Sitting of 12 December 1996

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

    Dog Licences
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy with respect to the Province's dog licence scheme. [7315]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): The Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 provides for the licensing of dogs, the collection of strays and the control of dogs on land and on certain roads. It also provides controls on guard dogs and breeding establishments, and creates offences for allowing dogs to attack people or livestock.
    Mr. Brown: Is the system accepted in Northern Ireland? If so, what justification is there for having one policy in Northern Ireland and a different policy in the rest of the United Kingdom? If my right hon. Friend agrees that the system is good and well respected, should he not make representations to the Home Secretary to ensure that the law of the land is the same throughout the kingdom?
    Mr. Ancram: It appears that the system is accepted, because there is no great pressure for change. When we are asked why things happen in Northern Ireland, we often say that it is because it is different. On this occasion, I can say that with some authority, because the report of the UK interdepartmental working party on dogs, which was published in 1976, acknowledged that Northern Ireland had a distinct and more serious dog control problem than Great Britain, specifying in particular stray dogs and sheep worrying. For that reason, a different system applies.
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Will the Government give more latitude to magistrates in the implementation of the order, particularly in relation to destruction? Will the Government also consider the provision of a free licence for senior citizens?
    Mr. Ancram: The last subject is a matter of some contention. This is not the first time it has been raised, but I am sure that my noble Friend Baroness Denton of Wakefield will have heard the hon. Gentleman.
    388
    On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I understand that the order gives no latitude. The destruction of dogs is required where a dog has attacked a person or another animal.

    Tourism
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the contribution of the tourism industry to Ulster's economy in the past two years; and if he will make a statement. [7316]
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the level of tourist activity in Northern Ireland for the year 1995–96. [7321]
    Mr. Ancram: In 1995, peaceful conditions saw a dramatic increase in tourism: total visitors rose by 20 per cent. over 1994 to 1.5 million; holiday visitors by 67 per cent. to 276,000; and visitor revenue by 17 per cent. to £214 million. The year 1996 has reflected the ending of the IRA ceasefire and the summer disturbances. Downturns are forecast of 11 per cent. in the total number of visitors, 25 per cent. in holiday visitors and 6 per cent. in revenue.
    Mr. Coombs: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that those are remarkable figures and that he will join me in congratulating the Northern Ireland tourist board on its excellent work during the ceasefires to draw the Province's manifest attractions to the attention of the outside world. Can there be any more dramatic evidence than that presented by those figures of the need for peace to be restored in Northern Ireland, so that prosperity continues to flourish?
    Mr. Ancram: I very much endorse what my hon. Friend says. There is no doubt that an established peace will tremendously benefit the tourism industry in Northern Ireland, where there is enormous room for expansion. The industry accounts for 2 per cent. of gross domestic product in Northern Ireland. The figure is 5 per cent. in Scotland and in the Republic of Ireland; were the Northern Ireland figure to go up to those levels, 20,000 new jobs would be created there. It is interesting to note that, even in 1996, the visitor figures are still above the pre-ceasefire levels, and I pay tribute to the work of the Northern Ireland tourist board in attracting tourists to Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many small businesses depend on healthy tourism in Northern Ireland? Many are self-employed and some employ just a handful of people. Therefore, one of the immediate results of peace in Northern Ireland will be a boost to those small businesses.
    Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; small businesses across the Province would benefit greatly from further increases in the number of tourists to the Province. I certainly hope that those who try to bring instability to the Province are aware of the damage that they are doing to prosperity in their own areas. I assure my hon. Friend that, even if there were peace, the interests of small

    389
    businesses and tourism would be severely damaged were the social chapter and the minimum wage to be introduced.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister know of the tourist attractions in the Strangford lough area, and realise that tourists would like to visit such areas as Ballyhalbert, Grey Abbey, Ballywalter and Kircubbin? Does he think that it would be wise for the tourist board to provide grants for licensed inns and accommodation in the areas that tourists would like to visit, and not to deny grants to those areas because they are not in need of social benefits and not targeting social need?
    Mr. Ancram: I do know the areas to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I have visited them, and I understand what the right hon. Gentleman means when he mentions their attractiveness to tourists. I shall certainly always try to persuade those I know who are going to Northern Ireland to visit those areas. As he knows, I am not the Minister with responsibility for tourism, but I shall ensure that the matters that he has mentioned are passed on to my noble Friend.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee on National Heritage has just completed a report into tourism and given great praise to Northern Ireland for its statutory system of classification and registration of accommodation, and that people who do not live up to that standard will lose their licence and go out of business? The Committee has recommended to the Government that a similar system should be introduced in England, but the Secretary of State has refused to do so. Why does a law that works very well in Northern Ireland not apply to some of the hotels in London, for example, that rip off foreigners, are ridden with bugs and rats and are a damn disgrace? Why does the Government not introduce a consistent policy?
    Mr. Ancram: If ever I have responsibility for tourism and national heritage, I will be in a position to answer that question—today, however, I am answering questions on Northern Ireland. We do things well in Northern Ireland, and we do them well because we are different.
    Mr. Worthington: Since 1991, the Government have said that one of their fundamental policies has been to target social need, and to focus on those areas and people most in need. Is the Minister aware of the report by the Northern Ireland Council of Voluntary Associations, which states that the Northern Ireland tourist board is the worst of all government bodies in targeting social need? The board makes no mention of targeting social needs in its key objectives, and meeting those needs is not one of its key targets. The board's most recent annual report contained not one reference to targeting social needs. Despite this week's cuts, is the Minister able to confirm that targeting social needs is still a Government priority, and what will he do about the Northern Ireland tourist board and all the other government bodies that have been shown to be missing the target?
    Mr. Ancram: Overall, as the hon. Gentleman knows, targeting social need remains one of the three priorities of Government policy. If he thinks that one can order tourists to go in certain directions, I do not think that he
    390
    understands fully what happens in the tourist trade. We can attract tourists to Northern Ireland, but we cannot force them to visit specific places. We are trying to ensure that tourists visit all around Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Did the Minister read the remarks of the Republic of Ireland's Minister for Tourism on the branding Ireland initiative? He said that he detected political benefits in such an initiative. Will the Minister assure the House—I understood that it was Government policy—that no all-Ireland tourist structure will be set up without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland? I should like to praise the Northern Ireland tourist board—with which I have worked very closely over the past year—for the high professionalism, drive and enthusiasm that it has demonstrated.
    If the Provisional IRA would call a complete and permanent cessation of violence, it would allow tourism to make a real contribution to our economy.
    Mr. Ancram: On the second point, I agree with the hon. Member and, indeed, I made the same point earlier. I hope that that message is heard loud and clear throughout Northern Ireland in all parts of the community from which violence can come.
    I know that the hon. Gentleman has strong views on the initiative, but it is a great opportunity for the two parts of the island of Ireland to co-operate on tourism, to their mutual benefit. At a cost of some £500,000 over three to five years, it is likely to secure 720 jobs and to earn £27 million extra. That is good value for money in anyone's terms.

    French Lorry Drivers' Strike
    Mr. Beggs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the effect of the French lorry drivers' strike on owner drivers and road haulage contractors in Northern Ireland and on the Northern Ireland economy. [7317]
    Mr. Ancram: The effect of the strike on owner drivers and road haulage contractors, and on the Northern Ireland economy, will become apparent only when the relevant details become available.
    Mr. Beggs: A number of road haulage contractors, small businesses and owner drivers have been affected by the French and Danish blockades. Does the Minister share my concern about reports that the French police assisted the strikers and about the reports that British claims for compensation that arose from disruption in 1992 have still not been settled? Can he assure me that those Northern Ireland businesses that submit legitimate claims for compensation will have his support and representation for early settlement by the French Government?
    Mr. Ancram: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern, as I am sure he shares with me the view that blocking roads anywhere damages commerce and trade.
    On compensation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has obtained firm assurances from the French Transport Minister that claims for damage to vehicles or loads and for loss of earnings will be considered as quickly as possible. My right hon. Friend is

    391

    also aware of the delays on previous occasions and he is resolving detailed arrangements for making claims for compensation with the French authorities. He will continue to monitor the situation carefully.
    Mr. John Marshall: As the free movement of people and goods was the foundation of the European Community and the Single European Act, may I suggest to my right hon. Friend that our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should raise the subject at the forthcoming summit in Dublin and suggest to the French and the Greeks that their blockades are not very communautaire?
    Mr. Ancram: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope that those who claim to believe in the free movement of goods within the single market and the European Union will look carefully at the results of those industrial disputes.

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average level of housing benefit paid to recipient households in Northern Ireland; what are the principal categories of accommodation in respect of which the benefit is paid; and if he will make a statement. [7318]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): The average housing benefit paid applies only to private sector tenants and at 15 November 1996 was £45.01 a week. Public sector tenants receive housing benefit in the form of a rent rebate for which an average of £34.12 a week was paid.
    The principal categories of accommodation are public sector accommodation, private sector accommodation and owner-occupied accommodation.
    Mr. Greenway: Would it not be true to say that the housing situation in Northern Ireland is under control, and that—given the figures my hon. Friend has given to the House—there is not the level of homelessness in that part of the nation that has been suggested and that those who pretend there is should withdraw their remarks?
    Mr. Moss: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. It is true that we do not have a homelessness problem in Northern Ireland. Housing benefit is paid to some 77 per cent. of all public sector tenants and is certainly targeting social need.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Will the Minister tell the House what strategy has been set up for co-operation between the Housing Executive and the Social Security Agency to deal with any fraud in the system that has not yet been considered? What is the up-to-date situation?
    Mr. Moss: Research into the level of fraud and inaccuracy in housing benefit in Northern Ireland began on 1 October 1996 and we hope to have a report by the end of March 1997. At the moment, there are effective liaison arrangements between the Social Security Agency and the Housing Executive, but I accept the premise behind the hon. Gentleman's question that perhaps more could be done. The Social Security (Fraud) Bill, which
    392
    is in Committee, will include provisions to ensure that claimants cannot exploit, for example, the postal redirection system to claim benefit fraudulently from different addresses. That issue was raised recently by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Illsley: Is the Minister aware that the rent increase announced by the Department this week is above the national average and will mean that housing benefit payments will increase? Is he also aware that, in 1995–96, 10,768 families presented themselves as homeless, suggesting a probable true figure of 22,000 people? In July and August alone, 600 families were made homeless as a result of Drumcree.
    Is the Minister aware that the Budget cuts announced this week of £23 million—which will impact on grants and improvements and could threaten the whole new build programme for the following year—will have another devastating effect? Homelessness is increasing by 7 per cent. a year. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Budget cuts will be compounded by the cuts to the action for community employment schemes, which will result in hostels for the homeless being closed? Rather than imposing a £23 million cut in the housing budget, does the Minister not consider that it would be better to allow the Housing Executive to put up private finance?
    Mr. Moss: The average weekly rent increase proposed for Northern Ireland in the next year will be 4 per cent., which is 2 per cent. above inflation. That will result in an increase of £1.32 a week, which is £7 a week lower than in England and Wales. As for the overall Housing Executive budget, we expect that there will be a reduction in the new build, but only of 100 housing new starts next year.

    Punishment Beatings
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on punishment beatings and killings in Northern Ireland since the end of the IRA ceasefire. [7319]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): Between 1 February and 8 December 1996, the RUC has recorded 274 so-called punishment beatings. Of these, 149 are attributed to republican and 125 to loyalist terrorist gangs. These attacks are intended to intimidate parts of the Northern Ireland population and are without any justification. There have also been 14 murders this year arising from the security situation.
    In a majority of cases, victims of this kind of attack are reluctant to co-operate with police inquiries, and the groups who perpetrate these atrocities do not claim responsibility, making it difficult for the RUC categorically to apportion responsibility and carry out investigations. However, at least 20 people have been charged.
    Mr. Barnes: Is the Minister aware that, yesterday evening, there were three other sets of punishment beatings in Northern Ireland? One took place in Newry, where four young men were beaten and given 24 hours to leave the country. Another was in Derry, and an executive member of Families Against Intimidation and Terror in Northern Ireland was also attacked. Two of the attacks

    393
    seemed to have been carried out by the IRA and the other—against the Families Against Intimidation and Terror member—by Protestant paramilitary groups. Are not so-called punishment beatings running at an unprecedented level, as are recruitment to the IRA and its production of mortar weapons?
    Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman's analysis is correct. The level of these attacks has been rising in recent months and throughout this year, and every 24 hours brings one of those attacks from terrorist gangs from either side. The Provisional IRA uses these savage and vicious attacks as a strategy of social and political control. The attacks are evil, without any justification and cost the people of Northern Ireland a great deal of money, as well as grief.
    Rev. William McCrea: In the light of the increase in the number and the brutal nature of so-called punishment attacks, will the Minister tell the House how many persons have been brought to court and how many have been found guilty of such activities? Does the Minister believe that all paramilitary organisations have been involved in such attacks, and would that not be a breach of the Mitchell principles?
    Sir John Wheeler: I cannot give precise information on the number of successful prosecutions. Unhappily, they are few and far between, for the reasons I have already given. People are intimidated and are frightened to give information to the RUC to enable it to carry out the investigation. The hon. Gentleman is right. Attacks are made by so-called loyalists as well as by republican terrorist gangs and are without any justification.
    As to the Mitchell report recommendations, representatives of the smaller parties in the talks forum are committed to the Mitchell principles and have so declared themselves.
    Dr. Hendron: The Secretary of State is aware that the McLaughlin family in west Belfast were nearly wiped out recently by joyriders and that Mr. McLaughlin's mother-in-law had her leg smashed. I am sure that he is also aware that we have a massive law and order problem, not only in west Belfast but far beyond it, and that we have a problem in nationalist areas with police acceptability, especially in the post-Drumcree situation?
    Having said that, does the Secretary of State agree that there are no circumstances in which it can be justifiable for a young man aged 16 to be tied upside down and have his legs smashed, as happened in my constituency recently? Does he also agree that the message must go out to the Provisional IRA that, when it calls its ceasefire, as I believe it probably will just before the forthcoming general election, it must include a total and absolute cessation not only of murder but—I will not use the words "punishment beatings", as that gives the wrong implications—of brutalities?
    Sir John Wheeler: I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is an example of the extreme horror that we endure every day in Northern Ireland. I say this to Mr. Adams and his cronies in the Provisional IRA-Sinn Fein: if they intend to bring about a ceasefire, these evil attacks on ordinary people in Northern Ireland must end if it is to have a scintilla of credibility. The
    394
    attacks are without any justification. The RUC polices the whole of Northern Ireland. There is no street and no part of the Province to which it does not have access, and it will continue to police Northern Ireland and seek to bring these perpetrators to justice.
    So far this year, the 300 or so punishment attacks have cost the people of Northern Ireland nearly £3 million from their expenditure—money that would otherwise have been spent on the health service and education. That is the extent of the evil for which every person in Northern Ireland has to pay.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the Minister agree that, in view of the increase in this barbarous behaviour and its political effect, it was strange that punishment beatings were not mentioned in the Prime Minister's policy statement of two weeks ago on Northern Ireland and the terms on which Sinn Fein might come in? Is it not both illogical and ironic that some of the parties represented in the talks on the so-called loyalist side, or the organisations that they are fronting, have been responsible this year for some 125 punishment beatings? Can those parties be allowed to continue in the talks, if the beatings are attributable to organisations that they are said to front and represent?
    Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear in his statement that all terrorist activity had to cease. That is made clear in the Mitchell commission report. Whatever the activity—whether it is targeting, preparing to fire mortars, the use of guns, or the savage and brutal attacks on individuals—it would have to end. They should not occur now. The so-called loyalist politicians in the talks process have signed up to Mitchell and it is a matter to be dealt with in that process. The hon. and learned Gentleman can pursue it there.

