning them. The evidence is undoubted. The single market was largely a British crusade. There is now universal acceptance of Europe's historic responsibility to achieve EU enlargement to the east. Yet that was by no means accepted a few years ago. There is a new accent on competitiveness and free trade in the European Union which delivered a market-opening GATT deal in the teeth of French opposition. And there is greater concern—and not before time—about budget discipline, fraud and the mismanagement of funds.
As my noble friend Lord Plumb said, we should be extremely grateful to your Lordships' Select Committee for all the work that it has done to enhance proper control of what goes on in the Community. We are now starting to see the beginning of agricultural reform, although there is still a long way to go. Subsidiarity—and I shall return to that in a few moments for my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls—is now part of Community life. The pillared structure of the Maastricht Treaty, which ensures that crucial areas remain for national co-operation and not for the Community, was a major setback for European integrationists and centralisers, and yet we drove it through. Above all, there is now general acceptance of the importance of respecting national identity and diversity within the Union, which must never develop into a federal superstate.

351
A prominent European said only last year that only Great Britain had asked the real questions before Maastricht even if—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—there was inadequate debate in the country as a whole. When one tried to debate the issues before Maastricht, many people simply were not interested. I can say that from my own direct experience. I addressed meeting after meeting and looked at many, many blank faces—and not because of what I said either.
But the same prominent European went on to say that the construction of Europe, without our questions, was virtually on auto-pilot. That was not my right honourable friend the Prime Minister; it was the former President of the Commission, Jacques Delors. He recognised the unique contribution which Britain had made and goes on making. We are not afraid to ask difficult questions of our partners about European construction and we shall continue to do so.
We are determined to play a positive role, but that does not mean that we have to go along with each and every suggestion' that is made. I shall look at all the suggestions that have been made in this debate and in particular those to which I cannot refer in my winding up this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was quite right to say that the Commission must not get too big for its boots. The Council is the decision-making body. Subsidiarity is working well. It is reducing the Commission's inclination that it had in the past to become involved in the nooks and crannies of our lives. I can tell the noble Lord that progress is being made in relation to financial matters. The new budget Commissioner is now required to vet all proposals with budgetary implications before they are passed to the College of Commissioners. That is something for which the United Kingdom has pressed for some considerable time. Members of this House who were Members of the European Parliament have also pressed that issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was right also to say that in the past the Commission produced too much legislation. The UK success at Maastricht in relation to subsidiarity has meant that the number of proposals for primary legislation has fallen significantly: 185 in 1990; 47 in 1994. There is still a problem with subsidiary legislation because changes have to be made, but even that is under clear scrutiny and will be reduced.
My noble friend Lord Shaw of Northstead made the point about fraud. Fraud against the Community budget and the continuing waste of Community resources are totally unacceptable. Much is now being done to address the problem. The Commission has reinforced substantially its anti-fraud work, but much more still needs to be done. Therefore, we persuaded our partners to agree a plan of action at the Essen European Council. That plan of action is now under way. We are determined to deal with fraud.
My noble friend Lord Shaw of Northstead was the first noble Lord to mention the Reflection Group. Perhaps I may spend a few moments dealing with that and institutional issues. Last week the Prime Minister
352
made clear our approach: that the institutional balance between the parts of the Union should not be altered significantly. That is certainly our approach to the IGC. As I said, the Council must remain the primary decision-making institution of the Union but it must be strengthened, as my noble friend Lord Shaw said. The Commission must concentrate more on management and value for money and less on its legislative role. The key issues will be the proper implementation of legislation and effective action against fraud and waste. The noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Desai, and my noble friend Lord Shaw mentioned that.
We see no case for giving the European Parliament significant new legislative powers. It must grow into the powers that it has already under the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty.
We believe too that national parliaments must be the primary focus of democratic legitimacy. As my noble friend Lord Shaw said, we should like to develop the role of national parliaments in European Union decision-making.
The Reflection Group will meet first on 2nd June in Messina and then regularly during the second half of this year. Its mandate is to look at the functioning of the treaty. No doubt it will suggest options for possible improvements. My honourable friend Mr. Davis will be working hard in that group on those issues and is also already discussing with colleagues how we can make the whole Community work better. That is exactly what we wish to do.
A number of your Lordships spoke of the European Court of Justice. As I said at Question Time earlier today, we need a strong court to enforce Community rules and obligations. There are aspects of the court's jurisprudence which cause us concern; in particular where judgments have had unforeseen or disproportionate financial implications for member states. Therefore, we are considering what proposals to make to address those concerns at the 1996 IGC. But we are not alone in that. Other nations also wish to make proposals and such proposals will be made in a positive manner.
However, we shall certainly not be seeking to emasculate the Court as some would obviously like. We need to be clear that the Court is there to ensure that others comply with their obligations. We must ensure that others keep to what is decided by the Council. The Court's role is to interpret and apply the treaties and EC legislation. There are a number of recent cases which show that the Court is now more sensitive to members' concerns—the World Trade Organisation ruling and the recent European Development Fund ruling are but examples of that process.
My noble friend Lady Rawlings, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley and many other speakers spoke about the ERM and EMU. In another place on 1st March the Prime Minister set out our policy clearly and at some length. Therefore, I shall not repeat those points. However, perhaps I may emphasise the fact that there

353
can be no intention of rejoining the ERM in the lifetime of this Parliament. I believe that we are all clear on that point.
At other times during our debate we went into the question of variable geometry, but the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said that we would be wrong to talk in abstractions. Perhaps I may just explain to the noble Lord that "variable geometry" means a flexible Europe. More flexibility will obviously be essential to a Europe with more members. There is no way, without flexibility, that we could increase the number of members of the European Union to 20 or, indeed, beyond that number. Therefore, we must work for sensible flexibility in Europe.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, asked for a definition of "subsidiarity". We have discussed the matter on numerous occasions. It is defined very clearly in Article 3B of the Maastricht Treaty. That article was a considerable success for Britain. It says simply that the Community can only act if it has been given the power to do so and has genuine value to add over national action. Moreover, if it does act, then it should do so in the least intrusive way possible. I could speak more about subsidiarity and perhaps I shall need to do so in order to convince my noble friend. However, I should also like to tell my noble friend Lord Pearson that in the report to the Brussels European Council, the Commission said that it would propose the repeal of about 25 per cent. of all existing legislation. Some of that would be repealed for good, and some replaced with a smaller number of new proposals. That work is well under way. It certainly demonstrates that the acquis communautaire is not sacred, nor is it untouchable.
We all know that the European Union is facing unparalleled challenges over the coming period. Enlargement is vital to embed democracy and market structures in eastern and central Europe. NATO and the Western European Union must be adapted to the new tasks. We need to forge a new European Union relationship with Russia. Therefore, I beg that we do not become mesmerised by next year's Inter-Governmental Conference. It is still a year off. While we shall work away positively at it, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, asked, and we shall play, as my noble friend Lord Oxfuird requested, a very constructive role, there is a great deal of other priority work to be done. In any case, we do not expect dramatic results from the 1996 process, nor should we encourage the speculation that great changes are in the wind.
Maastricht has barely had time to settle down and it is, by general consent in Europe, too soon for major new departures. There is certainly much useful work to be done; but it may not be as exciting as some noble Lords might wish, and others might fear. I believe that I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, that we shall go into the IGC not only with a positive agenda but also with an absolute determination to improve the operation of the Maastricht Treaty and to build upon its flexible pillared structure.
354
Our proposals will include the improvement of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. We shall step up the fight against organised crime and terrorism, especially in the field of drugs, to which my noble friend Lady Rawlings, referred.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, may I ask a question?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: No, my Lords. We shall further develop the subsidiarity principle and strengthen the role that national Parliaments can play alongside the councils and the European Parliament. Another priority is to continue the work, as I mentioned earlier, against the mismanagement that has taken place in the Community budget. Therefore, there is much work to be done and much support for the British approach. There is no great pressure for new Community competences, and there is no plot to collapse the pillared structure of the treaty. We shall not be waiting fearfully to see what others may throw at us. We shall be where we should be: at the heart of Europe, shaping the agenda.
In conclusion, the nations of Europe are here to stay. People are rightly proud of their nationhood, their history, their languages, their culture, their traditions and their heritage. The sense of national identity reflects deep feelings which governments ignore at their peril. As I believe the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield said, nationhood can slide all too easily into yobbish nationalism—or, at least, extreme nationalism—into xenophobia and hatred.
Twice this century European rivalries have plunged the world into war. We never want to see that happen again. It is not just a truism: it is truly right that the European Union has been central to the stability and the prosperity which western Europe has enjoyed for the past 50 years. It certainly provides a framework which goes well beyond international co-operation. Nations can and will continue to pursue their interests, but enlightened self-interest demands a level of regional co-operation which was never imagined by our forebears. No longer do the nations of Europe protect their markets at the first hint of recession; no longer are they free to subsidise their companies at will.
Similarly, it is not just a question of prosperity. The European Union as a pole of stability in Europe, has buttressed democracy in Spain, Portugal and Greece when those countries emerged from dictatorship. It also provided a framework for peaceful unification in Germany. Now it is, again, proving its value for the democracies that are emerging after the collapse of the Soviet Union. For all its faults, the European Union, with NATO, is a sure foundation for peace in our continent. It is the basis upon which we must continue to build.
Perhaps I may return to the Motion tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who was himself a much respected President of the European Commission. The Motion calls attention,
"to the need for the United Kingdom to play a positive role in the Inter-Governmental Conference of 1996".

355
I should emphasise that it will, indeed, be an Inter-Governmental Conference; it is not an initiative of the Commission and it is not a report to the European Parliament. It will be a conference between the member governments of the Union to review the treaty. Each government must decide what, if anything, they wish to propose by way of treaty change to their own national Parliaments. I can assure noble Lords that Britain will approach the IGC in a positive spirit. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place last week:
"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".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/3/95; col. 1063.]
They will be ideas to develop and improve the Union, not for the convenience of its public servants nor for the glory of its politicians; hut for the sake of all the people of Europe.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the procedure of the House is well known to all of us—
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Chalker has sat down. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls tried to intervene during the course of my noble friend's speech; but she chose, because of the time limit, not to allow such an intervention. That permitted my noble friend to answer many of the questions posed by speakers in today's debate. As I said, my noble friend has now sat down, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, will now reply.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is the acting Leader of the House—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is the acting Leader of the House seeking to change the customs of this Chamber? It is accepted that the intervention I want to make is a proper one. I wanted to ask my noble friend—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, if there is a conflict between the application of Maastricht and the application of the Treaty of Rome, which treaty is the superior one?
8 50 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I am not a great believer in a second speech from the same person on the same subject on the same day. Therefore, my comments will be very brief. Also I suspect that noble Lords may be beginning to prefer the thought of the first course of their dinner to a second course from me. I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate which has been a worthwhile one and has struck a new and slightly more constructive note in our European debates than we have heard recently.
356
For me, the debate would almost have been worthwhile alone for the speech of the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Sheffield in the—if I may put it this way—catholicity and generosity of his historical and geographical sweep. He made me almost feel I was listening to an address from John Henry Newman.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I will not say at which phase in the career of that distinguished Anglican who became a cardinal. I turn to comment, possibly a shade less generous, about the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. When he was speaking I was reminded of the Manifesto of the Three Tailors issued early in the 19th century which began, "We, the people of England". I thought his doctrine that those who had any experience of these matters and who had been concerned with any political or administrative matters should not speak on them, was interesting and novel. It would certainly leave a good deal more space for him to speak in this House, and we might hear him very frequently in those circumstances.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, may I—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was worried that I was deserting party politics. Parties have their place, but they can get above themselves. Some of the puerility of party politics in this country has done a good deal of harm to our handling of the European issue. The noble Lord rebuked my noble friend Lord Thomson and myself most mightily for not having set out in detail the Liberal Democrat programme. He then spent a good deal of time doing that; and then, at the end, said he had not left himself enough time to set out the Labour programme. However, we are all subject to time factors.
I now turn to the Minister. She is, as always, the acceptable face of Toryism. I thank her for her speech this evening. There were parts of it which I preferred to other parts; but what I thought was the case—and I cannot say better than this—was that the parts of it I preferred were those which she prepared more herself and had her personal conviction behind them. In any event, I thank her for her reply as I thank all those noble Lords who have spoken. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Legitimated Persons (Succession to Titles) Bill [H.L.]
8.53 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Its sole aim is to make it possible for persons legitimated by subsequent matrimony to inherit a title throughout the United Kingdom rather than, as at present, in only one part of it; namely, Scotland. It is a modest measure but not, I believe, without importance. I hope it will find favour with your Lordships.