    Ceasefire
    Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from Sinn Fein relating to an IRA ceasefire. [7320]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): None.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful for that brief reply.
    Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it absolutely clear to his Irish Government counterpart that there will be no question of an early admission of Sinn Fein to the political talks on the future of Northern Ireland, but that Sinn Fein must demonstrate over a considerable period, by forswearing violence as an instrument to secure its political objectives and stopping political beatings and intimidation, that it is a genuinely democratic party? Will he further make it clear that, if Sinn Fein is incapable of doing that, the talks will move on swiftly without it?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The talks will in any event proceed, I earnestly hope, with the nine out of 10 parties elected to the process that are already conducting them. It is the wish of the Government, and indeed of the Irish Government, that it should be 10 out of 10, but not on any terms. If Sinn Fein wants to join the talks, it must

    395
    come in on the same terms as anyone else: there must be an unequivocal ceasefire and it must show, in the terms of the ground rules for the talks, that it is exclusively committed to peaceful methods and abides by democratic methods. The Prime Minister dealt with that very clearly in his recent statement and at the meeting with Mr. Bruton, the Irish Taoiseach.
    Mr. Trimble: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the security forces in Northern Ireland have succeeded in the past day or two in foiling yet another major terrorist atrocity and that, in the past few weeks, there have been several occasions on which the IRA has attempted to mount major terrorist attacks? Does he agree that those actions are a more reliable guide to the intentions of Sinn Fein-IRA than the rumours of a ceasefire that some people in the House and, more significantly, in Dublin have allowed to delude them? Does he further agree that it is a shame that so much time has been wasted in recent months in pursuit of that will-o'-the-wisp, with the result that the opportunity that existed three months ago has now been squandered?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I regretfully endorse what the hon. Gentleman says. There have been a number of attacks or attempted attacks recently. Only last night at Duncairn gardens in Belfast, a call was made to the Samaritans using an IRA code word quite patently intended to set up an ambush for security forces. A wheelie bin with nearly 1 kg of Semtex in it was then discovered, which could have done immense damage.
    Previously, vehicles were found laden with explosives at Drumadd, and other attempts were forestalled. I pay tribute to the efforts of the security forces in that regard. It is of great interest to the people of Northern Ireland to conjecture how that sort of behaviour is compatible with the language of peace and democracy that the IRA and those who speak for it espouse.
    Sir John Cope: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, whatever Sinn Fein-IRA may say or do about a ceasefire, anyone in this country, in the Republic, or elsewhere, who is inclined to think that it might have changed its nature, would do well to study the words of Mr. Sean O'Callaghan, an extremely brave man whom some of us had the opportunity to meet here yesterday?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I believe that those words, coming from that source, have had great influence. It is abundantly clear that there is a great gap between the conduct of the IRA as exemplified in what we were discussing a few minutes ago and what is necessary to enable Sinn Fein to enter the talks. It has to show that it is firmly committed to peace and to the democratic process. That is the policy of the Irish Government as well as the British Government, and it must be the policy of all people of sense.
    Mr. McGrady: Given the earlier responses, does the Secretary of State still agree that the most urgent need in Northern Ireland is for a permanent peace? Is he aware of the grave misgivings and deep disappointment felt by the people in Northern Ireland who are genuinely striving for peace about the action of the Prime Minister in the House two weeks ago, when he apparently unilaterally broke off, as it were, the negotiations that were in train through
    396
    my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)? Will he ask the Prime Minister urgently to re-establish the dialogue so that we in Northern Ireland, who are suffering the violence, can hope for an early, permanent and provable peace?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course everyone wants peace in Northern Ireland, but peace has to be peace on democratic terms and in fulfilment of democratic principles. The people of Northern Ireland, and the people of the country as a whole, are not prepared to meet the blackmailing demands of terrorists to secure an absence of violence.
    On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, there have been no negotiations involving the British Government. I do not really understand his language about the Prime Minister acting unilaterally. My right hon. Friend expressed the policy of the Government of which he is the head; he was entitled to do that and he did it very valuably.
    Mr. Robathan: I am much encouraged by what my right hon. and learned Friend has said. Will he examine the motivation of the IRA and Sinn Fein in their alleged desire for peace? Many hon. Members believe that their desire for peace is a sham and a means of gaining electoral advantage and support at the expense of the party of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). Mr. Adams and his cohorts regard the peace process solely as a way to extend their war by other means.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Only the IRA knows its true intention; only Sinn Fein and its leaders know their intention. The rest of us have to act on outward and visible signs of their intention. The outward and visible signs that I and other hon. Members have mentioned are incompatible with a desire for peace. That is why both the British and Irish Governments are insisting that, after the first requirement of an unequivocal declaration of a ceasefire in unequivocal words, there has to be time in which we can judge actions against words.
    Ms Mowlam: We join the Secretary of State in condemning those responsible for placing the mortar discovered this morning at the Girdwood barracks, and for other recent finds, and congratulate the RUC on its work. Do not such finds reinforce the need for weapons held by paramilitary organisations to be decommissioned? Will the Secretary of State therefore join in welcoming once again the involvement of George Mitchell in assessing the views of the parties and the two Governments on decommissioning and in urging all parties to work constructively with Senator Mitchell so that talks can move swiftly forward and we can at long last make a start on full political negotiations.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's comments at the outset. I gladly endorse what she said about Senator Mitchell and his contribution, which is very distinguished and extremely helpful. Of course we want all illegally held arms to be got rid of. I would like to express my pleasure at the fact that the Irish Government have introduced their own Decommissioning Bill and have given every indication that it will be enacted very quickly. If I may again cite Mr. Bruton's language, in a democracy, violence and politics do not match. But it is

    397
    the true intention of people who claim a place at the table that has to be discerned. They have to show what that is by their actions as well as their words.
    Mr. Wilshire: With punishment beatings, targeting, re-arming and recruiting continuing, and with a former member of the IRA saying that helping Sinn Fein-IRA masquerade as a democratic party can only lead to civil war, is not it time to stop falling over backwards to try to get Sinn Fein-IRA into all-party talks and to crack down on evil murderers in the proper way?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am not falling over backwards or forwards, nor am I helping Sinn Fein to masquerade in any way. I seek to enable a process for which people have voted to come fully into effect. It is therefore important that the Government should make it plain that if Sinn Fein complies with the requirements imposed by both Governments on all other democratic parties, it will not be excluded from those talks. The question is: when will Sinn Fein be prepared so to demonstrate its commitment to those principles? It is important that it should do so; if it does not, the blame will lie with it and no one else.

    Budget (Health Boards)
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the effects of the Budget on the services provided by the health boards. [7323]
    Mr. Moss: In 1997–98, £1.642 billion will be available for health and social services—a 1.5 per cent. real-terms increase.
    Mr. Ainsworth: The Minister will surely know that the deep cuts that have been made this year are having a considerable effect, with the consequent postponement of 6,000 operations and 55,000 outpatient appointments. Surely he should accept that, contrary to what he has just said, the Budget provides no real increases for next year. The consequence of those cuts will therefore be carried forward and exacerbated, and the inevitable effect will be longer waiting lists next year.
    Mr. Moss: I reiterate that this year's increase is a 1.5 per cent. real-terms increase—double the rate of last year's increase. We shall also be finding in-year money this year to help with elective surgery cases. We hope that next year—once I have discussed the matter with the boards and trusts—there will be no further cuts in the health and social services of Northern Ireland.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: We welcome that promise and look forward to seeing it fulfilled. Does the Minister share my concern that beds are being blocked because hospitals are keeping patients who could be released into residential and nursing homes—at far less cost to the Treasury—in order to hold that money in their own units? Does he also share my concern that the Ulster hospital says that it will be unable to pay salaries from January, that the Royal Victoria hospital has stopped elective surgery for neurosurgical cases, and that there are tremendous cries for aid in other parts of the Province?
    Mr. Moss: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about bed blocking, and I shall make an announcement about statutory provision in residential homes very soon. I repeat that in-year money from the Eastern board will be made available to assist with elective surgery cases, particularly at the Royal Victoria and Ulster hospitals.
    Mr. Dowd: Will the Minister confirm that his use of the phrase "real-terms increase" does not relate to NHS inflation—it refers to the standard rate of inflation? Will he also confirm that the settlement that has been announced will do nothing to prevent further cuts in the acute sector in Northern Ireland next year? Many hospitals in Northern Ireland have been closed for elective surgery for all but the patients of fundholding general practitioners. Will he further confirm to the House, as he did to me in writing, that Northern Ireland will not receive anything from the alleged year-on-year increases in NHS spending that the Secretary of State for Health and the Prime Minister, misleadingly, make so much of?
    Mr. Moss: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, funding for the health service in Northern Ireland is arranged separately from that for the health service in England and Wales. I repeat: this year we have a real-terms increase of 1.5 per cent. The increase in the family health service alone is 8 per cent., and that includes increases in the general practitioner service and allows for a considerable increase in the drugs budget. We are bearing down on that budget and I hope to release savings in the next year that can be ploughed back into other health services.

    Security Situation
    Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland. [7324]
    Sir John Wheeler: The loyalist ceasefire remains in place, which I very much welcome. The level of threat from the Provisional IRA remains high. The vigilance of the security forces on both sides of the border has foiled a number of recent terrorist attacks. In the past month, more than 50 people have been charged with terrorist-related offences, including murder and attempted murder, and a significant amount of weaponry has been recovered.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. What is the cost of all that? What is the cost of it in Northern Ireland? What is the knock-on cost for the mainland?
    Sir John Wheeler: The costs to the United Kingdom taxpayer are huge. In Northern Ireland, the average cost of a punishment attack is about £9,000—money that would go to the health service in Northern Ireland were it not being used to deal with the consequences of such a crime. About £3 million has been spent so far this year as a consequence of punishment attacks. Nearly £800,000 has been paid out on claims for arson against the destruction of churches in Northern Ireland. The costs are huge and are continuing to rise.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 December. [7345]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in the run-up to the Dublin summit, he will not abandon the British veto? Will he assure the House that he will never abandon that veto and never dissemble it in favour of qualified majority voting? Is he aware that European socialist leaders are in Dublin planning to do just that, and that the leader of the Labour party is part of that plot?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that we intend to retain the veto at the intergovernmental conference. I believe that to lose the veto would be quite unacceptable from the point of view of British national interest. It would open up policies that would be utterly unacceptable not only to the House but, I believe, to the majority of people in this country. We will maintain the veto. As I have indicated to the House before, I see no significant case whatever for an extension of qualified majority voting.
    Mr. Prescott: Will the Prime Minister confirm that yesterday's Treasury figures showed that the tax burden has gone up since 1992? Given his own record on tax, will he guarantee that, at the next general election, any tax promises that he makes will be made under oath?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows the relative records of the Conservative party and of his party on tax: he knows that income tax was 33p in the pound; he knows that other taxes went up to 98p in the pound; he knows that he has made £30 billion-worth of promises that he has to tax for; and he knows that he will be prepared to introduce a range of new taxes. It is no good him making silly gestures. That is the reality of life, and this country knows that.
    Mr. Prescott: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see that, regardless of whether the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) or the Prime Minister himself says that they will cut tax year on year, nobody believes the Tories? Will he now take down the posters that falsely claim that he cut tax, or is he going to carry on dissembling?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman might bear in mind the utterly untruthful and unscrupulous campaign that his party has been waging. Now that his leader has turned his back on him for a minute, perhaps he will confirm what the rate of the new windfall tax will be; perhaps he will tell us what the tartan tax will be and what its implications will be for Scotland; perhaps he will tell us about the health tax or the teenage tax or the extra tax on London or the very high taxes set by almost every
    400
    Labour council up and down the country. Taxes, the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party go together like strawberries and cream.
    Mr. Prescott: Is the Prime Minister not aware that since 1992 no fewer than 16 Ministers have resigned from his Government, many in shameful circumstances, which is a record number for any Government in British history? No wonder the Tories have lost the trust of the nation. Are we not at last seeing the last throes of a dying, dissembling Government, who should realise that it is time to go?
    The Prime Minister: I dare say the right hon. Gentleman has been practising that line in front of the mirror all morning. No doubt the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) is very pleased with his pupil for having learnt today's sound bite, but the right hon. Gentleman would be better off finding out policy and answering for the policies that his party tries to hide.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 December. [7346]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has he seen the report that nearly one in three German companies are trying to escape from European employment legislation? Will he continue to ensure that British firms are never saddled with those job-wrecking policies?
    The Prime Minister: It was the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) who went along with his Socialist International friends and signed up to precisely those policies, as no doubt his leader is doing yet again today, irrespective of the jobs that it will cost people in this country. I am not surprised that companies across Europe are moving from European countries to this country to establish themselves and to create jobs here. Other countries are losing investment as a result of following policies that the Opposition advocate. Companies are leaving those countries, coming here and investing and creating jobs, which is why our unemployment is falling.
    Mr. Ashdown: Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that, if the practical advantages of a single currency outweighed the disadvantages, he would be in favour of joining. Will the Prime Minister confirm that that is his view as well?
    The Prime Minister: That is precisely why we have kept an option—so that we can decide what is in the national interest. That has been our position from the outset. We must determine whether something is in the British national interest. If it is in the British national interest, we do it; if it is not in the British national interest, we say no.
    Mr. Viggers: While courage and valour are normally associated with our armed forces, does my right hon. Friend agree that there have been some remarkable cases of courage beyond the call of normal duty in our schools and elsewhere in the face of violence recently? Does he think that the Daily Mail and others have a reasonable point that such courage might reasonably be rewarded in the honours list or elsewhere?
    The Prime Minister: I think, as my hon. Friend knows, that there is a proper mechanism for considering such matters and that it is not for me to comment on them from the Dispatch Box. I am sure that what my hon. Friend said will be heard in appropriate places.
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 December. [7348]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hutton: Why cannot the Prime Minister admit that taxes on income as a percentage of earnings for all families will be higher at the time of the next general election than they were at the last? Why cannot he admit the accuracy of his own Government's figures—or has dissembling become a way for life for the Tory Government?
    The Prime Minister: I will tell the hon. Gentleman the real fact about taxes: that taxes would have been higher this year if we had still had the same tax regime as we had in 1991; taxes have fallen. I will also tell him that the average family will be £1,100 a year better off as a result of the tax changes and growth in the economy. That would not have occurred under any other Government, and certainly did not occur under the last Labour Government.
    Mr. Carttiss: In his discussions at the Dublin conference this weekend, will my right hon. Friend press as hard as he can on our European Union partners the need to come up with a favourable solution to the problem of quota hopping, which has caused so much damage to the United Kingdom fishing industry?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, but that will be a matter for the intergovernmental conference rather than discussions over this weekend. As my hon. Friend will know, we tabled a protocol to deal with quota hopping, and it is one of the matters that we shall deal with during discussions at the intergovernmental conference.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 December. [7349]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I have a very straight answer to my very simple question, which the Prime Minister has already been asked by two Labour Members? Is it true that yesterday the Government published some new figures on taxation, which show that far more of an average family's income will be paid to the Government in the coming year in the form of national insurance and income tax than was paid in 1992? The answer is yes or no. May I have that answer please?
    The Prime Minister: I have answered that question twice in the past few minutes, and the answer is exactly the same as it was a few moments ago.
    Mr. David Hunt: Will my right hon. Friend join me in recognising the outstanding reputation of the United Kingdom civil service throughout the world for integrity, independence and impartiality? Will he further join me in condemning those civil servants who appear to have joined some elements of the press and the Labour party in a network of systematic leaks, which are damaging not only the Government and Parliament but the reputation of the civil service and the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly share my right hon. Friend's belief that we have a first-class civil service. The overwhelming majority of civil servants abide strictly by the rules, but unfortunately a very few do not. Any leaks are to be deplored, but equally to be deplored are the activities of Labour Front Benchers and Back Benchers who encourage and use leaks.
    "Leaked documents are particularly welcome. I promise to make good use of them."
    Those words were used by the then shadow Transport Secretary not very long ago. I hope that we shall hear no lectures about standards in politics from people who make such remarks.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 December. [7351]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: When my right hon. Friend goes to Dublin at the weekend, will he press on his European counterparts the success of the British economy and tell them that it can be attributed to 17 continuous years of Conservative government?
    The Prime Minister: I shall most certainly do that. Anybody who reads what is being said almost daily in Europe—for example in the French press recently—will realise that people abroad recognise the success of the British economy and, on a number of occasions, have praised not just the success of the British economy but the policies of this Government, which they believe have brought it about.
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 December. [7352]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mullin: With the benefit of hindsight, does the Prime Minister consider it unfortunate that a company controlled by one man now controls 40 per cent. of our national newspapers and the technology liable to form the gateway to all British television in the near future? Does he consider it unhealthy that we now appear to have reached a position where neither of the main parties is willing to speak out because of the fear that that company will unleash its newspapers against it in the run up to a general election? This is not a cheap attempt to score points and I hope that the Prime Minister will not respond in that way. It is a serious matter in a democracy.
    The Prime Minister: We have an open market. I believe that that is the right way for us to proceed, but that power must be used responsibly. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. I hope he will draw that to the attention of his party leader, who flew to prostrate himself at the feet of the gentleman whom I believe the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
    Mr. Renton: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read the excellent article, which is extremely positive
    404
    about our trade with Europe, on page 6 of The Sun, written by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Its headline reads: "Britain can be Champs of Europe like Man United!" Our local club in Sussex, the Seagulls—Brighton and Hove Albion—although conveniently placed for trade with the continent, is in every kind of trouble at the moment. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend could instruct his colleagues, when they write such positive articles in future, to give the Seagulls a bit of a boost.
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to commend the scale of our trade with our colleagues in the European Union. There is no doubt about its importance, its growth and the extent to which it has contributed to a general rise in the standard of living in the United Kingdom. As for my hon. Friend's football team, if he will forgive me, I often have enough difficulty with my own football team.
    Madam Speaker: I deprecate the absence of hon. Members today without an apology to the Prime Minister or to me.

Public Expenditure (Wales)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on public expenditure in Wales. Copies of my statement, provisional standard spending assessments, my proposals for a council tax damping scheme, provisional capping principles and notional amounts for local authorities are available in the Vote Office. Full details of my decisions will be published in due course. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are having difficulty hearing. Will those who are leaving please do so quietly now? We have business to conduct here.
Mr. Hague: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Next year, the Welsh Office will have its biggest budget ever, at £6.9 billion. That is £100 million more than the budget for this year and £70 million more than the original plans. Provision for Wales is reached through the block and formula arrangements. For this survey, the consequentials from local government revenue provision in England have been calculated on the basis of total standard spending rather than aggregate external finance. That is essentially a technical change, but it brings significant benefits to the Welsh block.
I intend to make the money available go even further next year by making the most of the private finance initiative. Six deals have already been signed, with a total capital value of £25 million, and more are in the pipeline. In all, we hope to generate capital spending of around £350 million through the PFI over the next three years.
I am making available £0.5 million to assist local authorities in developing a range of pathfinder PFI projects, and I have asked the Higher and Further Education Funding Councils to look at the scope for providing similar assistance in their sphere.
The Welsh Office will operate efficiently and at minimum cost. Over the next three years, the costs of running the Welsh Office will fall by more than 8 per cent. I am requiring all non-departmental public bodies in Wales to make efficiency savings in their running costs too, releasing overall savings next year of about £1.5 million.
The decisions that I am presenting today are clear choices that build on success. My aim is to increase personal prosperity and to improve quality of life. I am therefore making health, jobs and education my priorities, even though that means reductions in some other programmes.
In my statement last year, I increased health spending in Wales for the current year by £84 million. Today I am announcing an additional £94 million for next year, an increase over this year's plans of more than 4 per cent. Health spending in Wales is 14 per cent. more per head than in England. This is a very good settlement for health authorities and trusts, but I look to them to continue to make efficiency savings and to drive down costs—particularly management costs—so that the savings can be transferred to patient care.
Health service capital expenditure of £40 million is going through the PFI process at the moment. I can also announce today a package of conventionally funded
406
schemes worth more than £55 million, including £31 million for the provision of a new accident and emergency service and other developments at the University hospital of Wales; £20 million, subject to health authority support for the business case, for a cancer centre in north Wales; and £4 million for a medium secure unit also in north Wales.
The total amount available for training next year will be £136 million, about the same as the expected spend this year. Our aim is to equip Wales with the skills needed for the record-breaking number of jobs now being created. I am increasing provision for modern apprenticeships to £27 million, an increase over spending this year of nearly £12 million—more than 75 per cent.—allowing a further 4,300 young people to begin modern apprenticeships.
Some £2.8 million will be available for adult technicians, which is more than twice as much as provided this year. Support for careers service companies will increase by 18 per cent. on this year's spending. To accommodate those increases, we will have to cut back elsewhere. Against a background of falling unemployment, there will be a reduction in the training for work programme.
In addition to the provision I am making available through standard spending assessments for local authorities, I am providing directly £566 million for education in Wales. This includes £177 million for further education and £237 million for higher education through the funding councils. Total capital provision for schools will be £68 million, including £9 million for the popular schools initiative; £5.5 million for schools projects under capital challenge; and £1 million for the technology schools initiative. Together with the increase of more than 20 per cent. in the past two years, that brings the level of capital provision to its highest ever for schools in Wales.
In giving extra money to some areas, I must give less to others. The central Government roads programme will be reduced next year to £113 million. The first priority is the maintenance of the existing network, but work will also continue on three schemes starting this financial year—the A40 Carmarthen eastern bypass, the A4060 Mountain Hare to Dowlais, and the A55 Waen to Pont Dafydd. Work will start next year on the A470 between Dolwyddelan and Pont Afanc. Work will continue on the proposed PFI schemes—notably the A55 dualling across Anglesey—and on a programme of important structural renewal, including the reconstruction of the A449 between Usk and Newport.
I am also reducing net capital provision for Housing for Wales next year to £60 million. That will support a gross investment programme by housing associations of well over £100 million and will provide around 3,000 new dwellings next year. It will be provided on top of gross investment of more than £1.4 billion since Housing for Wales was set up in 1989. The social housing grant will be set at 56 per cent, which represents a generous level of support and maintains downward pressure on rent levels.
I am providing £215 million for local authority housing. That includes £164 million for private sector housing renovation, incorporating £14 million of challenge funding for area renewal. It will bring total investment in private housing renovation to more than £1.1 billion since 1990. To encourage the transfer of housing stock to local housing companies or housing associations, I am introducing a three-year holiday from the 20 per cent. levy

407
on capital receipts and a guarantee that local authorities can use 25 per cent. of receipts to spend on housing. In all, I propose to make £443 million available to local authorities for capital expenditure next year, including the provision for schools and housing that I have already detailed.
While next year's local authority capital settlement is a reduction on this year's level, I have been careful to protect schools—a priority—and local authority capital provision next year will still be very considerable. In fact, per head of population, it will be two and a half times that for England.
I am providing more than £76 million next year for local authority roads. That includes provision of nearly £54 million for transport grant schemes to meet the estimated costs of committed schemes.
I am also providing initial funding for the design costs associated with five new schemes, although future funding depends on new arrangements being agreed by local authorities to avoid their cost overruns, which have caused serious problems in recent years. These schemes concern the Tredegar Park interchange, the Port Talbot peripheral distributor road, the Church Village bypass, the Wrexham industrial estate, and the Ceredigion link roads.
The £39 million available for capital and revenue under the strategic development scheme will fund all forward commitments in the next year and an allocation of £11.6 million, which authorities can decide for themselves how to use.
I am announcing today projects with a total value of £32.6 million to be supported under the new Welsh capital challenge. Allocations for next year will total £20 million. As well as the schools projects that I have already mentioned, this innovative approach will support a wide range of projects to help create or safeguard 1,200 jobs and, in partnership with the private sector, provide further employment opportunities. These include industrial parks in Anglesey and Carmarthen and tourist developments in Llandudno and Porthcawl.
The reductions of which I have spoken will allow us to increase spending in other areas on top of the huge rise in health spending that I have already announced.
For local authority revenue spending, I propose to set aggregate external finance, AEF, at £2,578 million—up £64 million or 2.6 per cent. That is £884 for every person in Wales, over f150 more than in England. I propose to set total standard spending for next year at £2,931 million, which is 2.3 per cent. up on this year, and includes £169 million for community care and £341 million for police authorities. The police settlement is up 2.7 per cent., and builds on increases in the past two years of five per cent. and 11 per cent. respectively.
With that level of support, there is no reason for the average increase in Welsh council tax to be any higher than that in England; and the large difference between English and Welsh council tax levels will continue to be at least as great as last year. These decisions, though, are for local and police authorities to take bearing in mind the impact on council tax payers. They should certainly not view capping limits—which I will come to in a moment—as a target. They are a ceiling.
I propose to continue damping, and within AEF I am making £18.3 million available so that the maximum increase in council tax in Wales should be no more than
408
15 per cent., excluding community council precepts and the cost of discretionary non-domestic rate relief. The majority of increases will be capped well below that level.
For next year, I propose that a local authority's budget should be considered excessive if it exceeds its standard spending assessment by 12.5 per cent. or involves an increase over its base budget for this year of more than 1.8 per cent., or more than the cash increase in its SSA, whichever is greater. I shall consult local government in Wales on the basis for my capping and damping proposals.
These principles are provisional. Actual principles will not be set until local and police authorities have set their budgets for next year. My Department is writing to Welsh local authorities notifying them of their provisional SSAs.
Budgets for the national library and the national museums and galleries of Wales will be held constant next year, as will those of the Sports Council, the Wales tourist board and CADW.
The budget for the Arts Council for Wales will rise to £14.5 million, which will enable it to maintain its current level of support for the arts in Wales and reorganise its senior management structure. It will also provide £0.5 million over the next three years to support dance and drama students.
The Welsh Language Board will receive a significant increase, bringing its budget next year to £3.7 million, enabling it to discharge its new responsibilities of grant-aiding the four major Welsh language organisations.
I am providing £23.2 million for the Countryside Council for Wales, an increase of £1.2 million over this year. That comes on top of last year's large increase and the additional funds that I have made available in-year to address the consequences of the Sea Empress spillage.
Agriculture forms part of the Welsh Office budget, although it is not part of the block. Domestic expenditure on agriculture in Wales will be £66 million, an increase of £8 million over this year's spending. Taken with £192 million from the European Union, total provision next year will be £258 million. While that is less than the present year, it is mainly due to the revaluation of the green pound. We are increasing the hill livestock compensatory allowance rates for cattle by 105 per cent. and 194 per cent., and are maintaining the rates for sheep. Otherwise, provision for bovine spongiform encephalopathy is additional to the resources that I am announcing today for Wales, since it is dealt with on a UK basis, but Welsh farmers are benefiting from £3.3 billion of Government support to maintain the industry as a whole.
My top priority is the creation of a vibrant economy in Wales, in which the economic development agencies in Wales will continue to play a major part. Cardiff Bay development corporation will spend £53 million next year on the barrage, reclamation and development, thus attracting more private investment.
The gross budget of the Development Board for Rural Wales next year will be more than £20 million, which matches this year's spending. I have asked it to focus inward investment support on the western part of its area.
During this year, I have added £25 million to the Welsh Development Agency budget. I am adding a further £20 million for next year, which takes its grant in aid to £85 million, and the gross provision to £150 million.