357
As regards the dilatory amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, I could have wished that the noble Lord had put it down a little earlier, or approached me, so that we could have had time to discuss—and, I would hope, allay—his fears. As a result of a conversation this morning, I now have an inkling of what disturbs him, erroneously in my view and that of my advisers, and I shall do my best to set his mind at rest. At all events I hope that he will agree with me after this debate that we should continue to pursue any remaining matters of concern in Committee, as happens in the vast majority of cases with Private Member's Bills in your Lordships' House.
Before I proceed any further, two things are incumbent on me. The first is to declare a personal interest in that the succession to my own peerage would be affected if the Bill became law. It would pass from the current heir presumptive who is my younger brother, to my son who would become the heir apparent. There is no disagreement in my family that this is a proper step. But I am aware that there is a question of expectations, which I will address later in my speech.
I also want to make it absolutely clear at the outset that the Bill has nothing whatever to do with reform of the House of Lords. It is exclusively concerned with the succession to hereditary titles. It is up to Parliament to decide whether or not the holders of such titles should be entitled to sit in Parliament. Possibly this question will arise again in the not too far distant future, and possibly not, but whatever the outcome of the next general election and any proposal for reform that may follow it, that will not be affected one way or another by the Bill.
Perhaps I may now draw attention to the general law on legitimacy as it now stands. In various reports on the subject the Law Commissions of England and Wales and of Scotland—the two Law Commissions—recommended, as a matter of general principle, the removal of any discrimination against a person born outside matrimony, whose parents subsequently contracted matrimony. This principle has been adopted by Parliament in various Acts including the Legitimacy Act 1976, the Family Law Reform Acts 1969 and 1987 and the Children Act 1989.
However, as regards titles of honour, the Law Commissions did not propose any change in the law. It might be surmised that this was at least partly because the vast majority of extant hereditary peerages (526 out of a total of 772 entitled to a seat in this House) are peerages of the United Kingdom, created since 1801, while the Law Commissions' remit is confined to their respective regions and countries. There is no Law Commission for the United Kingdom as a whole.
The upshot is that a person legitimated by subsequent matrimony has exactly the same rights and responsibilities as if he had been born legitimate, with the outstanding exception in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but not in Scotland, of the inheritance of titles of honour. Indeed paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 1 of the Legitimacy Act 1976 expressly provides that apart from Section 1, which deals with void marriages,
358
"nothing in this Act shall affect the succession to any dignity or title of honour or render any person capable of succeeding to or transmitting a right to succeed to any such dignity or title".
In this, it simply follows Section 10 of the Legitimacy Act 1926.
This is in marked contrast to the situation in Scotland where it has always been accepted under Scottish common law, subsequently codified by the Legitimation (Scotland) Act 1968, that persons legitimated by subsequent matrimony are eligible to succeed to Scottish titles and do so succeed. Furthermore, we have the extraordinary anomaly that a person legitimated in England by the subsequent marriage of his parents may inherit a Scottish title but would be debarred from inheriting an English, Irish, British or United Kingdom title in the same circumstances. This is surely quite unacceptable. I can see no sound reason why those of us who hold such titles should not benefit from the same regime as the Scots. The United Kingdom is clearly made up of different component parts, but it is still a unitary state.
That is the background to the reform I am proposing. The current exclusion of most but not all hereditary titles from the general thrust of the law on legitimacy across the United Kingdom is clearly discriminatory and my aim is to remove this discrimination. I am glad to be able to report to your Lordships that the Bill has widespread support among representative bodies of the legal profession outside Parliament. It is supported by the Family Law Committee of the Law Society, by the Family Law Bar Association, and by the Solicitors' Family Law Association. They are all united in their opposition to discrimination against any particular category of citizen—correctly, it seems to me. I have also received assurances that this Bill would not be opposed by the Labour Party in another place although of course I obviously will not pre-empt what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has to say from his Front Bench in this House.
Let me take your Lordships briefly through the Bill. It is my duty to do so. It is always an attractive idea that a one-clause Bill will do the trick for a simple matter. But usually a number of subsidiary and consequential matters need to be taken care of. So this Bill has six clauses and a schedule, all straightforward but the minimum required to do the job efficiently.
Clause 1(1) is the principal provision of the Bill and would enable legitimated persons to succeed and transmit a right to succeed to titles. That is at present excluded by provisions in the current legislation concerned with legitimation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—provisions which are repealed by Clause 6(1) and the schedule to the Bill. In Scotland legitimated persons can already succeed to titles, as I mentioned earlier.
Clause 1(2) makes it quite clear that the words "lawfully begotten", or similar words in letters patent or other instrument creating a title, will not prevent a legitimated person from succeeding to a title. In the case of a barony by writ, the title has no instrument of creation; hence the acknowledgement in the subsection that not all titles have such an instrument.

359
Clause 1(3) establishes that the Bill covers persons legitimated under, or recognised as legitimated under, the law of any part of the United Kingdom. It also defines "title" widely to cover any dignity or title of honour—and in that it follows paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 1 of the 1976 Act which employs the identical phrase, "any dignity or title of honour". Section 10(1) of the Northern Ireland Act is to the same effect. It is drawn in the same terms. The Bill accordingly goes beyond peerages and would embrace baronetcies as well.
Clause 2 is a technical clause concerning seniority. It would normally secure that the eldest child, if legitimated, would have seniority. The other provisions in the clause concern in particular the case of the holder of a title marrying en secondes notes a woman by whom he has previously had an illegitimate child. But that child's legitimation, and therefore his seniority, would date from the remarriage and he would not be able to displace an heir, albeit younger in years than himself of the first marriage.
Clause 3 makes it clear that the Bill covers existing titles, but that it will affect only successions on a death occurring after the Bill is enacted. It does not bite back into the past and could not therefore disturb any present title holder. Nor could the descendant of someone legitimated in the past, but deceased, disturb the succession to the current line. All successions through a legitimated person who died before the passing of the Act are excluded.
This clause is also intended to secure that the interference with present expectations is the minimum consistent with the aims of the Bill. It is obvious that some hypothetical expectations—and I have reason to believe a very small number of actual expectations—may be disappointed. But here I would point out that the expectation of an heir presumptive can never be other than contingent on the current holder not remarrying, however late in life, and producing an heir. Even an heir apparent—that is, a male child in the direct line of succession—may have his expectation disappointed by untimely death, as recent tragic events have shown in a noble Scottish family. Some expectations exist only as a result of the discrimination and anomalies to which I have referred. Others may be blown away by fate. Expectations are not foolproof or irreversible entitlements.
Clause 4 recognises the fact that under Scottish law legitimated persons are already able to succeed to Scottish titles. It leaves the Scottish law to operate where it operates already and, in effect, ring-fences the Scottish position.
Clause 5 exempts the Crown from the scope of the Bill, making nonsense of the hysterical claim in the Daily Express recently that if the Bill became law,
"the Queen would not be the Queen".
I may add that Clause 3, which I have already discussed, equally makes nonsense of the other assertion in the same column; namely, that,
"a good half of the Lords would lose their seats".
I am not paranoid about the press, but if the Daily Express cannot do better than that, I suggest that it sacks someone in its research department and sharpens up its
360
act. In the meantime, I can assure all noble Lords that as far as their titles go they have absolute security of tenure. As regards a seat in this House, that is a matter for any reform Bill that may be presented to Parliament.
Clause 6 (the last clause) ushers in the consequential repeals in the schedule and gives the Short Title of the Bill.
This is a small Bill designed to tidy up a small corner of the law. We have for some time now ceased to discriminate against children born outside wedlock through no fault of their own, nor often of their parents, as, for example, in the case of a premature birth or a long and complicated divorce procedure in another country. The act and commitment of marriage or remarriage is the important thing, and that is at the heart of the Bill. That is what has been upheld by all family law legislation over the past quarter of a century—and rightly so in my view—as the trigger of legitimacy and all that flows from it.
It might be argued that hereditary peerages are such an arcane and unusual institution that the general law should not apply to them. There is not much foundation for that. The hereditary peerage is certainly not older than the institution of marriage. In fact, as I have already indicated, much of it is of very recent origin. The great majority of current hereditary peerages have been created since 1831 and a large proportion of those since 1918. Taken as a whole, we are not all that far removed from our origins in the business, commercial, agrarian, intellectual and recent political life of this country. That is our strength. There is nothing unusual or mystical about us requiring unusual or mystical rules as for some ancient priesthood.
The one thing that is special about us is the privilege that we enjoy (or most of us enjoy it; there are some exceptions) of a voice and vote in your Lordships' House. However, I think that I have demonstrated that the Bill will have no effect one way or another on that. Peering—if I may be forgiven the pun—a little further into the future of the hereditary peerage, I can well foresee a time when we shall no longer enjoy that privilege as of right. That does not mean that we shall cease to exist unless formally abolished by a republic—an eventuality which may yet be some way down the track, perhaps over the horizon. In the meantime, I venture to suggest that holders of hereditary titles should be in no worse or different a position as regards legitimation and its effects than that enjoyed by the generality of the population of England and Wales and Northern Ireland, as laid down by the statute law of the land, to which I propose these modest amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Kilmarnock.)
9.8 p.m.
Lord Morris Lord Morris rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now") and at end insert ("this day six months").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful for the very clear way in which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has introduced his Bill to the