409
The settlement will allow the agency to accommodate additional expenditure arising from the Lucky Goldstar project, and to continue its wide range of other programmes. Our success with LG has been spectacular, but I do not want resources to be concentrated in south-east Wales at the expense of other areas. I therefore want the agency, with the Land Authority for Wales, to prepare key strategic investment sites across Wales.
This year has been a tremendous year for inward investment. More than 130 projects have been secured. Those projects promise to create more than 15,000 new jobs, and generate capital investment of more than £2.4 billion.
The regional selective assistance budget next year will be the biggest ever at £70 million—27 per cent. more than this year. That demonstrates our commitment to bringing new jobs to Wales, and through that and other industry support schemes, we are helping Welsh companies to take advantage of our record inward investments.
Taken together, the measures that I have announced today provide for economic development of more than £300 million next year. That is a 14 per cent. increase on planned spending for this year, and represents a huge investment in the future of Wales.
I have set before the House my clear priorities. They are clear choices, and to do anything else would compromise the successes of recent years. What we propose now will build on those successes.
Mr. Ron Davies: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Those of us lucky enough to read yesterday's Western Mail were treated to a preview. I want to put on record my protest to you, Madam Speaker, and to the Secretary of State, for what I regard as a gross discourtesy to Welsh Members of Parliament. It is clear that the Western Mail received an accurate and deliberate briefing from the Welsh Office.
To make matters worse, the information that it was given on Tuesday is precisely the information that the Secretary of State chose to withhold from Welsh Members at last week's meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee. Does that not show yet again the contempt that the present Administration has for our democratic procedures, especially for the way in which Welsh affairs are run?
Earlier this week, the Deputy Prime Minister strongly attacked what he called the "leak culture". Does the Secretary of State agree with that view? If so, will he now apologise to Welsh Members and to you, Madam Speaker, for his actions and for those of people working on his behalf in deliberately leaking the information contained in today's statement?
There is clearly a difference of opinion between us on the Government's overall spending plans. Do the plans that the Secretary of State announced confirm the figures in his press release of 26 November? That press release stated that there will be a reduction in real-terms expenditure in the total Welsh Office budget next year of 0.9 per cent., a cut of 2.3 per cent. the following year both in cash terms and in real terms, and a further cut of 1.6 per cent. by the end of the decade.
Does the Secretary of State understand that those cuts reflect badly on the economic record of a Government who are failing to meet their inflation, borrowing and
410
growth forecasts? Above all, the Government are not taking the right decisions on investment, either in the private sector or in their own spending programmes.
The Secretary of State should realise that his statement shows what everyone now recognises as the Government's true character: they do not plan for the future, and their priority is to promote privilege for the few, not opportunities for the many. Why should anyone believe his forecast for local government—the largest sector—when we all know that he is, at best, dissembling? His total standard spending for next year is £2,931.1 million. That is a cash increase of 66.3 million on last year's expenditure, but spending for the current year in local government is already £207 million more than next year's TSS. Inevitably, therefore, inadequate resources will be available to meet the demands placed on local authorities to provide essential public services.
Why has the Secretary of State not noted the warnings of the Welsh Local Government Association of a meltdown in services? Does he realise that, even with the—I understand—1.8 per cent. capping limit that he has announced today, council tax increases are likely to be substantial for the average band D property in a number of local authorities? The increase is likely to be over £65 in the Vale of Glamorgan, over £60 in Aberconwy, over £82 in Carmarthenshire, over £65 in Pembrokeshire, over £81 in Neath and Port Talbot, over £63 in Cardiff and £76.50 in Cardiganshire. Even if the Secretary of State achieves his maximum figure of 15 per cent., average increases in Wales are still likely to be some 12 or 13 per cent. in council tax bills.
Does that not show that any small benefit that was given with one hand in the Budget will be more than taken back in next year's Tory tax increase? Does the Secretary of State realise that, even with the tax increases, the quality of services will fall, with education—which takes 50 per cent. of total local government spending—bearing the brunt of the cuts? Is that not a clear example of the Government's sacrificing the long-term future of our country?
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, over the past two years, pupil numbers in Wales have increased by 10,873, while teacher numbers have fallen by 69? Why should educational opportunities for our children be declining in that way, while the Government plan to waste £45 million next year on the right hon. Gentleman's unwanted and bureaucratic nursery voucher scheme?
This year's Welsh Office spending on the national health service, including the extra £30 million that the Secretary of State added in his winter supplementary estimate, is £2,305 million. I think that the Secretary of State and I agree on that. That figure, however, has produced a current-year spending cash crisis in the NHS, with an astonishing one in three trusts in Wales in deficit at the halfway point this year. If we take into account that winter supplementary estimate of £30 million, there is in fact an increase of £64 million, not £94 million as the Secretary of State tried to claim a moment ago. I fear that he is dissembling again.
How much of next year's apparent cash increase will be swallowed up in covering the deficits in trust and health authority budgets at the end of the current financial year? In particular, what proposals has the Secretary of State to assist general practitioners and hospitals with their emergency medical admissions in the coming winter, to avoid a repeat of last year's disasters?

411
Does the Secretary of State recall last year's extravagant claims about the PFI? Does he recall talking of 25 projects with a total value of £1 billion, and the claim that he made on 13 December last year? He said then:
"We will announce very soon the first major PFI project in Wales".—[Official Report, 13 December 1995; Vol. 268. c. 1002.]
Will the Secretary of State now confirm that the only agreed projects under way to date are the £6 million car park and road scheme at UCH Cardiff, and the Osiris project in his own office? Will he now apologise for having grossly inflated his estimates last year, and will he reflect on the words of Mr. Ken Gill, Welsh managing director of Jarvis and Son, who said on Tuesday this week that he could not wait for the election of a Labour Government who could sort out the PFI mess and use the PFI to supplement public money, not to replace it?
May I remind the Secretary of State of our firm support for the development agencies? Is it not the case, however, that the Welsh Development Agency will still come under great strain, even with expenditure at the £85 million that the right hon. Gentleman has just announced? In real terms, that £85 million is not much greater than the £70 million allocation that existed before his predecessor embarked on a programme of savage cuts in the agency budget.
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the WDA's budget has been going up and down like a yo-yo, courtesy of the prevailing political dogma in the Welsh Office? Will he confirm, therefore, that, given his budget and its commitments to the LG project, the agency will face a difficult year? Given that that is true, how can he expect the agency to develop a long-term strategy when it is subject to such dramatic and capricious changes in its funding? Why has the Secretary of State allowed the management and the administrative costs of the top 10 quangos in Wales to increase by £52 million—an increase of 95 per cent.—while simultaneously making cuts in the budget of a whole sector of Welsh Office activity?
Let me list the cuts that I have identified from the right hon. Gentleman's statement. There are cuts in local authority revenue expenditure and in local authority capital programmes, a cut of 30 per cent.—£25 million—in the housing budget, a cut in road programmes of 30 per cent., and a cut in Higher Education Funding Council expenditure of 5 per cent. There are cuts in the budgets of the Further Education Funding Council and of the Development Board for Rural Wales, and cuts in real terms in the budget of the Countryside Council for Wales. Despite the Secretary of State's claims, if the comparison is made in real terms with the 1995–96 outturn cut, there has been a cut in the budget of the CCW, his pet quango.
There have been cuts in the budgets of the national library, the National Museums and Galleries of Wales, the Sports Council for Wales, the Wales tourist board, the CADW agency and the agriculture budget. What assessment is the Secretary of State making of the impact of those cuts on the Welsh economy? Unfortunately, we did not receive any indication that the Secretary of State even understands, let alone has started to assess, their impact on the Welsh economy.
Does not the fact that, last year, the Secretary of State announced a £2 million survey of housing conditions in Wales and, this year, a £25 million cut in housing provision, demonstrate how profligate his judgment is and how devoid he is of any long-term strategy for the improvement of economic and social conditions in Wales?
412
Does the Secretary of State realise that this budget does not reflect the priorities of the people of Wales? The role of Government should be to provide prospects for future economic development, to improve the quality of public services and to serve the needs of the community, not the vested interests of a privileged few. This budget does not provide a basis for that. His Government have failed to recognise that the new Government who will be elected shortly will face a challenging time dealing with the legacy of his wasteful, selfish and short-sighted administration.
Mr. Hague: I and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) can agree on one point: the carrying by the Western Mail of one element of my statement in its edition yesterday was regrettable. That leak is being investigated. I will be happy to let him know what comes of that investigation.
After that, virtually everything in the hon. Gentleman's question was mistaken or wrong in one way or another. He referred to what he believes to be an increase in the costs of non-departmental public bodies. No one else in Wales recognises his figures. The running costs of those bodies have been flat in cash terms for the past two years, and will be reduced, as I have explained, in the coming year.
The hon. Gentleman had the nerve to criticise the Government's economic record, even referring to inflation and growth. No Labour Government in history have achieved the combination of low inflation, steady growth, falling unemployment and booming exports that exists in this country and that has brought unemployment in Wales down to below 100,000. He had the amazing nerve to criticise my statement as not representing opportunities for the many, yet the statement increases the number of modern apprenticeships and of adult technicians, raises capital spending for schools to the highest level ever, and raises economic development budgets by 14 per cent. in total.
The hon. Gentleman described the WDA as having a difficult year, but it has had the most successful year it has ever enjoyed, as almost everyone else in Wales is aware. I have also announced further increases in its budget in my statement.
The hon. Gentleman calculated that council tax increases would average as much as 12 or 13 per cent. However, based on the capping principles which I have just announced, it is not possible that average increases could be anywhere near that amount. As I explained in my statement, the maximum—the maximum of maximums—would be 15 per cent. Most authorities would be capped at a much lower figure, and many would be capped on anything more than a very small increase.
The hon. Gentleman criticised our record on education. This year, however, there has been an improvement in examination results, and, next year—based on the spending figures I have announced today—there will be more students in higher and further education in Wales than ever before.
The hon. Gentleman criticised my statement for not setting out a plan for the long-term future—but my statement was precisely that. It is a plan that provides for investment in education, investment in the creation of jobs and investment in our health service. He criticised the health service figures, yet he will not match the

413
commitment that I have given to increase health spending by more than the inflation rate in every year of the next Parliament. He and those on the Opposition Front Bench have still refused to match that commitment, which makes their criticism of health spending sound very hollow.
The hon. Gentleman said that the statement does not reflect the priorities of the people of Wales. I think that the creation of jobs, support for education, encouragement of modern apprenticeship schemes and a strong health service are exactly the priorities of the people of Wales, and today I am implementing those priorities.
The hon. Gentleman, throughout his question, criticised reductions while welcoming increases. If not for the reductions that I have announced, we would not be able to have the announced increases. The alternative would be to have higher total spending. Therefore, in future—as he is trying to be all things to all people—he will have to answer the question of which increases he does not want. Does he not want increased spending on health or—it was an implication throughout his question—increased spending on the economic development agencies?
My statement reflects the priorities of the people of Wales, and I am confident that that is how it will be received.
Sir Wyn Roberts: May I assure my right hon. Friend that the people of Wales will welcome his statement, and particularly its main thrust—to support prosperity, and to promote personal prosperity? May I also assure him that other aspects of his statement will be particularly welcomed, such as the cancer centre which will be developed in north Wales, the apprenticeship schemes, his additional spending on schools and the road developments from Dolwyddelan to Pont Afanc, in my constituency, and the A55, across Anglesey?
Is it not clear from the comments of the hon. Member for Caerphilly that the Opposition have no idea what their plans might be? Is it not they who are dissembling—because they would be spending on assembling the assembly, with all the costs that that bureaucracy would involve?
Mr. Hague: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I agree with his remarks. The statement is about building on the success that we have achieved in recent years—in encouraging new jobs and investment, and in bringing new prosperity to Wales—and sets out the resources that will enable us to continue doing so in the future. I welcome his welcome for projects such as the north Wales cancer treatment centre and road projects in north Wales. Few people have done more than he has to ensure that the infrastructure of north Wales—including the development of the A55, with which, through private finance, we will now continue—is improved and ready to cope with the future.
My right hon. Friend is quite right on those matters. He is also correct in saying that, whereas I have stated clear priorities and made clear decisions to increase some budgets, even if that means reducing others, those on the Opposition Front Bench have demonstrated no such sense of priorities, or an ability to choose between one proposal and another.
Sir Raymond Powell: There is something wrong with the procedures of the House of Commons
414
when the Secretary of State can say that the papers that he will speak about can be obtained from the Vote Office and, before any Back Bencher can get a copy or know what he is going to say, he delivers his speech. I went to get the papers—it took me a while—and by the time I got back into the Chamber, the Secretary of State had been speaking for some five to 10 minutes. How can we represent the interests of our people and our constituencies in documents that cover the whole 12 months of expenditure in Wales with such a short time to consider them? How can we question the Secretary of State, on behalf of the local authorities we represent, on all the subjects that he covered?
Some months ago, I asked a question at Welsh question time about the £7 million shortfall in funding for the Bridgend and Ogmore constituencies in the Bridgend county council borough. I received an offhand reply with no explanation and I now want to know whether the county council—represented by both my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and myself—will be refunded for the £7 million shortfall for last year, in addition to any increase that is due this year, so that we can consider reopening the school that we closed in Ogmore-by-Sea and the swimming pool that we closed in the Ogmore valley, and so that the schools with 39 pupils in their classes—
Madam Speaker: Order. I not only have to safeguard this Welsh statement and see that all hon. Members concerned are able to put questions, but I have the other business of the House to safeguard, too. I am asking for questions, because I have heard a lot of comments since the Secretary of State sat down, and I must have brisk and direct questions that the Secretary of State can answer. Will the hon. Gentleman put a direct question, and give the Secretary of State an opportunity to answer directly and briskly?
Sir Raymond Powell: I shall be direct, and ask quick questions.
Why has the Secretary of State suggested reducing funding for training? Training is essential in our local authorities and, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) said, I can confirm that a lot of jiggery-pokery goes on with the figures. That is one question. The new local authorities have been in operation for eight months since the Government introduced them. Has the Secretary of State had any complaints whatever from any new unitary local authority in Wales about funding?
Madam Speaker rose—
Sir Raymond Powell: I will not go on any further.
Madam Speaker: Even my Christmas spirit of good will is being stretched by all those questions.
Mr. Hague: The hon. Member is worried about the chance to debate local authority matters, but we will, of course, have to have a debate on local authority finance to discuss my proposals. We usually have that debate some time in the new year—last year, it was passed by a majority of 72—and the hon. Gentleman will be able to speak at greater length in that debate. The money will be distributed among local authorities by the standard

415
spending assessment formula, which is agreed with the Welsh Local Government Association, and I am always happy to discuss changes in the formula.
The hon. Gentleman asked about money for training. I am redistributing the budget for training, and there will be a reduction in the training for work programme, but there will be an increase in spending on modern apprenticeships and adult technicians, because I think that they are more important and give better value for money.
Mr. Walter Sweeney: I welcome my right hon. Friend's emphasis on the importance of modern apprenticeships, which have attracted many welcome jobs to Wales, and particularly to Vale of Glamorgan. I wish to question my right hon. Friend on the roads programme that he has announced. As he knows, I am keen that there should be a new link road with the Cardiff international airport. He mentioned a number of road projects, but I did not hear him mention that project, and I wonder whether he could enlighten me.
Mr. Hague: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is quite right to emphasise the importance of modem apprenticeships. Inward investors, who have been flocking to Wales, want to know that we have the right standards and procedures for training, and increasing the number of modern apprenticeships is part of that.
I have provided money in this year's Budget settlement for preparatory work on a possible new link road to the airport. There is money in this year's provision for that preparatory work to continue, but the plans have been changing, and it is for the local authority to propose a specific road plan for a link to the airport.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Was it not the Secretary of State's party that coined the rather horrible phrase "a double whammy"? Are not most of our communities going to suffer "a double whammy"—first, an increase in council taxes that is way above wage increases in our communities and will more than wipe out any so-called tax cuts, and secondly, cuts in school budgets? If the latter cut is made, would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to review the figures?
Mr. Hague: The level of council tax will be set by local authorities. In this settlement, I am providing 88 per cent. of total standard spending for Welsh local government. If I had provided a higher proportion—the figure is already dramatically higher than the 79 per cent. provided in England—I would not have been able to accommodate many of the other measures that I have set out in my statement. The settlement strikes the right balance of priorities, and will result in more capital spending on schools. Of course, it means that local authorities must continue to make every possible effort to be efficient and to use resources wisely. There is still more scope for many of them to do that.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State said that he did not want disproportionate investment in south-east Wales, and that he had instructed the development agencies to prepare key investment sites. Does he recognise that that may be a change from the failures of the past—a sort of deathbed repentance' Does he further agree that, to offset the imbalance, one needs an across-the-board strategy to recognise what has gone
416
wrong in the past—for example, the savage cuts in agency funding—and the failure to build against the natural locational advantages of south-east Wales? Will he look at a strategy across the board in favour of other parts of Wales?
Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman cannot talk about failures in the past. Bringing Lucky Goldstar to south-east Wales—the biggest inward investment in the history of Europe—was not a failure of past policy, but a tremendous success for Wales. It also provides a tremendous opportunity for the whole of Wales, since at least as many jobs again can be provided all over Wales in supplying such an operation. We must not lose sight of that.
It is certainly true that, in the light of the huge success that we have enjoyed with that project and others near it, a greater effort is needed to make sure that future inward investments—wherever possible—go to other areas of Wales, or are helped to go further west or further north. Sometimes, the agency should be prepared to pay more for projects that go further west or north, and less for projects that go to areas that have done well in recent years. I agree that we need a strategy for the future, but it is not right to talk about failure in the past.
Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Secretary of State agree that the figures that he has announced today and those in the Red Book indicate that, in real terms, we will have a cut of £590 million in Government funding for Wales in the next three years? Since it is implicit in what he says that none of those cuts will be in health services, does it not automatically follow that £590 million of cuts will have to be met in other services? Since education is the major cost for local authorities, how on earth does he think that efficiency gains will enable local authorities to absorb cuts of that scale?
Mr. Hague: I have been straightforward in setting out how increases in some areas will require reductions in others. Reductions will be needed in the coming year in the roads programme and in total local authority capital spending—although not in schools—to accommodate increases elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman is right to think that we have to make a trade-off. Unfortunately, it is a recognition that is not shared by his colleagues on the Labour Front Bench.
In the longer term, the Government are committed to reducing the proportion of gross domestic product spent by the state. That means that we have to get more out of public expenditure and the majority of Departments have published in the survey plans that will imply reductions in real terms over a long period. We have added to the plans of the Welsh Office in this survey, and plans for future years will be revisited in future years.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Given that the Secretary of State has announced capping of 1.8 per cent. on local government spending over last year, that we face inflation of 2.7 per cent. and that local authorities need to take into account pay increases for teachers, increases in fire authority budgets and increases as a result of their new statutory responsibilities under the landfill tax, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the proposed settlements for local authorities will inevitably mean cuts in many of their services?

417
Given that the education budget accounts for almost half of local authority spending, does he not recognise that those cuts will put 1,000 teacher's jobs at risk in Wales and make class sizes much larger? Does he not recognise that social services will also be badly hit? How can he say that this is a good settlement for local authorities in Wales?
Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman should not be misled by the 1.8 per cent. The way in which capping works is complicated, but I said a 1.8 per cent. increase or the increase in the standard spending assessment, whichever is the greater. In many cases, that will be greater than that 1.8 per cent. figure.
The key figures are that the support that central Government are giving to local government will increase in this settlement by 2.6 per cent., which is a £64 million increase. That is about the current rate of inflation, and more than the forecast rate for the coming year. Local authorities have to learn to live within settlements that are around about the rate of inflation. The laws of economics are not suspended for local authorities, and they should be able to deliver their services without reducing them with settlements that provide them with an increase in line with the rate of inflation.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Does the Secretary of State accept that the figures that he has announced for the health service—a 4 per cent. increase on the plans for this year compared with next year—represent a real-terms cut because of the substantial non-recurrent expenditure that has taken place this year? In fact, the figure is far below 4 per cent. and he is not honouring his claim that there would be year-on-year increases in the health service.
Can the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that council tax payers will be faced with substantial rises while at the same time there will be substantial cuts, particularly in the education provided in our schools and in the social services provided to those in our community who need them? There may well be threats throughout Wales to residential homes provided by local councils. Can he also tell us why, despite the delegations from south-west Wales that have seen him about the need to improve communications to that area, he has made no announcement about improvements to the roads leading from the A40 to Pembroke Dock and Fishguard?
Mr. Hague: There were several questions there. On health spending, we have to compare like with like. I am comparing the plans at this point with the plans last year. Of course, there are often changes in year, but there will no doubt be changes in year in future years as well. I am adding £94 million compared to last year's spending plans.
Local authorities are receiving in total an extra £64 million. If Opposition Members think that the increase in the money we give to local authorities should be more than £64 million in the coming year, they need to come to the debate that we will hold next January or February on the local government settlement and say what the amount ought to be. They have to bear in it mind that that means either a higher level of spending or reductions in other programmes, neither of which they seem prepared to admit to advocating. That is what they have to face up to.
418
I have explained that I think that the other areas to which I have chosen to direct increased resources in the coming year are higher priorities than the roads programme. I am certain that the health service, the promotion of jobs and modern apprenticeships, and capital spending on schools are higher priorities; other people may disagree, but I am convinced that that is the right judgment.
Mr. Paul Flynn: The governor-general has claimed that he is fulfilling the political priorities of the people of Wales. How is he doing that by taking even more money from our least-favoured schools with the most problems and giving it to our most-favoured schools with the fewest problems, by trying to impose grant-maintained status, which was rejected by my constituents by an 87 per cent. majority in a recent poll, and by trying to impose on Wales an unwanted nursery vouchers system, when the Government's survey of popular opinion in Wales found that 5,000 people were against it and only one person in favour? Are not the Secretary of State's educational priorities alien, irrelevant and damaging to Wales?
Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman has not understood that choice and diversity in education improve educational opportunity for everyone. That is demonstrated by the improved performance of our schools over the past year. He has not noticed that nursery vouchers are bringing additional resources of between £4 million and £5 million into nursery education in Wales.
The hon. Gentleman asks how I know what the priorities of people in Wales are. I have noticed that the one thing that nobody in Wales ever stops me in the street and asks me to spend more money on is setting up an assembly full of politicians wasting their time in Cardiff.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I welcome the Secretary of State's comments on the Carmarthen eastern bypass, and I am pleased that it is going ahead and will not involve the private finance initiative. More generally, however, he dressed up the statement as representing growth here and increases there, but that belies numerous cuts in highways, housing and other areas. Is not the summary of his statement given in the first paragraph, which says that the budget of £6.9 billion is £100 million more than this year's? That is an increase of only 1.4 per cent., at a time when inflation is at 2.7 per cent. Is that not in truth a cut of 1 per cent. in what the Welsh Office is doing for the economy of Wales?
Mr. Hague: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for my remarks about the Carmarthen eastern bypass. He said that the statement was dressed up as increases and growth everywhere, but that is not the case. I explained that I deliberately made increases in some areas, and I said clearly that there will have to be reductions in others. There is no dressing up; there is a clear choice of priorities. We want to increase some things, and to do it we have to reduce others. What has been absent from the debate is any sense among Opposition Members of choosing priorities, because they want to be all things to all people: they want to criticise every reduction and still have every increase.
Dr. Kim Howells: Is the Secretary of State aware that Rhondda Cynon Taff contains some of

419
the hardest hit and poorest communities in Wales? What does he intend to do to scotch the rumours that we will lose hundreds of teaching jobs because the local authority simply will not be able to afford to employ teachers in the future? Those are not bare statistics, but extremely difficult choices that will have to be made. We have heard nothing this afternoon that will give anyone any hope that those awful redundancies will not become a reality.
Mr. Hague: Such stories are given currency by local authorities to reinforce their negotiating position and are then quoted by hon. Members in the House. Today, I have set out a £64 million increase in the amount that the Government will give to local authorities next year. It will be distributed among them according to the formula that is agreed with them. If Opposition Members think that the increase should be greater, they will have to say where they would obtain the money.
Mr. Peter Hain: Does the Secretary of State have any additional damping provision above that previously announced for Neath and Port Talbot? Depending on his answer, I am either extremely angry or absolutely livid. Last year, we had cuts of £10 million, and lost 35 teachers. This year, I estimate additional cuts of £7 million and that 25 teachers will be sacked. Last year, we had a 25 per cent. increase in council tax, an average of £125. This year, I estimate that it will be 15 per cent., nearly £90.
That will mean that council tax will have risen by more than 40 per cent. in two years. How can the Secretary of State possibly think that local people can pay that sort of money? He is strangling local communities in Wales. He should apologise and be ashamed of himself.
Mr. Hague: As I have explained, the Government provide, one way or another, 88 per cent. of the money spent by local authorities in Wales. That proportion is dramatically higher than in England. Last year, I introduced two damping schemes to protect people faced by very large council tax rises; this year I do not contemplate any additional damping on top.
Mr. Hain: Now I am livid.
Mr. Hague: I am distressed that the hon. Gentleman is now livid, but he will understand that the £18 million damping scheme that I announced in my statement will mean that the maximum council tax increase for any authority in Wales will be 15 per cent. However, the maximum increase that most authorities can impose will be dramatically less than that. We are dealing with a situation quite different from last year. The large differential between English and Welsh council taxes will at the least be maintained.

Business of the House
4.25 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I should like to make a statement about the business for next week and for the week after the recess:
MONDAY 16 DECEMBER—Debate on the common fisheries policy on a Government motion.
TUESDAY 17 DECEMBER—Progress on the Protection from Harassment Bill.
WEDNESDAY 18 DECEMBER—Until 2 pm, debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, of which the first will be the three-hour debate that I normally wind up.
Conclusion of proceedings on the Protection from Harassment Bill.
Second Reading of the National Heritage Bill [Lords].
The House will wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, it is proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas recess on Wednesday 18 December until Monday 13 January.
The business for the first week back after the Christmas recess will be as follows:
MONDAY 13 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Crime (Sentences) Bill.
TUESDAY 14 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY 15 JANUARY—Until 2 pm, debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill.
THURSDAY 16 JANUARY—Subject to progress in Committee, remaining stages of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill.
FRIDAY 17 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that on Tuesday 17 December there will be a debate on the information society in European Standing Committee B, and that on Wednesday 18 December there will be a debate on the social dialogue in European Standing Committee B.
It will also be proposed that on Wednesday 15 January there will be a debate on the draft general budget for 1997 in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Tuesday 17 December 1996:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community Document: 9795/96, The Information Society: priorities and implications. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 36-i (1996–97).
Wednesday 18 December 1996:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community Document: 10305/96, Development of the Social Dialogue. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 36-ii (1996–97).
Wednesday 15 January 1997:
Relevant European Community Documents: (a) 9372/96, Draft general budget 1997; (b) SEC(96)1677, Letter of amendment No. 1 to the preliminary draft budget 1997; (c) PE 252 724, 1997

421
Budget; (d) Unnumbered, Letter of amendment No. 2 to the preliminary draft budget 1997; (e) Unnumbered, Amendments to the draft general budget 1997. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: (a) and (b) HC 36-i (1996–97); (c) HC 36-iii (1996–97); (d) HC 36-iv and HC 36-vii (1996–97); (e) HC 36-v (1996–97).]
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. The House will be grateful that he was able to give us an idea of business during the first week back, which will help hon. Members.
The Leader of the House knows that the first meeting of the Highlands and Islands Convention is to be held in Inverness on Monday afternoon. The hon. Members who will attend have a significant interest in the fisheries debate which is to be held in the House at exactly the same time. Can we have an assurance that such clashes will be avoided in future? Hon. Members will face great difficulty in representing their constituencies in two places at the same time.
In view of the recent meeting of the Millennium Commission and the concerns about the future of the millennium exhibition, would not it be appropriate for the Secretary of State for National Heritage to make a statement to the House before we rise for the Christmas recess so that we can be kept informed about that project, which involves large sums of money?
The Leader of the House will be aware that he has been unable to grant our request for an Opposition day between the Budget and Christmas. May we have an assurance that, in the new year, Opposition days will be given the priority that they deserve in business planning?
What will happen to the Welsh Development Agency Bill in the new year?
When the House returns after the recess, is the writ for the Wirral, South by-election likely to be moved?
In view of significant public concern about food safety, which stretches back over many years—with scares about salmonella, listeria, BSE and now E. coli—will the Government find time to debate the positive steps that could be taken were they to accept the Labour party's policy of introducing an independent food standards agency?
Mr. Newton: I thank the hon. Lady for her words at the beginning of her response.
I regret the possible clash of commitments for Scottish Members—particularly on Monday—but there would have been complaints if we had not had the fisheries debate before the Fisheries Council, which is what the House would expect and is the cause of the clash. If there were an obvious way of avoiding the clash, I would happily find it, but as far as I can judge there is not.
I shall draw the hon. Lady's request about the Millennium Commission to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. I note that my right hon. Friend is the next Minister to answer questions in the House—she is due to answer them on Monday.
I am grateful for the moderate way in which the hon. Lady made her point about Opposition days, and I know that she appreciates the problems that we have had recently. I shall bear in mind the need for Opposition time when I consider future business.
422
We shall seek to make progress on the Welsh Development Agency Bill as soon as possible, but I cannot predict exactly when that will be.
On the subject of the Wirral, South by-election, the hon. Lady will be aware that the memorial service for our late colleague took place only this morning, and it is certainly not customary to think about moving writs before such a service. I am sure that my right hon. Friends who are concerned with such matters will, when appropriate, consider the timing of the writ.
On the subject of food safety, the Government will seek to consider the lessons to be learnt from the latest outbreak, but I cannot draw conclusions from it in the way that the hon. Lady suggested.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend allow the House time to debate civil air transport policy either before the Christmas recess or in the first week after it? Is he aware that there are issues of great importance that should be debated in Government time—the proposed alliance between British Airways and American Airlines, the possibility of a slot auction at Heathrow airport, the continuing Bermuda 2 air service agreement negotiations between the United States and the United Kingdom, with the necessity for more gateways for British carriers into the United States, and the fact that the new noise regulations are due to come into force on 1 January? Those are important matters for my constituents and the country as a whole.
Mr. Newton: I certainly acknowledge the importance of those matters for my hon. Friend's constituents. I also acknowledge my hon. Friend's expertise in the matter, but I cannot immediately promise a debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is the first Minister due to answer questions after the recess.
Mr. David Rendel: Does the Leader of the House recognise the great concern, felt in several parts of the country that have Ministry of Defence establishments, about possible changes to the MOD police force? Is he prepared to allow a full debate in the House on the Army Terms of Service (Amendment) Regulations 1996, against which a prayer has been laid by two prominent members of the Conservative party as well as the leader of the Opposition and me?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a debate, despite the fact that the MOD police headquarters is in my constituency. I plainly have an interest in the matter. On the latter point, I shall look into what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Given the staggering news, which is just coming through, that the Labour party has been seeking to fix the "Today" BBC personality of the year and that "Today", the BBC Radio 4 programme, has suspended that operation pending a proper investigation, could we have a debate on public standards in public life and the independence of the BBC, to ensure that we properly air how the Labour party is seeking to manipulate the media?
Mr. Newton: That sounds an extremely attractive proposition on the basis of the intelligence that my hon. Friend has communicated to the House. At least one