361
House. I found his silence on the effect of his Bill deafening. Let me explain what I mean by that. What any reasonable man should seek in the law is clarity, brevity and, above all, certainty. While I suppose we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for the brevity and clarity of his Bill, I am of the opinion that the effect of the Bill wars most heavily in its effect against certainty.
We must first look at the nature of hereditary peerages—and we must not forget of course baronetcies. They are created by letters patent under the Great Seal in a form prescribed by rules under the Crown Office Act 1877, which limits succession to the heirs of his body lawfully begotten.
To put this another way, the creation of an hereditary title and the rules of succession are a question solely—I repeat, solely—of Royal Prerogative. It is my view that it is quite wrong for a Member of this House to attempt to usurp that prerogative.
Let me attempt to illustrate the uncertainties that the Bill will create. In marked contradistinction to the Legitimacy Act 1959, which enabled children of putative marriages to succeed to titles, this Bill, as drafted, would affect those born before as well as after the commencement of the Act. This would inevitably have the effect of depriving some heirs apparent of their title in favour of persons born out of wedlock, and legitimated not by the will of the Crown, so to speak, but by the parents of the previously illegitimate child.
At this stage, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, was totally silent on the question of entailment. This is of critical importance. It is a lawyer's term of art for the movement of property which flows with the title. All those property rights and expectations would be lost.
A slightly more complex case is where a Peer has one son out of wedlock, marries the mother and then has a second son. The second son, who will at present expect to succeed, would be deprived by the Bill since his elder brother will, by Clause 2, be deemed to have been born by the date of the marriage.
Rather more difficult and doubtful is the case where a Peer has a son legitimated by a subsequent marriage and, before the commencement of the Act, dies, so that the collateral line, or the younger legitimate son in my previous example, succeeds to the title. The legitimated person, however, is still alive at the commencement so that his line of succession is not barred by virtue of Clause 3. The question then arises of whether the legitimated person's claim revives when the succession next opens on a death after commencement, so that he may assert it against, for example, his nephew (the son of his younger legitimate brother in the example I gave). It is not clear whether the Bill is intended to cover that position; but it is arguable that it does, and with the effect of reviving the claim of the legitimated person or a claim made through him by his son.
I can see another and not unfanciful mischief that this ill-begotten Bill provides. Let us say that the son, a legitimate heir of most probably, I suspect, a Liberal Peer, with the assistance of several willing ladies, sires
362
a string of sons out of each of these ladies. He then waits until they are all of personable age and decides which of his father's grandsons shall succeed to the title.
I shall not weary the House further with a catalogue of the uncertainties and harm that the Bill would create. One thing is certain: to move, as this Bill most certainly does, the power away from the intention of the person creating the honour—namely, the Crown—to the holder or the heir presumptive of the title is to encourage irresponsibility and is clearly wrong. The ability to create uncertainties in the succession of titles by virtue of this Bill is limited only by the imagination of man. Families can be quite revolting enough as it is. This Bill positively encourages them to be more so. I beg to move the amendment standing in my name.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now") and at end insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Morris.
9.14 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, the very term "heirs of the body" evokes a form of comfort which appears to have no contradiction until one looks into the depths of the inheritance laws of the Peerage and the root of their existence, and the importance of the Crown prerogative.
Thus it is that one must return to col. 685 of Hansard of 27th November 1986, and to the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham when he was Lord Chancellor, at the Second Reading of the Family Law Reform Bill, which is now an Act.
In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, "Why not titles of honour?", my noble friend went on to say:
"Far more important than … hereditary Peerages is the descent of the Crown. It would raise serious questions if I were to embark upon this delicate field in relation to the Family Law Reform Bill. The patent which creates the Peerage, except in those few Peerages which are created by writ, where different and common law considerations arise, is normally to the heirs of the body lawfully begotten and to be begotten".
My noble friend went on to say (at col. 686):
"It is part of the Crown's prerogative to ensure that it descends through the married line. What is far more convincing to my mind is that even in 1926, when we legitimated children per subsequens matrimonium, thereby following the Roman Catholic Church and not the Church of England, the question of the descent of titles of honour was expressly reserved. They can only be legitimated if lawfully begotten at the time".
Perhaps we believe that we sail in so-called "charted waters" with the legitimacy Acts, but there are also the gods of the copy book headings, and they are to be respected. Acceptance of this Bill could have severe consequences, particularly in connection with its retrospective effect.
I cannot support this Bill and will support my noble friend's amendment.
9.17 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, when I first glanced at this Bill, I thought it was pretty innocuous. But when I came to examine it more carefully, I began to have misgivings. Upon further investigation, my misgivings increased to the point where I shall support

363
the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morris. Having said that, I think that there is not one of us here who does not sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, in his predicament. But it seems to me that his Bill, if enacted, would make bad law. I wonder whether there might not be some other way of achieving what he seeks.
There are two principal aspects of the Bill which I find totally unacceptable: first, its retrospective effect, and, secondly, the disappointing of legitimate expectations. That is what Clause 3 does. If the Bill receives a Second Reading, I shall seek to amend Clause 3 at Committee stage, so as to remove the first and avoid the second.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, dismisses legitimate expectations in a somewhat cavalier manner. But the disappointing of them can be the cause of much sorrow and bad blood in a family, and is something to be avoided wherever possible. God may blow them away, but that is no reason for us to do so.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Kinkel, in his judgment given in 1986 on the appeal of Dunbar of Kilconzie, clearly thought that both retrospection and the disappointing of legitimate expectations should be avoided; and although his judgment applies to Scotland and this Bill is not, I understand, supposed to apply to Scotland,—although I do not find that that emerges very clearly from reading the Bill—the principle applies equally to England and Wales. I am very sorry that the noble and learned Lord is not hem this evening to contribute to this debate. There is a way in which what the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, seeks might be achieved without the damage that this Bill will do.
In Scotland, in the early days—by that I mean before 1603 —it was, by the law of Scotland competent to the grantee of a peerage, or any of his successors, to resign such grant into the hands of the Crown in return for a new grant which could limit the destination in such manner as the grantee, with the consent of the sovereign, might direct. Indeed, it was customary to resign any peerage to the Crown on the accession of a new sovereign, and hope for a re-grant, which could of course be dependent on past good conduct. I believe that that law has not been repealed.
I should be happy to support such legislation for GB and UK peerages, provided of course that no legitimate claimants existed or that their consent had been obtained before any alteration was requested in the destination. That would also enable peerages which are in danger of extinction, for want of male issue, to be revitalised.
It occurred to me that another way of doing this might be by a personal Bill. But I believe that the Personal Bills Committee might think otherwise. So that may not be a very practical suggestion. As it stands, I shall support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morris.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. I support the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. This Bill is a "Legitimated Persons" Bill. It dwells on those who have been illegitimate and who have suffered in the past. I
364
speak now as a genealogist. I can tell the House that I have looked at parish registers and illegitimate issue have been referred to as "base child", "bastard" or "son (or daughter) of a harlot". We are all Peers in this House and we are all equal. We are all addressed as noble Lords, apart of course from Dukes, who are not very numerous.
With regard to succession, there have been many what I might call eccentric legal arguments. But a case can be made. There have been various Acts on legitimisation in England and Scotland. An illegitimate person can inherit. On the rare occasions on which it might occur with regard to this House, illegitimate people could well inherit. I see no reason for any objection, whatever the legal argument. But we have to look at what might be called the basis of the argument.
Perhaps I may make just one final comment. I have already spoken for one minute and would like to extend my observations to one minute and a half. In 1968, in a debate in your Lordships' House, the late Lord Ramsey, Archbishop of Canterbury, in the days of his primacy, quoting an old hymn said:
"There is room for fresh creations
In that upper home of bliss".
I support the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, I rise to intervene rather than to make a speech. The Bill has been criticised as a personal Bill and perhaps I may be allowed to declare a personal interest. There were two English kings who had a good brood of bastards: Henry I and Charles II. It is from Charles II that some of our Dukes are descended. I am proud of my illegitimate descent from one of the illegitimate children of Henry I. Whatever modem American women may say, in those days there was honour in being a royal mistress.
The fate of the legitimate son and heir of Henry I is well known. He would have survived the sinking of the White Ship, if he had not sought to rescue his illegitimate half-sister, the Countess of Perche. They both drowned together and there followed all the misery of the contested succession under Stephen and Matilda, when the government were so weak and the Church so strong that canon law exceeded all proper bounds into probate and so on.
What is the practical outcome of an old inheritance, a peerage and a bastardy? Let me cite just one example. The Earl of Egremont, patron of Turner, had only illegitimate issue. Queen Victoria said of that:
"A barony is enough for a bastard; an Earldom is too much".
Egremont mortgaged the Orchard Wyndham property in Somerset, entailed on the legitimate line, to the hilt. To pay off the mortgages the legitimate line was unable to pay for their daughters' dowries. They had to lock up all their daughters, a tragedy surely of a large scale if we have any feeling. I should like to oppose the Bill.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, although I speak from this Bench, I do so in a personal capacity since the Opposition have no set views on this issue, if such a

365
term is allowable, considering the nature of the Bill. However, I think that my views would be acceptable to most members of the Labour Party. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, on bringing this small measure before your Lordships and on his, as usual, very clear method of presentation.
The Bill itself, in my humble view, is very carefully drawn up and I hope will need no amendment. In supporting the Bill I, like other noble Lords who have spoken, wish to declare an interest in that I have a grandson who is legitimated in the eyes of the law and falls into the category covered by the Bill. In fact, my interest is really of a technical nature since no one in my family takes the matter terribly seriously. We all assume and, in fact, hope that the right of hereditary Peers to sit as legislators will finally have been abolished long before the time this three year-old could inherit his title. But I have to say that I have always thought, since my early adulthood, that that time would have come to pass before I inherited the title. So I have to enter the caveat that perhaps he will still be able to sit in the House of Lords, although the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said that that is not the point of the exercise.
Without this archaic privilege, which we all enjoy, of sitting in your Lordships' House and being able to speak and vote, the possession of an hereditary title is merely an historical curiosity, especially when it is not accompanied by a stately home or a fortune. But I accept that such a title means a lot to some families, especially if the title represents an ancient lineage, even if it were not to be associated with the right to attend and vote in your Lordships' House. Certainly, hereditary peerages on the Continent continue. Some people take them seriously although others regard them as an object for ridicule.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, the 1976 Act to legitimate children was really a consolidation measure. The question of the inheritance of titles was omitted because it would have required new legislation. This Bill provides the opportunity to remedy that deficiency and to correct what, as the noble Lord has described, amounts to a real discrimination against legally legitimated persons. The anomaly in which male legitimated persons, or female in some cases, can inherit Scottish titles but not English, British, UK or Irish titles should surely not be allowed to persist.
I find it curious that any noble Lord can oppose this manifestly fair Bill. I certainly was not convinced by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, which were rather far-fetched and unrealistic. He said that families are revolting and this Bill will make them worse. I found that an extraordinary statement because I believe that exactly the reverse is the purpose of this Bill, bringing to the first-born child of a couple the justice that should be his. This House and the Peerage which fills it is only here because of tradition. That has many anomalies. This Bill will help to reduce those anomalies and bring the Peerage up to date. It will make fairer an ancient institution.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has given us an opportunity to consider the topic of this Bill with a closer focus than was possible when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with his customary thoroughness, raised it during the passage of the Family Law Bill in 1986.
Legislation enacting reforms in this area has not been the province of any one party in government, and the government's position is neutral since it seems that the issue to be decided is where and how one is to draw the line between the principle of non-discrimination and the principle that those with a genuine and well-founded expectation of succession should not be unfairly deprived.
The Legitimacy Act 1959 which put children of certain void marriages on the same basis as those of valid marriages for all purposes including succession to titles drew the line on the side of existing expectations and applied the change as it affected titles only to those born after the passing of the Act. Where the line might be drawn in the present case and how this might affect the Bill are pre-eminently matters for this House to decide on a free vote.
Care has been taken to limit the effect of the Bill on existing expectations, but the Government see some difficulties with the Bill as it is currently drafted. In order for the Bill to avoid destroying any genuine existing expectations, it would have to be limited in such a way as to change its character in what may be felt to be a fundamental way. For example, it might be limited so as to affect only those born after its passing, or to come into force in relation to any particular title only when every person living and with a genuine expectation at Royal Assent had died.
There may be changes, depending on your Lordships' views of the nature of the line to be drawn, which could be made short of those I have described but dealing with the more difficult cases. There is one area in particular where the Bill is at least unclear and in which it may have effects which would cause anxiety. That concerns the case in which a legitimated person has before the passing of the Bill been passed over for the succession to a title but is alive and legitimated at the time the Bill is passed. It is not clear whether the Bill is intended to, or would, have the effect of reviving the legitimated person's claim and enabling him to transmit it so that it might be asserted when the succession next opens, but it does seem that it might have that effect as currently drafted.
That is connected with another issue, which is the way in which the Bill relates to Scottish law. It is, as I understand it, the intention that the Bill should not affect Scottish law, which is already broadly in line with what the Bill sets out to do. But it is not clear why the Bill is not simply excluded from applying to Scotland. Indeed, there is a possibility that the Bill might, as currently drafted, have the effect of changing Scottish law if it has the effect which I have described of reviving the claim of a legitimated person previously passed over.