423
member of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges is in his place and suggesting that we should take that matter on as well. I would have to pass on that one for the moment.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Opposition are likely to defeat the Government in Monday's vote on the fisheries motion—due to the Government's lack of a majority, especially after today's by-election? Will the Government make provision for a confidence motion on Tuesday? Many people can smell the decay and rottenness of the Government. They are on their last legs; it is time that they were wrapped up—giving everybody a Christmas present. Let us have an election and sort it all out.
Mr. Newton: Great as is my desire to please the hon. Gentleman, as ever, even to the point of being willing to give him a Christmas present, I do not think that it will be that one.
Mr. David Shaw: Would it be appropriate to have a debate on the shortfall in tax revenues since about 1990, when three hon. Members tried to smuggle a video camera through Customs? Those hon. Members have never been punished. Indeed, one of them sits on the Opposition Front Bench to this day.
Mr. Newton: I think that you, Madam Speaker, would probably be with me in saying that, if there are matters that ought to be investigated in respect of hon. Members' conduct, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them on the Floor of the House. It would be appropriate to draw them to the attention of the Parliamentary Commissioner.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The problem with the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is that he gives slapheads a bad name, which I greatly resent.
My question relates to coal mines, all of which in Derbyshire have been closed, the last one being closed by the Deputy Prime Minister. Many pits and drift mines have been closed, which has created a great problem of abandoned mine shafts. There is a Select Committee report on the matter. Can we debate it? I believe that slots are available on a Wednesday morning for the discussion of Select Committee reports.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point that deserves a serious response. He is right: there is provision for some debates on Select Committee reports, some of them on Wednesday mornings. We have had some such debates recently. They are normally chosen on the advice of the Liaison Committee, so the hon. Gentleman might care to make his representations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins).
Mr. Nigel Evans: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a full day's debate on the Floor of the House on trade union reform? Not only would it give me the opportunity to talk about how effective it has been, and to say that the United Kingdom has some of the lowest levels of strikes since records began, it would allow me to share with the House the views of a left-wing
424
Labour councillor from Burnley, Marcus Johnstone, who said during the most recent strikes in Paris—when the police were being pelted with stones, petrol bombs were being thrown and cars were being overturned—that they were a great inspiration for us all and that it was a great shame that people in this country did not demonstrate in exactly the same way against a right-wing Government. That is shocking in itself, but Marcus Johnstone has been selected as the Labour party's candidate to fight me at the next general election.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has found a most ingenious way in which to draw his constituents' attention to his opponent's views. It sounds to me as if he is lucky in his opponent.
Mr. David Winnick: Will there be an opportunity next week to debate the report of the Standards and Privileges Committee? Is the Leader of the House aware that many of us would like the opportunity to congratulate the Committee on demonstrating that an all-party Committee and self-regulation can work? If it can work on this occasion, it can work on others.
Would it not be useful if the Press Complaints Commission also could demonstrate that it is an effective self-regulating body?
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I might take that question as being directed principally at the Standards and Privileges Committee. I am sure that its members will be grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said.
I shall ensure that what the hon. Gentleman said about the Press Complaints Commission is drawn to the attention of Lord Wakeham, who is its chairman.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate as soon as possible on the use being made of facilities of the House? I understand that a Labour party document has been found on a photocopier, no doubt after hundreds of copies had been made, which explains how people can go about voting for the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) in the personality of the year contest on the BBC "Today" programme. That has apparently led to the BBC's realising that it has been had by a Labour party spoof, and closing down the contest this year—which is, I believe, unprecedented.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend emphasises the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin). I increasingly think that the photocopier is one of the most dangerous things ever invented.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House might think that I am harassing him, but why is Northern Ireland not included in the Protection from Harassment Bill, and why has the Northern Ireland Grand Committee not yet been called to deal with the Budget implications for Northern Ireland in light of the Prime Minister's statement a few weeks ago? Is he, like me, grateful that, for once, the European Court appears to have acted wisely—by throwing out the objections to the Hualon investment in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Newton: I note with satisfaction the hon. Gentleman's last remark. On the first two points, I shall take the questions as representations and consider them.
Mr. John Marshall: May we have an early debate on early-day motion 4?
[That this House calls on the Government to acknowledge that over 3,000 people with haemophilia have been infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV) as a result of NHS treatment with contaminated blood products, to recognise that over 60 people with haemophilia are now understood to have died from liver disease contracted as a result, and to consider giving similar financial assistance to those infected with HCV, who currently receive no additional help, as for those infected in the same way with HIV who have been compensated by the Government.]
It has now been signed by 273 Members of the House—a majority of those eligible to sign it.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, yesterday, a petition signed by 30,000 people was handed in at No. 10 Downing street? It calls for a hardship fund to be set up for haemophiliacs who have been infected with hepatitis C? Does he agree that, in the spirit of Christmas, that would be a useful and moral gesture for our right hon. Friends to make?
Mr. Newton: Once again, I pay sincere tribute to my hon. Friend's persistence in raising this matter and the way in which he has pursued it. I believe that he initiated a Wednesday morning Adjournment debate on that subject only yesterday. He will understand that I am not in a position to add to what the Minister said to him then.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: There seems to be an avoidance therapy on the issue of Monday's business in the House. Hon. Members such as me, who represent a highland seat, must try to be in two places at once, and at a time when travel can be very difficult. It may not be possible for members of the Highlands and Islands Convention to return to the House in time to vote, far less to speak in the debate. How on earth was that conflict reached by the usual channels? Who discussed the matter? Who decided that the common fisheries policy should be debated on the same day as the first meeting of the Highlands and Islands Convention? It seems to me that that is either sabotage of scrutiny or sabotage of the fishing industry.
Mr. Newton: It is not intended as sabotage of anything. We need to hold the fisheries debate before the Fisheries Council, and Monday seems the appropriate day on which to hold it.
Mrs. Ewing: What about Tuesday?
Mr. Newton: I have no wish to engage in a confrontation with the hon. Lady. I am sorry about the clash, but I do not believe that it would be right to expect me to apologise for putting on the order of business business that the House clearly expects to conduct.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: May we have a focused debate on the proposed enlargement of NATO?
426
The subject is often scooped up in defence or foreign affairs debates, but its importance must be emphasised. We should have a debate exclusively on this issue, bearing in mind that the general election will preoccupy us in the spring and there is a summit in Madrid in the early summer. It would be helpful if the House were able to discuss those changes, which are profoundly important for Europe and likely to occur this side of the general election battle.
Mr. Newton: That is a serious issue. The House has substantial opportunities to debate defence and related matters during the year, but I shall of course take note of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is the Leader of the House aware that there has been an outbreak of E. coli 0157 in my constituency this week, and that it is rumoured that it comes from contaminated milk from the adjoining constituency of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans)? There is tremendous anxiety. Eight people have been affected, mostly in the West Craven part of my constituency. May we have a statement next week on the outbreak and, perhaps early in the new year, a more wide-ranging debate on food safety—of the type called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor)?
Mr. Newton: I appreciate and respect the hon. Gentleman's reasons for raising that issue. I share his concern about the outbreak in his part of the world, just as I share the concern about the outbreak in Scotland. In his area's case, the outbreak is being investigated locally, and the Department of Health is keeping in close touch. I shall draw my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health's attention to the hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, should, by some miracle, the IRA call a ceasefire, the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill will become a matter of considerable importance, and of greater interest than it currently is. To that end, we welcome the fact that, at the end of the week in which we return to this place, we shall finish considering that Bill in the House. Is he also aware that a similar Bill, designed to accomplish exactly the same ends, is being passed in Ireland at present? Will he arrange for copies of the Dail Eireann Bill to be placed in the Library of the House that so we can be assured that it does exactly what the United Kingdom Bill does? Will he arrange for there to be a debate or a statement on BSE next week?
Mr. Newton: I note both those requests. I shall ensure that that relating to the Irish version of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill is brought to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Point of Order
4.47 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall the exchanges that took place earlier this afternoon on the statement on what has become known as the Welsh budget. At the outset of the statement, I mentioned the leak that took place earlier this week which led to accurate and comprehensive details of the statement appearing in the Western Mail on Tuesday. This is a matter of great concern to Welsh Members of Parliament because, at last week's meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee, we pressed the Secretary of State for the very information that appeared on Tuesday morning, and he refused to give it.
I was very grateful that the Secretary of State condemned the leak, and that he undertook to hold an inquiry, but I should like to ask you two questions. First, will you give your views on this matter, and say whether it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to make a statement to the House on the conclusion of his inquiry, so that we can test whether it has been as full and as thorough as we would expect it to be? Secondly, what steps can you take to ensure that the inquiry is as full and as comprehensive as it should be?
The point that concerns me is that Welsh Members have been treated very discourteously, if not contemptuously, by someone in the Secretary of State's office, and I should like to be assured that the inquiry will examine not only the role that civil servants may have played in the matter, but whether Ministers have been responsible for leaking information—or whether it is the strange political animal that we have come to know as a political adviser. Will you advise me what steps you can take to ensure the fullest inquiry?
Madam Speaker: I noted the hon. Gentleman's comments when he drew this matter to the attention of the House earlier today. I am very concerned by what I heard at that time and by what I read in a newspaper yesterday. Our clear convention is that important statements must be made first to this House, and I deprecate it most strongly when the substance of a statement is revealed in the media before presentation to the House. I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the comments made by the Secretary of State today when he said that he would have this matter investigated to see how the situation arose. It is, of course, for the Secretary of State to determine whether he will seek to make a statement to the House, but I should have thought that, in the circumstances, he might keep the hon. Gentleman informed of his inquiries.

European Union
[Relevant documents: The White Paper on Developments in the European Union, January to June 1996 (Cm 3469); Presidency General Outline for a draft revision of the Treaties; The Commission's Work Programme for 1997: New Legislative Proposals (SEC(96)1819); The Commission's Work Programme for 1997: Political Priorities (COM(96)507); European Community Document No. 10867/96 on the introduction of the euro; European Community Document No. 10893/96 on reinforced convergence procedures and a new exchange rate mechanism; European Community Document No. 10892/96 on a stability pact for ensuring budgetary discipline in stage 3 of EMU; Second and Third Reports from the Select Committee on European Legislation of Session 1996–97 (HC 36-ii and 36-iii); Sixth Report from the Select Committee on European Legislation of Session 1996–97, European Documents on Economic and Monetary Union: the Scrutiny Process (HC 36-vi); Eighth Report from the Treasury Committee of Session 1995–96, The Prognosis for Stage Three of Economic and Monetary Union (HC 283-I and II); Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on European Legislation on 3rd December (HC 136-i); and Minutes of Evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 5th and 9th December (HC 148-i and 148-ii).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Madam Speaker: We now come to the second day of the debate on the European Union. I must let the House know that, again, speeches by Back Benchers will be limited to 10 minutes.
4.50 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): On this, the second day of our debate on the European Union, I wish to concentrate my remarks on the intergovernmental conference and the Dublin summit.
First, however, I will respond to certain remarks made by the President of the European Commission, who said the other day that the hour of truth was approaching when the United Kingdom would have to decide whether it believed in Europe as a free trade area or as a political union. Many hon. Members like to present the issue in equally Manichaean terms. It is reminiscent of choices that used to be urged upon British Governments: Commonwealth or Europe? America or Europe? Those have always been false choices because reality lies between such poles.
For Britain, the European Union is, and always was, more than a free trade area. For a start, the single market involves much more than the elimination of tariff barriers. That was the first and easiest step in its creation. It also needs rules to prevent non-tariff obstructions to trade, like the mediaeval rules on what could go into a pint of beer, which excluded British beers from Germany, or the rules on insurance policies, which eliminated competition, whether on price or product innovation, in much of the continental market.
All that involves supranational rules and supranational institutions, whether the Commission or the European Court, to enforce them. British consumers, workers and manufacturers have all benefited from those rules.