367
That is because that point has been considered in the Scottish context, where the Legitimation (Scotland) Act 1968 retrospectively legitimated certain people. It was decided that considerations of reason and justice favoured the conclusion that the claim of a person thus legitimated many years after the succession passed over should not be revived; and the Bill's effect on this decision is not clear. It may well be that it would have the effect of reversing the decision, which would call into question the way in which the Bill deals with Scottish law.
I think it proper to confine myself to giving the Government's view of the Bill as currently drafted. I know that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has written to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, pointing out his worries on the various issues that I have raised. I have drawn your Lordships' attention to certain aspects of the Bill which seem to the Government to he important. Views may differ on the question of whether those matters and others which have been raised are of a nature suited to discussion and resolution in Committee or whether they go to the heart of the Bill. Those matters and the question of whether the Bill should receive a Second Reading are, as I have said, pre-eminently matters for decision by this House on a free vote.
I accordingly wish simply to close on a note of gratitude to those who have taken part in this debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for initiating it.
9.36 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken although not all have spoken as I would have wished. I should like to refer first to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morris. The noble Lord is under a misapprehension. There has been no interference whatever with the Royal Prerogative. The Royal Prerogative has been placed by Her Majesty at the disposal of Parliament and of this House for the purpose of this Bill. In fact, the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, came from the Palace precisely to make that declaration to your Lordships shortly before Christmas. As I said, there is absolutely no question whatever of unwarranted interference with the Royal Prerogative. I am very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, was not aware of that.
I must refute the noble Lord's comments about lack of clarity. I should like to take just a moment to read out Clause 3 which states:
"This Act applies to persons legitimated before as well as persons legitimated after the passing of this Act and has effect in relation to titles created before as well as titles created after that passing, but it shall have effect only in relation to succession on a death occurring after that passing, and no person shall by virtue of this Act have any right of succession to a title based on a relationship to a legitimated person who died before that passing".
I should have thought that that was crystal clear.
I understand the reference by the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, to "heirs of the body" and to the phrase "lawfully begotten". Clause 1(2) extends the definition of the words "lawfully begotten".
368
It is not true that patents are absolutely sacred. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has drawn to my attention cases in which patents have been varied. As your Lordships know, the noble Earl is a distinguished medieval historian and he has drawn my attention particularly to the case of Lord Brooke in 1628 who succeeded his cousin—by whom he had been adopted when but four years of age—in the peerage under the the special limitation of the patent. It is not true that patents have never been varied. They are not, in that sense, completely Holy Writ.
In regard to the interesting speech of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, I was surprised that she referred to the Bill as "bad law". In fact, it attempts to replicate the law of Scotland. We often say in your Lordships' House that they order things better north of the Border. Indeed, that was one of the assumptions of the Bill. I therefore found that a rather strange remark. With regard to the noble Lady's point about retrospection, I draw her attention to Clause 3, which I have quoted. It is absolutely clear that that is not retrospective.
The noble Lady referred to the case of Dunbar of Kilconzie, of which she kindly sent me copies. I read it with great care. This Bill would not have gone against the ruling which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith, delivered in that case, and so it would be entirely on all-fours, all square with that ruling.
With regard to the very interesting suggestion the noble Lady made of re-grants, I venture to say to her that I do not believe that this particular procedure has been used since the Act of Union, 1707. It would seem to me to place a tremendous burden on the Crown if people were always petitioning, let us say, to jump over a black sheep in their family in order to award the title to someone whom they thought would bear it more honourably or more reputably. It seems to me that what we have here is very much more simple than the procedure that she has proposed.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? I think I suggested that the Crown would only give a re-grant, with a destination as the Peer wished, if all other claimants were in agreement or had died out.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I appreciate that, but I think it still would impose a burden on the Crown. There would be constant petitions going to the Crown. That is one of the reasons, if I recall correctly, why your Lordships were not very happy with a Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, which required these constant approaches to the Crown. I thought it was an interesting suggestion, but obviously it would be an entirely different Bill from this one if the noble Lady felt inclined to introduce it. If she did, however, I am sure we would discuss it with great interest. Obviously I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, with his great genealogical knowledge, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, from the Labour Front Bench, for the stress that he placed on discrimination against those who are legitimated.

369
I am also extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for having replied on behalf of the Government and set out a neutral position. Very properly, I thought, she set out various concerns which, in my submission, could or should be properly addressed in Committee. The noble Baroness herself made a number of suggestions and in effect produced a "menu" of possible amendments. I, as promoter and mover of this Bill, would be very happy to consider any or all of those when we come to the Committee stage. It seems to me that the Government are completely correct and proper in the matter of this Bill and I hope that we will follow what I take to be her suggestion; that we should be able to proceed and to discuss these various ideas, and if necessary change the Bill.
On the point made by the noble Baroness about reviving the claim of a legitimated person previously passed over, I think she was not quite correct. In fact, the Bill provides against that and, as I said to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, it would not affect the ruling of Lord Keith in the Dunbar of Kilconzie case. I believe the Bill has been well enough and tightly enough drafted to avoid the eventuality mentioned by the noble Baroness.
For all these reasons—and we have had an interesting debate—I feel it would be in accordance with the normal procedure and traditions of this House that a Bill, albeit a modest Bill, that has aroused a considerable amount of interest—in fact, rather more interest than I thought it might—should be allowed to proceed to the Committee stage. I would therefore say to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, before he decides what he is going to do, that I very much hope that he will not press his dilatory amendment and that he will agree that the Bill should go forward so that we are able to discuss some or all of these matters—some of which are very detailed and quite technical—in the proper setting of a Committee. I hope that he will take up that suggestion in the perfectly friendly manner in which it is proffered to him. I look forward to hearing his concluding remarks.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, critically in his first speech the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, prayed in aid organisations outside Parliament concerned with family law reform which he had consulted. They happened to be the Family Law Bar Association, the Family Law Committee of the Law Society and the Solicitors' Family Law Association. My God, they would support the Bill, would they not, because of the chaos that it will cause. They will have God knows how many briefs winging in their direction. I pray in aid a much higher authority than that.
Every Sitting Day in Parliament we beseech Almighty God, among other things, that,
"laying aside all private interests, prejudices and partial affections",
we work towards the,
"peace and tranquillity of the Realm, and the uniting and knitting together of the hearts of all persons and estates within the same, in true Christian Love and Charity".
370
There is no Bill better designed to war against that principle than this Bill, and I feel that I must take the opinion of the House.
9.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 14.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Long, V.

Brantford, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas, L.

Burnham, L.

Lyell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Melville, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Morris, L. [Teller.]

Elles, B.

Newall, L.

Faithfull, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Falkland, V.

Oxford, V. [Teller.]

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Plumb, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Goschen, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gray, L

Seccombe, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Henley, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Hooper, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lindsay, E.

Trumpington, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L

HolmPatrick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

Rea, L. [Teller.]

Mar and Kellie, E.

Strafford, E.

McNair, L.

Teviot, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1995
9.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th February be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move. I am sure that the noble Lord opposite will feel that, unfortunately, this is not an unusual time at which to start Northern Ireland business.
This is one in a series of financial orders covering Northern Ireland departments which come before the House each year. The draft order before us today authorises expenditure of £198.2 million for Northern ireland departments for the current financial year. That is in addition to the £5,824 million voted by the House last June. The order also authorises the vote-on-account