429
It is strongly in the British interest that the EU should have a common external trade policy. There is a persistent continental instinct, particularly in France, to put up trade barriers around a fortress Europe. Yet those instincts were faced down by the Commission, which negotiated a market-opening GATT deal on behalf of us all. That would not have been possible—nor would we have been able to protect British commercial interests as well as we did—without strong European institutions.
If a simple free trade area was such a splendid option, why has the European Free Trade Association collapsed? Why did Sweden, Finland and Austria so quickly abandon the European economic area, which came into force only in 1994, in favour of full membership of the EU? The answer is that, to secure tariff-free access to the European Community, they found themselves having to follow single market rules and regulations, including competition policy, over which they had no control or influence. That may be a sustainable position for Iceland, Norway or Liechtenstein, but I hardly think that it would befit a country of our size and history.
Mr. Alex Salmond: I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the European Union is and should be more than a free trade area, but may I bring him to the specifics of the intergovernmental conference? A few months ago, the Prime Minister told the fishing industry that resolution of the flags of convenience scandal was his first priority at the IGC. A few weeks ago, however, we were told that the 48-hour week had become the major priority. I wish to ask a simple question: if the Prime Minister succeeds in resolving the flags of convenience issue, will he still block agreement until he gets his way on the 48-hour issue?
Mr. Rifkind: We have spellt out a number of crucial objectives, of which the issue that interests the hon. Gentleman is one. It is not necessary to add to that now. We have said that those are crucial matters and the conference cannot come to a conclusion unless all members are satisfied with the outcome.
Even in the area of commerce, the EU is much more than a free trade area. But its benefits are also felt in many areas not directly related to the market, such as increasing co-operation in the fight against international crime, higher environmental standards and an increasingly confident European voice on the world stage. The common foreign and security policy does not replace national foreign policy, but complements it. That works to our advantage, as other European countries' views on many issues are very close to ours, and a common European policy where it applies can exert greater influence than the UK could achieve on its own.
Above all, the European Union is the basis on which we can consolidate democracy and prosperity across the whole of Europe, including our central European neighbours.
Opponents of British membership of the EU like to argue that we joined a mere common market that has insidiously developed a political agenda. That is nonsense. The European Union has always had a political as well as
430
an economic purpose. Britain recognised that very clearly when we went in: indeed, it was a central consideration behind our application for membership.
Mr. William Cash: Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he had no objection in principle to the idea of a single currency. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, in reply to me in the European Select Committee in February when I pressed him on economic and monetary union, said that he did not follow my point that it was a question of principle. Does my right hon. and learned Friend not accept that there is a basic and fundamental inconsistency in the views expressed on the question of principle by the Chancellor and by himself? Does he agree that that is causing a great deal of uncertainty and confusion, that the matter should be resolved, and that it should not be construed as dissembling?
Mr. Rifkind: I have no doubt whatever that the question of a single currency and the possible abolition of our national currency would be a great historic decision. It would probably be irreversible, so it is right that it should be addressed as one of the most important matters to be considered by a British Government for many years. I believe that every member of the Government believes that it is of crucial significance. It is therefore right to ensure that the issue is addressed with regard both to its economic implications and its wider consequences—the national decision making that we currently enjoy and the extent to which that might be diminished in the event of a single currency.
Mr. Norman Lamont: I should like to return to what my right hon. and learned Friend was saying about the European Union's functions and ask him a question that an ambassador of this country asked me. He asked me to explain to him why it was necessary for the European Union to have more than 120 embassies—or "delegations" as they are called—around the world at a cost of £150 million per year. Is it really necessary, given the European Union's functions, to have that degree of representation?
Mr. Rifkind: I would not necessarily wish to defend the exact number as it currently applies, but the European Union has overseas aid programmes in many countries and needs to implement those programmes through local offices. It is also responsible for handling the external trade policies of all its member states. Those external trade negotiations cannot be conducted without a physical presence in countries such as Japan or many other countries with a crucial involvement in trade matters. So while I am not inclined to justify every area of expenditure or every office, I acknowledge that the European Union needs a significant number of overseas premises to conduct its proper business.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Rifkind: I realise that an awful lot of hon. Members wish to speak in this debate. Although I do not intend to give way to everyone who wishes to intervene, I shall try to be fair.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Rifkind: Not at this moment, but perhaps later.
If Europe is more than a free trade area, it is less than a federal state and must remain so. The bedrock of the European Union is the independent democratic nation state. The European Union derives its legitimacy and functions from the powers freely given to it by its members. It can flourish only as a partnership of nations.
The Government have a clear view of what the European Union is, and how it should develop. It is a partnership of nations reconciled after centuries of rivalry and conflict. Those nations have a strong sense of shared purpose and shared values; they have created a single market open internally, and open to the rest of the world; they are committed to maximum co-operation in foreign and security policy and in such issues as the fight against international crime; and they have joined forces in the common enterprise of the European Union while retaining the separate identities that give Europe its richness and character.
Overall, and in its historical context, the degree of co-operation in Europe today is extraordinary and unprecedented. The European Union has been the focus of that achievement, but the quest for ever more institutional integration puts all that at risk.
If an hour of truth is approaching, it is perhaps for the integrationists in Europe, who need to define the limits of their ambition. Where do they see the process that they promote finding its natural conclusion? At what point will dynamism in the EU be measured in the use that we make of the institutions that we have created, rather than in their endless modification? At what point will integrationists accept that deeper is not always and necessarily better?
All sides decry the term "super-state". Chancellor Kohl agrees that independent democratic states are at the heart of the European project. Amen to that; yet if the EU is to be the basis of lasting peace and prosperity in Europe, and if people—not just in the UK—are to be reassured that they are not in the belly of some infernal machine that is running out of control, they need to feel that there is some logical conclusion to the process of European integration, short of a super-state.
That is why all the member states need to think hard about the purposes and limits of integration.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way at this stage, as he is giving a fair and objective description of what the European Union should mean in the future. Would it not be better for the British Government to avoid the use of the word "federal", as it is so misleading? Too many people fear that it means centralisation, whereas it has many different meanings in different countries. NATO was a federal treaty in every respect and all the way through its clauses. It would be much better to refer to the use of majority voting and greater integration to enable enlargement to take place. That is the aim of the process.
Mr. Rifkind: I strongly disagree with my hon. Friend. I do not believe that the term "federal" is inappropriate. Of course, if one starts with a single central state and then federalises, one is decentralising. However, that is not the starting point in Europe. The starting point is 15 independent nation states. If the attempt is to create a supranational institution with supranational authority at the expense of national Parliaments and national
432
Governments, one is undoubtedly moving in a federal direction and, depending on the degree of integration that is conceded, one can end up with a federal state. Those who want that objective should not be so shy about using the term that properly describes their ambitions.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said a few moments ago that the European Union was something less than a federal state, or words to that effect. Surely it is already something more. A federal state has a separation of powers, whereas we already have a single court, a single Council, a single Commission, a single Parliament, possibly a single currency and a single central bank, and perhaps a single representation abroad on a single commercial policy. Does that not mean that, far from being federal, the EU is already centralised?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday that he wanted to know what his colleagues abroad thought. In effect, they are asking for a single institutional state that would leave no real power for a national Parliament such as ours.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that there are supranational institutions, as he described. The crucial factor in determining whether we have yet achieved a federal system is the amount of overall power that the supranational institutions have. If one considers the totality of decisions on the use of resources, for example, or on legislation, or on matters affecting the life of individual citizens, one finds that the use of only a small fraction of the resources raised in this country is at present determined by supranational institutions. One is entitled to make that point.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin rose—
Mr. Rifkind: I will give way in a few moments, but I must make progress.
I now want to focus on the issues before Heads of Government at the Dublin European Council tomorrow and on Saturday. Aside from economic and monetary union, the IGC discussion at Dublin is likely to be the most substantive. Heads of Government confirmed at their meeting in October that the IGC should end at the Amsterdam European Council next June. We strongly support that goal. The IGC must swiftly complete its work so that Europe can concentrate on the real-world challenges of the coming years, and in particular on enlargement.
The Irish presidency's report on the state of the IGC negotiation is a sensible contribution to completing the process on time. It draws together into one document options that are on the table, including all the UK options. I emphasise that the presidency report is just that: a report. It is not a draft proposal for decision. Decisions are still six months away. Nothing can be agreed until everything is agreed, and that will be by unanimity. However, the report gives a snapshot of the scope of the conference, areas of emerging consensus, and areas in which either the work is not yet much advanced or it is already clear that there are major differences of approach.
Let me start with the positive side. The paper demonstrates that the UK's ideas are gaining ground in a number of areas, including subsidiarity, the role

433
of national Parliaments, and practical improvements to the operation of the common foreign and security policy. The report also demonstrates that in many areas of institutional change in the European Community, the rhetoric employed by some of our partners has perhaps run ahead of the reality.
On the extension of qualified majority voting, for example, the presidency report is almost silent. It says somewhat disarmingly:
"Many Member States are at this stage reticent about showing their hands".
In these areas—and many others—good progress is being made, but the presidency report also reveals a number of areas where member states' positions remain far apart. I want to focus the rest of my remarks on some of the most important of these.
I begin with immigration, asylum and issues of free movement and frontiers. The presidency report brings into focus ambitions in some member states of which this House has been aware for many weeks and months from the IGC documents that we have regularly deposited as the negotiation has proceeded. Some partners would like to develop those issues as competences of the European Community, removing them from the scope of intergovernmental co-operation in the third pillar.
That, of course, is out of the question, and not just for the UK. The presidency report notes:
"A number of Member States have indicated that they do not accept the transfer of any matter at present dealt with"

in the intergovernmental pillar.
The third pillar, which also includes the fight against international crime and drug trafficking, covers areas of national competence. That is why it was decided at Maastricht to develop those issues within a separate pillar of the treaty.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As the European Parliament has said clearly and specifically that it will take Britain to court over the issue of border controls in the event of our using the veto at Amsterdam, and since many of us have believed for years that the declaration of the Single European Act has no real validity in European law, what on earth would any British Government do if the European Court determined that our border controls had no legal basis?
Mr. Rifkind: The Government attach the same importance as my hon. Friend does to the absolute observance of the assurances that have been given with regard to frontiers. We believe that those assurances can be depended upon. We have not the slightest intention of conceding one inch with regard to the right of this Government and this Parliament to control frontiers. That is crucial to the United Kingdom's position.
We are keen to develop co-operation with our partners in these areas. We have put forward proposals in the IGC to improve the operation of the third pillar.
For issues as sensitive as these, however, it is a myth to suggest that Community decision-making could be effective. It would complicate and delay practical progress. The priority is to act. The decisions that I hope
434
we can reach at Dublin on drugs and international crime are good examples of the action that we should be taking. We want Dublin to exercise real impact in these areas.
On frontiers, as I have stressed, our position could not be clearer: the United Kingdom will maintain its right to impose necessary controls. For an island—for these purposes the UK and Ireland operate as a single island within a common travel area—frontier controls are the best and least intrusive way to prevent illegal immigration. For partners with extensive and permeable land borders things might look different. They rely on identity cards, residence permits, registration with the police, and so on to maintain internal security. That is a sensible approach for them, but it is not an approach that would suit our geography or our traditions.
Our partners know that our position on this issue is unshakeable. There is an interesting acknowledgment of that on page 36 of the presidency report, where it is observed that, if the Schengen agreement was ever incorporated into the European Union, there would have to be "provision for opt-outs".
That leads naturally to the question of flexibility, which is perhaps the most far-reaching issue under discussion in the intergovernmental conference. The idea that it is perfectly healthy for some member states to integrate more closely or more quickly in certain areas, provided that all agree, was first developed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. As the European Union enlarges, it must find better ways to accommodate the diversity of its membership. Not only is Britain a firm advocate of flexibility, but flexibility already exists in the treaty—for example, in the EMU arrangements, including Britain's EMU option, and in our social chapter opt-out.
Therefore, the discussion in the intergovernmental conference is not about whether to have flexible arrangements, but how flexibility should operate: whether it should continue to be negotiated case by case or whether there could be value in creating general mechanisms for flexibility within the treaty. There are dangers as well as potential benefits in that approach. We must avoid creating a process whereby vanguard groups establish joint practices and policies that all are expected to follow over time. We must ensure that flexibility cannot be used by others to escape the obligations of an open single market, a strong competition policy and a common commercial policy. Above all, we must ensure that, if groups in the Union want to make use of our common institutions for their own purposes, they have the agreement of all those with a stake in those institutions. If we do agree to new treaty language, the conditions must be tightly defined.
We have always believed that a common European foreign policy should respect the national interests of individual member states. A majority European foreign policy would in any case be weaker than a common policy to which all EU partners are fully committed. On the whole, the debate on the CFSP issue at the intergovernmental conference seems to be going in a welcome direction. The approach which the presidency has put forward as a basis for discussion in its draft paper retains unanimity for the adoption of joint actions and for all decisions with a security-defence dimension. It recognises that, even for other, less significant decisions, individual member states should retain a veto for stated reasons of national policy.

435
In their recent joint letter, Chancellor Kohl and President Chirac also argued for the retention of unanimity for European Council decisions, for Council policy decisions and for all decisions on security and defence in general. They suggest majority voting only for implementation decisions, while recognising the difficulties of definition. We have said that we are prepared to look at ideas for differentiating between policy decisions and decisions on the modalities of their implementation—although we are not at all sure That it will be possible in practice to define such a distinction.
Obviously we shall have to discuss the issue further, but the fundamental point—that member states have national interests which cannot simply be overridden by majority voting in the European Union's foreign policy—is not now in dispute.
Mr. Robert Key: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say a little more about the statement in "The British Approach to the IGC":
"In particular, we are ready to look at the idea of appointing a single figure to represent the foreign policy of the Union to the outside world for the CFSP"?
I find that hard to understand. That is all very well if it is for the Governor of Hong Kong, but it would be more difficult for someone else in rotation.
Mr. Rifkind: There is a fundamental difference: the Governor of Hong Kong has executive responsibilities, and the person we are considering is a spokesperson who does not make policy. We already have a common foreign policy in a number of areas—for instance, our attitude towards the middle east, Russia and many other parts of the world where the interests of the United Kingdom, France, Germany and other western European countries are broadly the same. Therefore, co-ordination between the various member states is often required in order to present that policy properly on a day-to-day basis.
We are open to the suggestion that an official—I stress that it would be an official and not someone with a political background—should be given the responsibility of acting as spokesperson for the European Union in areas where the national Governments have determined a common foreign policy. I believe that that is a sensible and practical improvement that is fully consistent with retaining the clear obligation on national Governments to determine policy.
In the area of defence and security, the Government are strongly committed to effective European cooperation. Our objective is to enable Europeans to shoulder their responsibilities in a way that reinforces, rather than weakens, NATO and the transatlantic link. The United Kingdom is determined that the intergovernmental conference should not put that prospect at risk. That is why we continue to argue that a Western European Union that is subordinated to the European Union, or which discriminates against non-EU allies, could not deliver the real defence options that Europe needs.
The presidency report to Dublin admits that there are divisions on the issue and proposes what it calls a "middle way" to resolve them. It says that the European Union should avail itself of the Western European Union, but in commentary it freely confesses that that covers two alternative approaches. We have made it clear that it would not be acceptable for the WEU to be subordinated
436
to the European Union. It is a separate organisation, with its own treaty base and a different membership. Those facts must be respected, and it is not an area in which we should tolerate ambiguity.
Mr. Terry Davis: Before he leaves that point, will the Foreign Secretary address the question of accountability and control over the decisions taken by Ministers of the Council on defence matters? Do the British Government believe that control will still be exercised by national Parliaments, not only in those Parliaments but through delegations to the Western European Union Assembly? Therefore, the arrangement whereby the delegations are in turn responsible to their parties in Parliament would continue.
Mr. Rifkind: I believe that defence cannot be separated from the sovereignty of an independent country. Since we joined NATO, we have been willing to have common policies regarding collective security in Europe—and both the WEU and NATO are expressions of that willingness—but we have always emphasised the ultimate sovereignty of the Crown and Parliament regarding defence matters. Therefore, I do not envisage any significant changes in the areas to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Mr. Dykes: My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the European co-ordination of foreign policy in the middle east. He has just returned from a successful visit to Israel and other countries. Will he confirm that the European Community and Union will take a much more profound interest in middle eastern matters in order to assist the peace process, notwithstanding the recent appointment of Madeleine Albright—which has caused some consternation in certain quarters—and the fact that the Americans do not seem able to do it on their own?
Mr. Rifkind: The international community must be very sensitive to the situation before it becomes involved in the complex issues of the middle east. There is a case for the western European countries and the United States working together to assist those who seek a successful outcome in the middle east peace process. However, I would have no time for any attempt by European countries to compete with the Americans in trying to influence the outcome. That would make an already incredibly difficult task even more complicated and, ultimately, would prove very divisive. Yes, the international community can help and I believe that western European countries and the United States can co-operate closely in assisting the process. That is the way in which I would take it forward.
There is a strong temptation, felt by a number of our partners and by the Labour party, to do something at the intergovernmental conference to show that Europe is active on the subject of employment. We all agree that creating jobs is one of the key challenges Europe now faces and that there is a role for Europe in creating the right conditions—for example, by completing the single market and working for further global trade liberalisation.
But what added value would there be in a new treaty chapter on employment, as suggested by several member states and supported by the Opposition? Commitments to high, or even full, employment might help the treaty drafters to feel good and compassionate, but they would