371
of £2,705 million for 1995–96 to enable the services of Northern Ireland departments to continue until the 1995–96 main estimates are brought before your Lordships later this year.
Before turning to the details of the estimates, I should like to set them in the context of the recent performance of the Northern Ireland economy. The local economy as a whole continues to perform well. That is reflected in the figures for those in employment and those out of work. The number of employees in employment in Northern Ireland now stands at 553,850—an all-time high for the region. Seasonally adjusted unemployment has fallen in 10 of the past 12 months and, at 12.4 per cent. of the workforce, is now at its lowest level for 13 years.
That is encouraging, as is the marked upturn in business confidence, exports, output and investment intentions revealed in recent surveys of Northern Ireland business. Those also indicate that Northern Ireland industry is beginning to benefit from the cessation of violence by the paramilitaries. While those are welcome developments, none of us can afford to be complacent. Government will continue to assist local industry to improve its competitiveness and to maximise the opportunities offered by the economic recovery now under way.
With your Lordships' permission, I now turn to the main items in the estimates, starting with the Department of Agriculture. In Vote 1, a token increase of £1,000 is required to reflect various changes in the vote. Some £2 million is required for additional uptake under the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme. That is offset by savings in other areas.
In Vote 2, covering local support measures, some £25.2 million is sought; £26.5 million is for the Agricultural Development Operational Programme, where claims were higher than anticipated; £0.7 million is for the disease eradication programme; and some £1.3 million is carry forward of capital and running costs from 1993–94 to 1994–95. Those increases are partially offset by reduced requirements elsewhere within the vote.
Turning to the Department of Economic Development, a net increase of some £19 million is sought in Vote 1. That includes £4.7 million for the Industrial Development Board for the provision of land and buildings which is to meet expenditure on factory buildings for recent inward investment projects and reflects the continuing success of the board in attracting competitive companies to Northern Ireland; and £17.7 million is for selective assistance to industry, mainly for existing inward investment projects and for local, very competitive companies. Also in this vote, £6.5 million is required for Shorts recapitalisation programme. Those increases are offset by increased receipts totalling £8.5 million from the sale of IDB factories and lands.
In Vote 2, a token increase of £1,000 is sought. Some £0.6 million is for the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. That will enable the board to promote and market Northern Ireland as a tourist destination. The increase is offset by increased receipts elsewhere in the vote.
Vote 4 makes substantive provision for expenses incurred in the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland. Those costs have been met from the second instalment payments received in respect of the Northern Ireland electricity share issue.
I now turn to the Department of the Environment. A net increase of some £5.4 million is sought in Vote 1, including some £4.3 million for the road network. Some £0.8 million is for the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency. Those increases are partially offset by increased receipts, including those for car parking and ferry services. Also in the vote, over £47 million is appropriated in respect of the sale of Northern Ireland Airports Limited.
In Vote 2, covering housing, token provision of £1,000 is sought. Additional grant to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive of some £4.7 million includes increased resources for maintenance and to offset a fall in rental income from lower than anticipated house sales. Gross housing expenditure in Northern Ireland this year is expected to be about £564 million, some £5 million more than 1993–94. Much has already been achieved in improving housing standards in Northern Ireland and that will enable further progress to be made.
In Vote 4, covering environmental and other services, a net increase of some £3 million is sought. That includes £1.3 million for comprehensive development schemes and various adjustments between programmes. Increased expenditure is partially offset by additional receipts of £2.5 million.
I now turn to the Department of Education, where a net increase of £2.7 million is sought in Vote 1. That includes some £4.1 million for grants to education and library boards, mainly for maintenance, minor works and equipment. £1.7 million is for voluntary schools, mainly for health and safety and equipment. Those increases are offset by savings elsewhere in the vote.
In Vote 2, an additional £5.4 million is sought. Some £3 million is for mandatory awards and student loans, reflecting increased demands. £1.2 million is for universities, mainly for essential equipment. Some £0.4 million is for arts and museums, including the adaptation of premises to improve access and facilities for disabled people. Increases are also required for departmental administration, youth services and the Armagh observatory and planetarium.
I now turn to the Department of Health and Social Services, where a net increase of £12.9 million is sought in Vote 1. That includes £9 million for hospital, community health and personal social services and £6.5 million for capital expenditure. It also includes £1 million to provide additional help for people disabled by violence. That will help improve facilities at the regional development centre at Musgrave Park Hospital and provide better wheelchairs. Those increases are offset by increased receipts and a reduction of £3.4 million in loans provision to trusts.
I move now to Vote 3, where additional net provision of £2.1 million is required. That includes some £7 million for administration costs and capital expenditure. Those increases are offset by reductions elsewhere and by a net increases in receipts of some £4.9 million.
Finally, in Vote 4 which covers social security, £80.5 million is sought. That is due mainly to a greater than anticipated demand for income support and disability benefits, in particular, attendance and disability living allowances. That is offset by a decrease in family credit. I hope that your Lordships have found the summary of the main components of the order helpful. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th February be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, first, I wish to thank the noble Baroness for the care with which she has explained so clearly to the House the important details of the expenditure which is authorised by this draft order. It is very much our hope, as it is clearly the hope of the whole House and the people of Northern Ireland, that the peace process in Northern Ireland will make it possible in the not too distant future to put an end to the Westminster machinery of an appropriation order. The prospect of achieving an enduring peace is far better than anyone would have dreamt of two years ago. I believe that is the time I last spoke to an appropriation order.
We have had the ceasefire for six months and the two governments have produced their agreed joint framework document. I believe it is fair to say from these Benches that the Government are entitled to their full share of the credit for the changed scene. But our hope must be that the ceasefire and the enormously improved prospects of achieving an enduring peace should make it possible to adjust the December 1993 estimated expenditure of £2.8 billion on the law and order programme for the period 1994–97, and to divert yet more resources to the task of regeneration in Northern Ireland.
However, I am conscious of the warning by Coopers & Lybrand, in its January review of the Northern Ireland economy, that the Treasury may take its own peace dividend. That warning has not gone unnoticed. I am sure that I need not remind the House, notwithstanding the Minister's comforting and sincere words, that unemployment still remains a considerable social problem, being very high at 12.1 per cent. compared to 8.4 per cent. in Britain. Over half the unemployed—90,000 or so—have been unemployed for more than a year. Therefore more money is badly and urgently needed to strengthen the economy.
As is the custom at this time of the year—and has been the custom for 10 years at least—the Minister has reviewed the performance of the Northern Ireland economy. The noble Baroness has done so in pretty optimistic terms. I trust that she has got it right.
As the Minister explained, the draft order falls into two main parts. First, it authorises additional expenditure for the financial year 1994–95, ending on 31st March. Secondly, it authorises the sum required on account for 1995–96 pending the main Estimates. That funding is very substantial indeed and this, of course, excludes the expenditure by the Northern Ireland Office on law and order.
374
It is late in the evening and we have to turn our attention to two orders. Therefore in the short time available I wish briefly and inadequately to draw attention to two or three topics in which I happen to have an interest. If we look at the supplementary increases for the year 1994–95, I believe, if I have understood the columns correctly, that the biggest single item is in connection with the privatisation of the electricity industry. I am sure the Minister will know that the privatisation of the Northern Ireland electricity industry has been a most controversial issue, and the division was not only on political or party lines. I shall not weary the House with those arguments tonight. But I would like to ask the Minister to confirm whether the proposed expenditure in 1995–96, under Vote 2, on what is described in Vote 2 as "residual privatisation costs", will see the end of this item of expenditure.
I note that there is a small increase in one of the Votes of the Department of Agriculture on measures of agricultural and fisheries support for the year ending 31st March of this year. This gives me the opportunity to ask the Minister—I believe that she is in charge of the Department of Agriculture—how many fishing vessel owners from Northern Ireland have applied for the decommissioning grant under which they would scrap their vessel and surrender its licence. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether Northern Ireland's fishing industry receives equal treatment from the EC compared with the fishing industry in the Republic.
I have good news for the Minister. She will be pleased to learn that the community development programme of the Northern Ireland Rural Development Council has attracted a great deal of favourable comment by voluntary bodies which are primarily concerned with the well being of the Welsh countryside. Consequently they refer me to the development programme of the Northern Ireland Rural Development Council. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the programme is achieving the objectives set out in paragraph 5.46 on page 44 of the Expenditure Plan and Priorities, 1994–1997.
The Minister touched upon the health Vote. On that I merely ask whether she can assure the House that the Department of Health in Northern Ireland is not pursuing an insensitive policy of closure of hospital beds. There is increasing concern about the hospital beds run-down programme in England and Wales and that sick people are suffering in the result. I hope that the Minister can be reassuring on that point.
I wish to spend a moment or two on my final point. It relates to a matter that is not in the order—or at least I have not seen it. I refer to a possibly hidden Vote, which I suspect is among the smallest of all the Votes. I refer to the expenditure on promoting community relations and fostering mutual understanding and respect among children and young people in schools and colleges in Northern Ireland. This programme has considerable potential, but also considerable implications for teacher training colleges, the education and library boards, head teachers, teachers and school governors.

375
I have always been a supporter of integrated schools since the first was opened in 1981. There are by now about 23 such schools with enrolments of about 4,000. My support for integrated schools, and certainly party support for such schools, in a divided society is undiminished. But in the short-term there is also great potential in the cross-community programmes for bringing about changes in attitudes and improving relations between the young people of the two communities.
Arising out of what is not stated explicitly in the appropriation order, I wish to ask the Minister two questions and to make one comment about the cross-community programme. First, the planned expenditure for 1994–95 was, to quote page 122 of the December 1993 Estimates, "almost £2.5 million". What is the outturn, or estimated outturn, for the year ending 31st March? Secondly, what is the planned expenditure for the year 1995–96?
My comment is this: I have searched in vain through the order—I believe that there are about 3,000 words in the draft appropriation order—for a single reference (even a five worded reference) to expenditure on promoting community relations and mutual understanding during the coming year, and have failed to trace it. I assume that it is included under the heading "miscellaneous services". If that is so, it is discouraging for those working in that difficult area. I ask the Minister whether she will ensure that the programme receives the priority that it rightly deserves. That is the single most important message that I want to deliver to the Minister arising out of the appropriation order.
I have touched inadequately upon a few topics covered by the order. Some will say that undoubtedly the heart of this order lies in the industry Vote. For others it lies in the countryside Vote. For others it undoubtedly lies in the health Vote. But for my part, it lies in a Vote which does not deserve a specific mention, if I have got it right. I believe it is true to say that the heart of all the people in Northern Ireland lies now in fostering mutual understanding and tolerance which could lead to enduring peace in the not-too-distant future.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her extremely clear and helpful introduction of the order. Perhaps I may also say what a pleasure it is to see the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, back in the select club of those who deal with Northern Ireland orders late at night, as is our wont.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said that for some people the economic and industrial section of the appropriation order was at its heart. I may be one of those, although I shall wish to come back a little later in my remarks to the point on community relations which he made. It would be right to preface what I am about to say by briefly trying to give an overview of the state of the Northern Ireland economy.
The noble Lord referred to the extraordinarily high level of unemployment. Despite the best endeavours of local companies, local employers and the Government, as well as the Northern Ireland Office, we still have a painfully high level of unemployment. As the noble
376
Lord said, about half of those are long-term unemployed. The economy of Northern Ireland is such that only 20 firms employ more than 1,000 people. It is an economy still more dependent on agriculture than other parts of the United Kingdom. However, it is also particularly dependent on government expenditure. It is worth reminding ourselves—though not in any grudging sense—that the total subsidy paid by the mainland GB taxpayer to developing the society and economy of Northern Ireland amounts to some £200 per household per year, £4 per household per week. So we all have a great interest in ensuring that that money is spent to good effect, to develop what successive governments have thought of as the twin track in Northern Ireland: trying to achieve a stronger economy and society at the same time as we achieve a political settlement. We all know that those go together.
There is a point on which I wish to press the noble Baroness. In a way it is unfair because she is particularly active in industrial matters and I know that she is greatly respected in Northern Ireland for that reason. But I wish to press the' Government and ask at this juncture, when matters are so hopeful, how we can all make Northern Ireland less of a dependency economy, less dependent on the continuing flow of funds and less of an economy where nearly half the people are ultimately employed in one way or another by the Government. How can we make it more of a self-sustaining and growing economy? There is a unique opportunity to attract inward investment, not merely from the United States, where sometimes the promise seems to be greater than the reality, but also from the European Community and from private firms throughout the world. It is a wonderful opportunity and I know that the Government are active in that respect.
There is the matter of skills and the way in which education relates to industry and the economy. I was very impressed two weeks ago to see the way in which the Magee campus in Derry—or, to be politically correct, Londonderry, or shall I say "Derry" again; whichever it is—is now closely intertwined with the local economy and producing the sort of skills that will make for economic growth.
There is, for instance, the Northern Ireland Growth Challenge that the CBI has undertaken. It has identified, I believe, 13 sectors and is trying to develop sectoral priorities. And there is, of course, the potential of EC structural funds.
All those lead me—perhaps erroneously, but I shall be glad to have the noble Baroness's opinion—to two conclusions. The first is that we really do need for Northern Ireland an industrial strategy. I know that those are difficult words for the noble Baroness's party. However, in Wales, under the leadership of her right honourable friend Mr. Peter Walker, the Government had a very successful industrial strategy. Is it not now time to do that in Northern Ireland: to pull together the best hopes of industry and of the University of Ulster and Queen's; to pull together the Government's own efforts and incoming money, whether governmental or private, and try to get the whole economy pulling itself

377
up by its own bootstraps with its friends? So many people round the world wish it well. That is a little more than the IDB is doing.
The other conclusion I draw is that of the fundamental importance of doing more things on an all-island basis. I am not talking for the moment about the new body in the framework document. I do not want to get off into the wilder shores of politics. I am talking about practical co-operation on tourism, infrastructure and telecom. In all these areas there is so much scope. Again, it needs slightly more than the "invisible hand" approach which characterises the Government's policies on the mainland. It needs an active industrial strategy. I do not hesitate to say that to the noble Baroness because of her own robust reputation in this respect.
Perhaps I may turn to one or two specific questions on the order. The first is on the matter of education. I should like to ask the Minister two questions that fall within the educational budget. First, can she tell me a little about the funds that will be made available for integrated education? I voiced my fears in this House on a previous occasion that, as the two communities begin—we hope that they will move faster—towards some sort of accommodation with each other, the danger is that integrated education may be squeezed out. It is part of a plural society, and does not necessarily fit with the prejudices of the leadership of either main community. It is vitally important that the percentage of students who benefit from integrated education rises from the present 4 per cent. to a higher level. The Northern Ireland Office is proposing some fairly rigorous tests on how many students you have to have in order to open one of these schools. I should like to be reassured about the budgetary provisions that are available for those parents and communities who can get integrated education projects up and going.
The other question is a rather specific one. I am very excited by the imaginative project for a peace line campus in West Belfast, the so-called Springvale site. This project is imaginative if—and it is a big "if—it can be fully integrated into the community of West Belfast. Are the Government planning (this would clearly be cross-departmental) on a forward basis for the very large-scale investment that will be needed? I understand that the noble Baroness's right honourable friend Mr. Ancram is considering this matter. Can she tell us a little more about the potential and the plans?
I turn to the matter of community relations which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. If I read the order aright, there is a very slight fall from just above £2 million to just below £2 million this year for community relations. Do the Government not believe that community relations are now even more important than they were before? And in particular I should like to ask the Minister about the balance between inter-community relations and intra-community relations.
I was very impressed when I visited the Corrymeela community recently to see the work being done with groups of young sixth-formers from the two main places coming together there, working on projects and undertaking adventures together. I believe with the
378
noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that that kind of practical getting-together and working together of young people offers one of the best hopes for at least a higher level of mutual understanding on which a better future can be built.
The final point that I should like to raise has, I suspect, been mentioned already. If there is success with the political dimension of the settlement and there is to be a devolved Northern Ireland assembly, this could be the last time that we discuss an order of this kind in the House. Is there now any clear assessment of the financial scale of the so-called peace dividend? Can we have an assurance from the Government that their priority for any peace dividend will be to reinvest it where it is needed in building a better economy and society in Northern Ireland rather than allowing it to be clawed back by the Treasury.
That is a danger of which all spending Ministers are well aware in all situations. But in this instance it is particularly important that the Treasury should not be allowed to lead the debate. It is essential that the debate is led by the need for political and economic progress in Northern Ireland. I am glad to say that the Government have already answered the question about additionality on any extra European funds and that they will not be, as is true of regions of Great Britain, taken back by the Government.
I should like to widen the question beyond that and ask the noble Baroness whether in her response she can say that the Government and the Northern Ireland Office are successfully resisting the fell embrace of the Treasury. It is very important that they should do so.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I may detain the House and indeed my noble friend for just one minute. I must thank her for everything that she presented in the order. I have had a request not to ask any questions, although I may speak for as long as I wish. Certainly, I shall not detain your Lordships for one digit on the clock let alone double digits. I certainly have no questions to ask.
I beg my noble friend to give as much support as she can give in Vote I under the Department of Agriculture to market support or marketing and processing. I hope that my noble friend will bang the drum on all sides of the Community for the Northern Ireland food industry in ANUGA, the world-famous fair in Cologne this autumn. Above all, I hope that she can use her remarkable talents to promote the production and marketing of Northern Ireland's food industry.
My noble friend in Vote 2 mentioned the sum of around £25 million and she said that there was a very high take-up of grants. I am delighted that the industry is still observing the wise words that it used to me: "Act fast while grants last". You never know—they might stop tomorrow. However, it seems that the industry is making full use of the funds available. I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure us on that score over the years.
With regard to the Department for Education and Vote 2, I am glad to see—indeed, my noble friend took time out to mention it—the Armagh Observatory and Planetarium. Clearly, there is a major programme there.

379
I appreciated all that went on there and enjoyed visiting it, which I did three, four or even five times. I learnt something new every time that I went there. I know that it is a unique and worthwhile site in Northern Ireland.
Finally, I conclude by adding my good wishes to those of the noble Lords who have spoken for integrated education and cross-community education where possible. I appreciate that there are priorities for funding. But I should like to add my support to the good wishes of the two noble Lords who spoke before me.
I thank my noble friend for presenting the order tonight and for all the nice things that she was able to say about Northern Ireland.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. How fortunate Northern Ireland is to have such friendship in this House. We much appreciate the support that the Province is given.
Despite the brevity of the debate a number of points were raised. I am grateful to noble Lords who gave me notice of many of those points. I shall try to answer all of them but if I miss any I shall read Hansard carefully and write to your Lordships.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that it is nice to see the noble Lord back dealing with Northern Ireland matters—for his acknowledgement of the Government's achievements in leading forward the peace initiative. Much of that tribute should go to the people of Northern Ireland, who themselves have earned, worked for and now have a peace which they so rightly deserve.
I was described as presenting an optimistic plan. I am optimistic. I daily visit companies and I daily see the innovation and creativity of companies in Northern Ireland. I think that we can look forward to a bright future and it is the future that the ceasefires have allowed us to build on. We can be rightly proud of what is happening there but not unaware—I promise your Lordships that I am not unaware—of the issue of unemployment in the Province. It is a long-term unemployment issue. I am delighted to report that we are piloting programmes in Strabane, Fermanagh and West Belfast for the long-term unemployed and we are doing so with funds resulting from the peace dividend. The sooner we can roll out that programme to the whole Province, the better. It will allow the long-term unemployed to have three years' experience of work and then, it is hoped, they will be able to go to the top of the ladder for recruitment in future.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to the closure of hospital beds. Northern Ireland has, as I know personally, a very good health service. A rationalisation of the services in the Belfast centre is under way. That is necessary. But business plans are coming forward for Downpatrick, for a new hospital in Coleraine and for the Royal Victoria Hospital. There is investment in the health service in Northern Ireland.
380
I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, raised the issue of how the Province is moving from a dependency culture to actually being a wealth creating economy. It is key that we change the tilt from the public sector to the private sector. We have to face outwards. The Department of Economic Development has been working consistently for several years on an industrial strategy which we are now reviewing. We are consulting with the players and we shall return with a revamped strategy which will show that our aim is to make the companies of Northern Ireland competitive. No company ever went to the top of the league by building on grants.
Companies have to be competitive in global marketplaces. It is a very good time for inward investment. The number of calls that we have received at IDB in recent months since the ceasefires is greater than the number we received for the whole of the previous year. There is interest and people who did not have us on their list before now do so. I pay special tribute to the role of the Koreans in inward investment. We have major investment already and other companies have followed Daewoo into the Province. There is much to do. We must not waste or duplicate the resources that we have. But I can assure the noble Lord that we have not only an active strategy but an active Minister.
My noble friend Lord Lyell raised the issue of agriculture which is so important to the economy of Northern Ireland. I promise him that I shall go to ANUGA with the companies from Northern Ireland. I shall also be attending the international food exhibition which is being held very shortly. Our food processing companies are second to none. I am delighted that their exhibition at SIAL means that we are now not sending coals to Newcastle, but sending bread to France. That is a great success.
I am glad that my noble friend mentioned Armagh. A great deal of work is taking place there on the economic development plan, which deserves to succeed. The cross-Border initiatives give it particular point.
I shall try to answer the questions quickly. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised the question of expenditure on residual privatisation costs in the electricity industry. The residual expenditure in 1995–96 for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry will be mainly for the redemption of bill vouchers which customers can set against their electricity bills. That will be relatively minor and is likely to continue into 1996–97. As in the case of all other costs associated with privatisation, they will be met from the proceeds of sale.
The noble Lord raised the very important question of the fishing industry, which has seen a great many problems. There is no way in which we can put more fish back into the Irish Sea. We have to conserve stocks which are already there. Decommissioning is important. I shall let the noble Lord have the number of fishing vessel owners who applied for decommissioning grants. In 1993–94, 28 Northern Ireland applicants under the decommissioning scheme were successful and a further 15 qualified in 1994–95. Substantial funds will be made available in this area in the 1995–96 scheme which is yet to be finalised. My understanding is that no equivalent scheme currently operates in the Republic of Ireland.

381
The noble Lord was looking for a level playing field. There is rightly concern among fishermen about quotas between the Republic of Ireland and ourselves in Northern Ireland under the Hague preference scheme. That is something which my honourable friend the Minister is looking at very closely. We are trying to see whether there can be solutions.
I was pleased to team that people recognise that the rural development programmes are working well. That has been a neglected area in the past. Inner city deprivation has taken the high ground for so many years. There is a great deal to do. I am delighted that it is a bottom-up programme and that the people themselves are looking at how we can build on it. The strategy of our own Department of Agriculture was well received. I am happy to confirm that expenditure on this programme will not be reduced in 1995–96.
Not surprisingly, the noble Lord raised the important matter of integrated education, a subject in which this House takes a continuing interest. We recognise the importance of integrated education. I am pleased to say that there are now 23 integrated schools in operation with a total enrolment of over 4,700 pupils. Four new integrated schools will be established in September. We expect to see pupil numbers increase to 6,300 in 1997.
Expenditure in 1994–95 on integrated education will be about £13 million. That is an increase of £2.2 million over the previous year. Since the funding of integrated education was introduced in 1990–91, we have spent £43.5 million which is clear evidence of how important we believe it is.
Noble Lords have expressed concern about community relations and education for mutual understanding. I can promise Government support and commitment in both areas. Healing the divisions in Northern Ireland has been, and remains, at the centre of our policy. The end of violence can be only the beginning of peace. Far from reducing the need for community relations work, the ceasefires present new opportunities for such work and have given a new urgency and impetus to those who are working to promote reconciliation and understanding.
In 1994–95, the Government are spending almost £7.3 million on community relations. That includes estimated expenditure of over £2.5 million on measures to foster the mutual understanding and respect among children and young people which is so important. I am relieved to discover that that does not come under the heading of "Miscellaneous Services" but under "Youth, Sport and Community Services". That expenditure is set to rise to over £3 million in 1995–96. That money is worked extremely hard and is used to assist activities which seek to increase the level of cross-community contact and to encourage much greater understanding and respect between different cultures and traditions. There is also the cultural traditions programme which receives £1.5 million of the community relations programme budget. It involves work on the cultures of particular communities with the overall aim of promoting appreciation of, and respect for, the diverse traditions which make up the cultural heritage of Northern Ireland. I believe that that too is very important work.
382
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, raised the important question of the size of the peace dividend and the implications for government spending in Northern Ireland. We hope that the peace will be consolidated. The ceasefires have allowed the security forces to respond to a diminished threat and that, in turn, has enabled the Secretary of State to reallocate savings totalling £15 million in the current financial year, largely due to a reduction in RUC overtime. Further savings amounting to £180 million over the next three years will come mainly from criminal damage and emergency provisions compensation and, again, from the reduction in RUC overtime. That has been allocated to important economic and social programmes in Northern Ireland. Those savings are in areas which in recent years have placed increasing demands on the Northern Ireland block.
We have benefited both from the saving of £180 million and from the absence of new demands related to violence. It is much too early to estimate the extent of further savings on law and order expenditure. Everything will depend on developments on the ground. In that respect, the Government have made it clear that they will not lower their guard prematurely - nor will they do so on political grounds, but will be advised by their security professionals.
The resources already released from the law and order budget would have to be restored if terrorist violence were to be renewed. If that were to happen, it would unfortunately be necessary to impose cuts in the economic and social programmes in order to reinstate that provision in the law and order programme. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that that would be most unfortunate. We must all pray that it does not happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to the fact that the Coopers & Lybrand study feared that there would be a reduction in funds. I believe that that message is uttered often in Northern Ireland in an effort to ensure that it does not happen. The Treasury has not clawed back money from this year's allocation, and I remind noble Lords that in his speech in Belfast in October the Prime Minister gave an undertaking that the Government would take full account of Northern Ireland's special needs in setting future levels of public spending for the Province. As the Minister in the Province, I can assure the House that we have enormous support.
A further issue which has been raised and which is of enormous interest in the Province is the question of the Springvale campus. As I suspect the noble Lord knows, we have commissioned a full economic appraisal of the project and have asked the Northern Ireland Higher Education Council to consider the educational aspects. Both reports are expected in March this year and in a reasonably short time we should be able to look at a decision on the Springvale project. It is an exciting concept and one which will require a considerable amount of help from our friends throughout the world. However, I am delighted to report that Northern Ireland does have friends throughout the world and we are very grateful for their support. Given that friendship, we still have the task of managing the funds which the

383
Government contribute to the Province of Northern Ireland. I believe we do it well, and I commend this order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Wildlife (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1995
10.46 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the draft Wildlife (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before Parliament on 30th January 1995, is to make minor changes to the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. The effect of these is to allow a system of annual general licences to be introduced for the year round control of magpies, crows and nine other species of "pest" bird. The changes are necessary to ensure that the legal basis for control of these pest species complies with the technical requirements of the EC Wild Birds Directive.
The Commission has previously ruled that derogations from this directive, which requires member states to protect all wild birds, must be specific as to time, place and the nature of the threat posed by the species concerned. A reasoned opinion issued by the Commission has recently held that a scheduled pest list, as currently provided by the 1985 order, does not meet these requirements although at the time the 1985 order was enacted it was believed that it complied fully with the directive. Farmers and others involved in pest control have found that the present arrangements under the 1985 order work well and it is important that they should be able to continue to deal with these pest species in the same effective manner, albeit using a different legislation framework.
Licences will be general—that is, individuals will not need a personal licence to carry out pest control—will be valid for a period of one year and will cover the whole of Northern Ireland. Licences will be in the following categories: one, the protection of any collection of wild birds and the preservation of public health or air safety; two, the prevention of the spread of disease and prevention of serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber and fisheries; and three, the conservation of wild birds.
There is no intention to alter the species covered by the licence. However, arrangements will be made to monitor the conservation status of the species concerned. The department will therefore be alerted if populations fall to a level where care is needed and appropriate action will be taken.
There has been widespread consultation in Northern Ireland about the proposal with interested parties. There was only one objection to the proposal. Some concern was expressed about the population status of some of the species listed. The long-term population trends of the species concerned are, however, either stable or
384
increasing, and it is not considered that continued year-round pest control will have any detrimental effect on their status for the foreseeable future.
This order will ensure that we meet our obligations under the Wild Birds Directive. At the same time, it will enable us to introduce an efficient system of licensed pest control which will not place any additional burdens on farmers and others who need to carry out the action, and will allow them to protect their crops and also look after the interests of wild birds of a less well populated species.
I commend this order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, again, I want to thank the Minister for explaining the purpose of the order, remedying, as it does, the defect, or a possible defect, in the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. As I understand it, the order is required in order to comply fully with the EC wild birds directive. Were the Government pressed by the Commission to introduce this amending order? I ask that because I noticed that when the order was before the other place on 28th February a Member asked why it was necessary to amend the parent order (the 1985 order) given the doctrine of subsidiarity. He thought that in a small way it raised implications of subsidiarity. I am not sure that the question was answered fully by the Minister in the other place, so I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the position briefly.
I turn to the merits of the order. I am aware of the concerns that so many species of birds have become extinct in the UK over the past 100 years. Having been brought up in the countryside, I appreciate fully that the aim must be to ensure that there is a reasonable balance between agriculture and conservation. I am glad that the Minister has been able to confirm that, apart from one, all the organisations involved in Northern Ireland which have been consulted have supported the order.
I have one further question for the Minister on conservation generally. Can the Minister tell the House how many staff are employed by the department or the Northern Ireland Office on conservation duties in Northern Ireland? I have no other questions, and hasten to say that we fully support the order.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that support. In answer to the two questions that he asked, the directive does allow for member states to derogate from its general requirements and so gives them the ability to be masters in their own houses. We believe that that is important. Member states can make their own decisions on how they deal with pests. The existing legislation does not meet the requirements specified under which the derogation can take place.
The order will amend the existing legislation to enable Northern Ireland to take full advantage of the derogation provision while maintaining a simple and non-bureaucratic system for the control of these pest

385
species. I can sum it up by saying that we are making an adjustment to the law, which allows us to make our own decisions. So we have the subsidiarity element, and we are meeting the legal requirements of a piece of European legislation. The noble Lord does not look as though he thinks that that is much clearer, but I hope that when he reads Hansard he will feel that I gave a rather better answer than he judged my honourable friend to have given.
The noble Lord was interested also in how many people are employed in the conservation of the countryside and wildlife. That is important to the Province because its beauty and natural habitats form part of what we can offer visitors. I am delighted to be able to tell him that at present approximately 100 staff are engaged wholly on those aspects within the department's environmental services. That represents a significant coverage and would, I suspect, match and probably better that in other areas of the UK. Those people do a very good job, as people living in and visiting the Province can see. Having answered those questions, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Children's Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1995
10.55 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th February be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 9th February 1995 be approved. Although it is the last of the three orders before the House tonight, that by no means ranks its importance. It is a most important order for a section of society for whom we must always express special concern and carry out special responsibilities.
This order will replicate provisions already enacted in England and Wales. It contains a short but valuable package of measures to help reduce the trauma of children giving evidence in cases relating to violent or sexual offences.
The provisions on children's evidence replicate those in the Criminal Justice Act 1991, as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 following some adverse comments in the English courts.
Article 3 abolishes the competency tests which are applied to prospective child witnesses in criminal proceedings. It removes the present distinction between the way in which children of different ages give evidence and provides that all children under 14 shall give evidence unsworn.
Article 4, together with Schedule 1, provides for committal proceedings to be bypassed in cases of sexual offences or cases involving violence or cruelty. It will apply where the witness is a child and the Director of Public Prosecutions is of the opinion both that the evidence is sufficient for the defendant to be committed
386
for trial and that, in order to avoid prejudicing the welfare of the child, the case should proceed without delay in the Crown Court.
The provisions of Article 5 lie at the very heart of the order. They enable a video-recording of an interview with a child witness to relevant offences to be used in trials at the Crown Court or a juvenile court in place of the child's evidence-in-chief. The child must, however, be available for cross-examination via live television link. Any rules of court requiring disclosure of the circumstances in which the recording was made must also have been properly complied with. The article also precludes any person who is charged with a sexual or violent offence from personally cross-examining a witness who is either a victim of or witness to such an offence.
The Government recognise that the key to the successful implementation of this legislation is full and appropriate training of staff who will be involved in the prosecution of offenders and the care of child witnesses. The multi-disciplinary approach required has been recognised for some time by the relevant agencies in Northern Ireland and staff training is at an advanced stage. The training, and the associated guidance to staff, will of course take full account of practitioners' experience with the corresponding legislation in England and Wales.
I hope that noble Lords will welcome this order, which helps to shorten and simplify procedures for some of the most vulnerable witnesses who come before the courts. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th February be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
11 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her explanation of the Children's Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. There are certain matters in the order which I do not fully understand and I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for asking six brief questions.
First, I know that since 1993 there have been discussions in the Province concerning the subject of children's evidence in cases of alleged child sexual abuse. I also know that a working party has been considering the order in the Province. However, I am informed that on that group there was no representative of the British Association of Social Workers or the Association of Directors of Social Services. There was only one representative from the voluntary sector —from the NSPCC.
In part, the order will be implemented by social workers. Why were they not represented on that working group? They could have contributed to and learnt a great deal from participation in such a group. The Reverend Martin Smyth made reference to that when the order was before the Fifth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments on 28th February 1995 (col. 6).
Secondly, would it not have been wise to defer the order until the Government have the results of research which is to be published on 26th May? That research

387
has been carried out by Professor Graham Davis of Leicester University and was commissioned by the Lord Chancellor. The research concerns the evidence and cross-examination of alleged child victims of sexual abuse through television link and video. That method has worked satisfactorily in some areas of England and Wales, but there have been difficulties. Surely the Lord Chancellor would not have commissioned research if the system had been consistently well-administered throughout the country? There have been difficulties in different parts of the country.
If the research recommends changes in practice, should not those recommendations, if accepted, have been incorporated in this order? Mr. Paul Murphy, a Member in another place, made the same comment on this matter when it was before the Fifth Standing Committee.
Thirdly, I seek further information on Article 5. I agree with television link and video recordings but would not this order have provided a wonderful opportunity to implement the recommendations made in the Pigot Report? That recommended that a video recording should be made before a locotar of a hearing attended by the alleged sexually abused child, counsel for the prosecution and counsel for the defence, with the accused in another room, able to communicate with his barrister; and that the video would be shown at the trial, with the child present. That would greatly reduce the child's trauma, partly because the case would come before the locotar at an early stage and the child is much more likely to remember the events at that time rather than a year later.
The recommendation has many other advantages. Would not this order have been a wonderful opportunity to implement the Pigot recommendation, because many people in the country agree that that is a very good, sound recommendation? There is no similar provision in Scotland but there can be no real comparison because the penal system in Scotland is quite different, with its panels and sheriff courts.
Fourthly, do I understand that the order is to be implemented in June 1995? If so, there will not be sufficient time to train all those involved; namely, the judiciary, the officers of the court and social workers. Does the Judicial Studies Board operate in the Province? Will there be training for the judiciary?
Fifthly, can my noble friend the Minister say what is the estimated cost for implementing the order? We so often pass legislation in your Lordships' House—and, indeed, in the other place—but we do not provide the resources for its administration. In the first instance, the legislation now before us will take much money because much money and many resources will be required for the training at all levels of the work regarding administration of the order.
Finally, does my noble friend the Minister agree that there should be someone outside the system—that is, apart from social workers, the police and the judiciary—to whom the child can look for help, support and interest? I suggest that there should be someone quite objective who has not been involved in the case at all;
388
for example, a guardian ad litem. Under the order, would it be considered appropriate in the Province for such a guardian to be appointed to each child?
Child sexual abuse in childhood leaves a person throughout life with an element of unhappiness. The hurt that court proceedings can cause to a child is quite incredible. I have dealt with many such children and I know that appearing in court is a trauma which is hard to overcome, certainly as regards cross-examination. Therefore, whatever happens, it is a difficult area. It is difficult to meet the welfare of a child and it is difficult to ensure that justice is done to the alleged perpetrator. However, I am sure that we shall work out a system in time that will meet both those pressing needs. I support the order, but I wonder whether there ought to be some variations.
11.7 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction of the order. I must also say what a privilege it is to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, with all her experience and sympathy of such very difficult cases. I have but one simple point to make, but a further point arises out of the remarks made by the noble Baroness which I should like to pursue.
While I am generally supportive of the order, I have a concern about the issue of impending research. I understand that Mr. John Spencer of Selwyn College, Cambridge, is about to publish a thesis on the matter in which he calls for children to be "warmed up" before they give evidence. That is another report which is due to be published. One wonders why the Government could not have waited for all the research to be gathered together. It is possible that we are dealing with an area in which there will always be new research; but it is important to get it right.
I turn now to the other point that I wish to raise. All abuse of children, whether physical violence or sexual abuse, is so peculiarly horrible that all civilised people's instincts react against it. However, there have been enough cases in recent years and months to make us aware that we must also be careful as regards the rights of a defendant. Children's timescales and imaginations are different from adults. It is possible that adults can lead children towards recollections and memories at the end of an interrogation that they may not have had at the beginning of the process. Some of that may be right and proper. Indeed, it may be the careful and cautious solicitation from a child who is unhappy of what the real truth was, or, as we have seen in some highly-publicised cases recently—notably, in the Orkneys and Shetlands—it can be the very reverse. It can be someone with an agenda of his or her own seeking to persuade the child that something happened when, perhaps, it did not.
The point that I should like to press upon the Minister is whether we can arrive at a better definition of what constitutes a memory which is admissible in court. In recent history, Northern Ireland has had very unhappy and highly-publicised cases of child abuse. Indeed, there is one at the moment. These are matters where we have to strike a careful balance between, on the one hand, the proper treatment of a child who may already have been abused, may already be unhappy and may be further

389
traumatised by the way its evidence is taken, versus the extreme importance of not turning solicitous care for the child into leading it towards conclusions that suit some other adult's agenda. Although I do not pretend to understand these matters with anything like the expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, I hope that the Government, in responding on this order and accepting that we support it generally, will try to understand that, if anything, public concern is growing about whether the balance is being properly struck.
11.10 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I also wish to thank the Minister for explaining the order. I have also listened with anxiety to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, because she speaks with great authority in this area of policy. I believe that her piercing questions and observations need to be answered.
The order itself is relatively short—six articles. I believe that probably five of the articles are welcomed as they stand, but there is disappointment and concern that Article 5 has not been extended at least to cover the video recording of the cross-examination of the child victim or the child witness of the alleged assault when giving evidence in a criminal trial. We wonder why that has been restricted to the child's evidence-in-chief.
The Minister said that the order applies in Northern Ireland the relevant provisions of the 1991 Act as amended. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, indicated and underlined, much has been learnt in England and Wales, certainly since 1991, and the evidence shows that the provisions of the 1991 Act, as amended, have been less effective than had been hoped for. I am told that an enormous number of videos have been taken but not used. I believe that that needs to be explained. I note the cautious words of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and I understand his cautious approach, but there is a feeling that not only have too many offenders in child abuse cases escaped conviction but that too many have even avoided prosecution in the first place.
One has read and studied the speech of the Minister who is in charge of the measure in the Commons, but he has not explained why all the lessons which have arisen since 1991 have not been learnt and have not been incorporated in the order. I am sure that if this legislation had been enacted by a Bill rather than by an Order in Council, there would be an opportunity for the House to seek to widen the scope of Article 5 in order to implement the full recommendations of the Pigot Report. I notice that the director of Leicestershire social services made the point that until such time as those recommendations are on the statute book the scales will remain too firmly tipped in favour of defendants and against the abused children. That must be a matter of great concern.
I read the opening and winding up speeches of the Minister of State when the order was discussed in the Fifth Standing Committee on 28th February. It seemed to me that he was under great pressure from the Members to explain the omissions. Perhaps I may summarise the position. He wound up the debate by
390
expressing the hope that the other recommendations—the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, referred to them—could be brought on stream in the light of legislative and appropriate experience and, if necessary, by using guidelines and amending this order in future. I found no sense of urgency in those words. Surely abused children deserve better.
I should be grateful if the Minister would take note of the concerns expressed, certainly in this Chamber tonight, and convey them to the Minister who has charge of the appropriate department. Nevertheless, having said that, of course one welcomes the order so far as it goes, but there is still a long way to go.
11.16 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the concerns expressed and the issues raised on the order. Perhaps I may say, first, that I shall most certainly convey those concerns to my honourable friend, but I shall try to deal with some of them at this stage.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull is indeed a good and true friend of children. We welcome the constant interest in Northern Ireland that she shows. I know that social workers in the Province greatly appreciate her knowledge which she shares so generously with them. If, as she suggested, we are to work out solutions to the problems which we face in this area, many of those solutions will be due to the work of my noble friend.
The issue was raised of the involvement of social workers in the consultation process. A working group was set up representing the various departments of the Government, the social security boards and the NSPCC. It was established by the RUC to examine staff training needs and to put programmes in place. It was considered appropriate to leave those arrangements to the persons qualified to set them up, and they drew on the experience of practitioners in England and Wales. I understand that social workers were not directly included as such. I hasten to assure my noble friend that that was not from oversight but in the expectation that they would be represented by staff from the area boards. In Northern Ireland we have the advantage of integrated health and social services. The social workers to be involved in the case of child witnesses will be thoroughly trained and their views taken into account.
There has been a keen desire to see this legislation come to Northern Ireland. Provisions have been eagerly awaited both by the police and by child welfare agencies because—the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, drew attention to the fact—the record of the Province relating to sexual abuse of children is not one of which any single person could be proud.
We are aware of all the research which is being undertaken. A seminar held in Northern Ireland on 17th June on the video recording of children's evidence heard from researchers and academics throughout Great Britain that it is not the legislation in England and Wales that has presented difficulties, because the legislation is permissive in setting out the conditions under which video recordings may be admitted in court. An early draft of the research by the University of Leicester has

391
been seen by Home Office officials and did not recommend any legislative changes. But it is considered that any recommendations for change will relate to procedural matters. I am delighted to reassure my noble friend that if such suggestions are accepted they can be incorporated in non-statutory guidelines for interviewing child witnesses.
I said that training was well under way and I believe that the earliest commencement date for the order would be in June. However, I again assure my noble friend that commencement would not be sought until a core of trained staff was in place.
My noble friend raised the issue of the Judicial Studies Board in Northern Ireland. Such a board has recently been established and I have no doubt whatever that it will wish to involve itself in the preparations for the implementation of the arrangements. We look forward to that happening.
The cost of the legislation, when fully implemented, will lead to an increase of £0.6 million in capital and £0.15 million in the current public expenditure. The cost will cover buildings, video equipment and training. Again, I assure noble Lords that this is not an area in which the Government would try to exercise cuts. The responsibility to children is much too important.
The decision on the guardian ad litem would be for the courts in Northern Ireland, and I shall continue to take a personal interest in the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, mentioned an important issue: the balance between the protection of the child and ensuring that justice is done. The balance is a key matter. We must recognise that the provisions for by-passing committal proceedings and fast tracking are aimed at bringing cases of that nature to court as quickly as possible so that the child can remember clearly the events that have taken place and not at a distance. That is, of course, a problem for witnesses of all ages. Such evidence as is available to the Government does not suggest that children's memories are any less reliable than those of adults; if anything, the contrary is considered to be the case. The reliability of such evidence must always be a
392
matter for the court to consider in individual cases. I am convinced that no one involved in such matters has anything but a full commitment to their responsibilities.
I know that the House has enormous respect for the Pigot Report, as we have heard on previous occasions. We considered that it was important to implement the principal recommendation that children should be able to give evidence by video recordings. It is not easy for Northern Ireland to go ahead at any great speed because the courts look to case law from England and Wales and we should learn from decisions that have been made here. So we would not look to introduce radically different arrangements for the giving of evidence. Practitioners in Northern Ireland, with their relatively limited resources, have always found it extremely valuable to be able to build on experience in England and Wales on the operation of legislation. I can assure noble Lords that we do that and will continue to do it.
As was drawn to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, my honourable friend in another place pointed out that the Government have not ruled out the possibility of implementing other Pigot recommendations at a later date. But that will be done in the light of experience with the present provision. I hope that in this area we are never ever satisfied that we have found the solution and that we shall continuously examine to see whether there are better ways of dealing with the problem. I can assure the noble Lord that the sense of urgency will be applied, but not at a speed which may mean that we put these young people at risk and in difficult circumstances where justice could be prejudiced.
This is an important order for Northern Ireland. It is important for the children of Northern Ireland. I hear the concerns that noble Lords have expressed, and I shall share those with my colleagues. But taking into account those concerns, and assuring your Lordships that we will handle this matter with the greatest of care and caution, I commend this order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Police Complaints Authority
  Boundary Commission Report: Delay
  Boundary Commission Report: Delay
  Citizen's Charter and Electors' Rights
  Citizen's Charter and Electors' Rights
  Attendance Centre Order: Cost
  Attendance Centre Order: Cost
  Burmese Forces: Chemical Weapons Allegations
  Burmese Forces: Chemical Weapons Allegations
  Non-Proliferation Treaty (Israel)
  Non-Proliferation Treaty (Israel)
  Non-Proliferation Treaty: Civil Use of Nuclear Energy
  Non-Proliferation Treaty: Civil Use of Nuclear Energy
  Iranian Civil Nuclear Facilities: Threats
  Iranian Civil Nuclear Facilities: Threats
  Mr. Afif Safieh
  Mr. Afif Safieh
  NATO: Advanced Research Workshops
  NATO: Advanced Research Workshops
  NATO Science Budget: UK Contribution
  NATO Science Budget: UK Contribution
  NATO: Science Programme
  NATO: Science Programme
  NATO: Intellectual Property
  NATO: Intellectual Property
  NATO Research Projects: Scientists
  NATO Research Projects: Scientists
  Education Low-Priced Books Scheme: Funding
  Education Low-Priced Books Scheme: Funding
  Northern Ireland: Revenue from the EU
  Northern Ireland: Revenue from the EU
  Community Charge: Defaulters
  Community Charge: Defaulters
  MoD: Pictorial Records
  MoD: Pictorial Records