437
raise expectations without delivering a single job. On the contrary, a requirement on member states to coordinate policies would risk the imposition on the United Kingdom of continental employment policies that have been manifestly less successful than our own. The Government are proud of their job creation record, and we will not put it at risk.
Like others, we have made a number of proposals in the IGC to meet particular national concerns. Following the judgment of the European Court of Justice on the working time directive, we will require treaty change to restore the position agreed at Maastricht on social policy. Others may want to concoct job-destroying social policies between themselves, but we shall not accept that they should be imposed on the United Kingdom. We have put forward proposals that would disapply the working time directive from the United Kingdom and would close off the possibility of using Community treaty articles to force social policy on the United Kingdom by the back door.
We have also made proposals to address the problem of quota hopping. The common fisheries policy established a system of national quotas to provide a secure benefit to national fishing communities. Quota hopping undermines that. A satisfactory solution in those two areas will be an indispensable part of any IGC outcome, from the United Kingdom point of view.
Mr. Gill: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that the question of quota hopping will exist only up to 2002? After 2002, when derogations concerning fishing disappear, the policy will be one of equal access to a common resource, and therefore the question of dealing with quota hoppers is purely a short-term palliative.
Mr. Rifkind: I appreciate that changes could take place in 2002. It will be for the European Union to negotiate whether alternative arrangements are appropriate, or whether they wish to confirm 2002 for the changes to which my hon. Friend refers.
There is much to be done if the IGC is to conclude by next June, but the work has been well launched, and we will continue to make a constructive contribution based on the approach set out in our IGC White Paper earlier this year: of a Union that develops as a partnership of nations, co-operating together in areas where action at a European level is needed, but proud of our cultural and political diversity and conscious of the limits of integration.
The role of the British Government in any European negotiation is to protect and to advance the British national interest. That is something that Conservatives have consistently done over the past 17 years. That approach has achieved significant benefits for the United Kingdom.
Mr. John Redwood: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's support for independent democracies co-operating where we see cause. Does that not mean that we must say no to a European Court which regularly overrides Acts of Parliament, because an Act of Parliament is the ultimate expression of British democracy?
Mr. Rifkind: When we joined the European Union, Parliament said that it would accept the jurisdiction of the
438
European Court in so far as the European Court interprets the treaty that provides for our membership. Therefore, the legal position is quite clear. If the European Court of Justice has before it matters of interpreting the treaty of Rome, which we signed and of which Parliament approved, it is able to indicate whether a member state is in breach of the treaty.
There are various ways in which the European Court has performed in recent years of which we strongly disapprove. As my right hon. Friend knows, we made a series of proposals to alter the way in which it functions, and I am pleased to say that the French Government have shown support for some of those proposals. Other Governments have also said that they are positively interested in looking at some of the ideas.
Mr. Alain Juppé, the French Prime Minister, made a powerful speech in Paris, in which he warned that the European Court was developing certain federal tendencies, and said that it was legitimate for that matter to be considered within the IGC. We welcome the fact that the French Prime Minister has acted in that way.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way and for acknowledging the federal character of European Community law. If we allow the European Community to take from us the right to mint our own coinage, so that a single currency becomes irrevocable and is imposed on this country by the decision of one Parliament—a decision that appears to be binding on its successors—have we not then crossed the threshold from being an independent sovereign state to being part of a federal Europe?
Mr. Rifkind: The European Union cannot take that right from us. What is possible, of course, is that this Parliament and the people of the United Kingdom, through a referendum, might one day provide the authority for such a change, but it is not something that can be taken from this country unless this country were expressly to give its consent. I think that that point has been fully clarified.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Foreign Secretary clarify further the point raised by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about the European Court? I am sure that the Foreign Secretary would not want to raise his right hon. Friend's hopes unnecessarily. Given the limited, and rather sensible, reforms that the Government propose to the ECJ, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that there is no question whatever of the British Government failing to send people from this country to the European Court to be active participants in its work and decision making? His right hon. Friend should not be left with the illusion that somehow we are about to disengage.
Mr. Rifkind: It is of great importance to have people of the highest legal calibre serving in the European Court of Justice. The present British judge, David Edward, is of a very high calibre indeed and serves this country extremely well. It is worth remembering that we have, as a country, won more cases in the European Court of Justice than we have lost, but that is not to say that we are not entitled to make criticism of the ways in which it sometimes performs. Where it acts in a way that we

439
believe is over-political, or that is contrary to the interests of the United Kingdom, we shall draw attention to that point.
Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Toby Jessel: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Rifkind: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel).
Mr. Jessel: My right hon. and learned Friend used the words "over-political". Does that not mean that the European Court is not an ordinary traditional court of justice merely trying to act fairly and justly between litigants within the law as the United Kingdom knows it, but that it has a somewhat different agenda in that its terms of reference require it to advance the cause of European union? It is not, in that sense, a pure court of justice: it makes up the law as it goes along, and it goes beyond what is acceptable to people in this country.
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is certainly correct that in one crucial respect the European Court of Justice is unique: it does not, as an international court, simply determine the rights between Governments or states, but can intervene directly and create rights for individual citizens of member states. We cannot hide from the fact that the UK Parliament agreed to give it that power. When we joined the European Union, it was an existing power that the European Court of Justice had. It is not a power that has been imposed more recently.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Rifkind: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), but then I must make progress.
Mr. Cash: There was, of course, the European Communities Act 1972, but does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that since then we have been giving way more and more powers by successive treaties? The real point that we must address is that the European Court of Justice adjudicates over those functions, and the only way in which we can resolve that is by repatriating the powers that have been given away, which would deal with the very point causing so much concern—the political nature of the European Court of Justice. Repatriation—yes.
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend grossly over-simplifies the situation, because he does not take into account the fact that if we—as a Government and a country—believe in the single market, it is necessary for that single market to be enforced, and that requires the European Court of Justice and the Commission to continue with many of the powers that they currently have.
Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Rifkind: No, I must make progress.
440
I have been referring to the achievements that have been realised over the past 17 years. In some areas, we have led the debate within the European Union; in others, where there was a specific British interest at stake, we stood out alone to protect that interest. The budget rebate, the social chapter opt-out, our opt-out of the Schengen agreement and our opt-out of the single currency give us the choice when the time comes to decide.
The Government believe in European co-operation, but not in ideologically motivated integration, which is the preserve of the European purist. Opposition Front Benchers have become instinctive integrationists. The whole purpose of the Leader of the Opposition's excursions abroad has been to reassure their socialist partners in Europe that a Labour Government would be more willing to deepen integration in a manner that we believe to be fundamentally against the British national interest. It is not just that the Leader of the Opposition talks about "never being isolated" in Europe. That phrase in itself is a massive hostage to fortune in the context of the hard, tough negotiations ahead. The Labour approach is as naive as it is potentially damaging to our interests.
There is a real fault line between ourselves and the Opposition on European policy. For their part, the presumption is for integration. For the Conservative party, the presumption is against integration unless we can be convinced that the national interest is served and that the benefits of greater integration would be sufficient for our quality of life and for employment that it would justify the loss of some national decision making.
Within weeks of the final possible date for a general election, the intergovernmental conference will conclude at Amsterdam. [Interruption.] The electorate will have to decide who they believe will better stand up for British interests at Amsterdam.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am tired of the running commentary coming from hon. Members on the Benches further from me. I should be grateful if they would keep quiet.
Mr. Rifkind: The differences between the two Front Benches and between the two parties are substantive and very real in the context of decisions at Amsterdam.
What weakens the United Kingdom's position in Europe is the possibility of an alternative Government who is committed to giving up many things from which we have fought hard to protect this country. We are guided by the national interest: the Opposition seem to be guided by what others in Europe want.
Labour has proposed to extend qualified majority voting to four new important areas of policy: social, industrial, environmental and regional. It is an extraordinary negotiating position to offer up major concessions to integration before the real work of the intergovernmental conference has even begun. It also displays a Labour naivety that has not been matched by European Governments.
Each member state was asked by the presidency to put forward ideas on where qualified majority voting should be extended, but only two countries out of 15 put forward specific proposals. Thus, in the game of poker that the Prime Minister talked about on Sunday in his television interview, Labour has already shown its hand. Its inexperience and folly are unmatched in Europe.

441
Labour would give up our opt-out on the social chapter. Despite Labour's attempts to reassure business, we all know that that would be a blank cheque to open up new routes to social regulation and integration, which would profoundly damage Britain's competitiveness and job prospects. It is truly a job-destroying chapter. How ludicrous it would be to sign away our competitive advantage at a time when unemployment is 7 per cent. and falling in the United Kingdom, and 10 per cent. or more and continuing to rise elsewhere in the European Union. There is a fundamental philosophical and political divide between us and the Opposition, in that they actively want to conform to a European social model that is shown, day by day, to be well past its sell-by date and damaging to Europe.
Similarly, Labour has fallen head over heels for writing an employment chapter into the treaty. It is no use the Labour party saying, "That would mean nothing, so don't worry because it's only warm words." That is dangerous enough in itself. Why raise people's expectations that the European Union has some magical wand to cure Europe's unemployment ills, when the policies currently being pursued under the social chapter are creating the opposite effect?
However innocuous the words, we are long enough in the tooth and wise enough to the realities of life to know that by proposing Community competence we would deprive Britain once again of taking decisions on what is a matter for this House and this Parliament. Not only would an employment chapter not create a single job: it has the potential to destroy many of them.
Labour want all legislation currently decided on by qualified majority in the Council of Ministers to be subject to a simplified form of co-decision in the European Parliament. Every increase in the powers of the European Parliament reduces, by definition, the powers of this Parliament. That would not enhance democratic accountability: it would merely centralise more powers, taking them out of the hands of the elected representatives of this House. It would be another step on the slippery slope which says that European centralisation should become the natural order of things.
An intriguing, growing divide is emerging between the Leader of the Opposition, his shadow Chancellor and his shadow Foreign Secretary. The Leader of the Opposition said boldly that he would
"never allow this country to be isolated".
Yesterday, The Times reported the shadow Chancellor as saying:
"We are not afraid of isolation in Europe".
Who are we to believe? Is the Leader of the Opposition isolated in his shadow Cabinet, even if not in Europe? Or does the soi-disant "Iron Chancellor" speak for Labour? We need to know.
Then again, the redoubtable shadow Chancellor rebukes the Prime Minister for daring to suggest that Labour would give up the veto. He protested on the "Today" programme:
"It has got to be made absolutely clear that"
any question of giving up the veto
"is a myth that is perpetuated by the Conservative Party."
442
Well, if it is a myth, it is not being created by the Conservatives. It is a myth being spread in a most sinister fashion by the shadow Foreign Secretary.
Following the shadow Chancellor's protest, the shadow Foreign Secretary declared:
"If you want reform, frankly in many cases you do have to have majority voting".
He confirmed that Labour would end the veto on social, regional, environmental and industrial policy. He stated quite boldly:
"There will have to be some majority votes against those individual nations that stand in the way".
What if those individual nations included Britain? On that, there was a resounding silence.
The shadow Foreign Secretary and the shadow Chancellor should reconcile their differences. Perhaps we need a conciliation service. Alternatively, we could return to the device used during Harold Wilson's referendum on Europe, when Labour Cabinet Ministers were licensed to attack each other throughout the length and breadth of the country.
Yet another damning admission by Labour was its declaration that it rejected permanent opt-outs. That has alarming implications. It has revealed to every other European Government that the British budget rebate, the Schengen opt-out to protect our frontiers and the Maastricht single currency opt-out are just temporary aberrations to be abandoned by a Labour Government in due course.
The Opposition, through their inexperience and naivety, have become a menace to Britain. They are weakening Britain's position in these crucial negotiations by encouraging other Governments to wait until after our general election in the hope that some of their crucial negotiating objectives will then fall into their laps. They are a menace, and they need to be resisted. They need to get their act together and remember the national interest. It is the national interest that will be our guiding principle in the weeks and months ahead.
5.36 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: The European summit provides an opportunity for the nations of Europe to comment on the major issues facing Europe. Before I turn to the sore points that inflame passion in this Chamber, I shall address one of those major issues.
Hon. Members who were present six months ago, when we last debated European matters before a summit, will recall that I began by referring to events in the former Yugoslavia. Those events will be one of the international issues considered by the European summit in Dublin. They should be before that summit because of the current crisis of democratic rights in Serbia.
In the past month, President Milosevic has fallen down in three ways on his claim that Serbia aspires to being a European nation. Free elections were annulled because they were won by his opponents. The supreme court has been exposed as a puppet that rubber-stamps his decisions. The independent media have been suppressed because they suppressed his defence of the annulment of those elections.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will condemn those actions by President Milosevic. Far from making progress towards democracy, Serbia is sliding back into

443
totalitarianism. If the European Union's aspirations for a common foreign and security policy mean anything, the European summit in Dublin must make a robust statement condemning those actions.
At Dayton, Milosevic gave an undertaking that he would observe democratic principles and human rights. In return, he received assurances of benefits, including trade with the European Union. This weekend he must be firmly told that the benefits of the Dayton process will come to him only if he fulfils the undertakings that he made. In his reply, will the Minister say what statement the United Kingdom would support in condemning those events in Serbia?
I have spoken for only two minutes, but that is quite long enough in bipartisan mode. Let us get down to the more enjoyable matters on which we disagree. I have to say to the Foreign Secretary that the fault line in the Chamber does not run along the table between us: it runs along the Bench behind him and his own Back Benches.
I was in wide agreement with an awful lot of what the Foreign Secretary said, until he pulled out the purple passage of his speech in which he rode off into the sunset. I particularly applaud his robust defence of why Britain's place is in Europe. I even found myself cheering him on when he batted down the Euro-sceptics on his own Back Benches. I certainly do not wish to undermine his courageous attempt to keep his party just about in touch with European reality. Therefore, rather than undermine him by agreeing with him, I felt that it might be helpful to his position in his party if I were to denounce him.
Let me begin by measuring the Foreign Secretary's policies in regard to the forthcoming summit against his performance at the last summit. Those of us who are addicted to these six-monthly debates will recall that the last speech that the Foreign Secretary made before a European summit was made before the Florence summit. The great majority of that speech was about BSE and beef. I think that my hon. Friends will have noticed that today we heard not a single word about BSE or beef. The Foreign Secretary may wish to forget about it, but, before we are swept into matters connected with the forthcoming summit, an interim assessment of how much was really achieved at Florence might be appropriate. The Prime Minister did, after all, claim that it was a triumph, and I think that the Foreign Secretary described it as a turning point.
In his statement to the House after Florence, the Prime Minister told us that by October two stages in the lifting of the beef ban would be completed, and that by November all five would be completed. I think that I carry hon. Members on both sides of the House with me when I say that it is now December: October and November have both passed. No stages in the lifting of the beef ban have been completed, to growing anger in the farming community. I understand that the good farmers of Cornwall have just petitioned the Dean of Truro to have a gargoyle of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food added to Truro cathedral as a lasting monument to his contribution to the BSE crisis.
The Foreign Secretary was unable to join us when we debated what happened to the Florence agreement a month ago, but someone has to explain what went wrong after Florence. There is some explaining to do. In last month's debate, the Minister of Agriculture told us that the ban had remained in place because of opposition
444
from European Governments who were "facing strong internal pressures". I remember our debate six months ago, before the Florence summit, and I remember the Foreign Secretary telling the House that any step towards lifting the ban
"does not need to go before any Ministers or any Government. — [Official Report, 20 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 1028.]
That was the agreement that he struck for Florence. How, then, can it be that we cannot get the ban lifted because of opposition from member Governments?
I do not believe for a moment that the Foreign Secretary would knowingly mislead the House. Did he therefore misunderstand the deal that he was about to sign at the Florence summit? If so, why should we feel any more confident about what he tells us that he will achieve at Dublin?
There is a wider lesson here, to inform our approach to the next summit. I know that the Conservatives like to believe that they can use Europe to demonstrate what strong men they are, but Florence demonstrated the reality—how poor they are at doing business with Europe. Standing on the sidelines, shouting through a megaphone about how much you disagree with everyone else, is not a posture of strength; on the contrary, it exposes how weak your bargaining position actually is. Yet, in truth, that is the way in which the Conservatives intend to approach tomorrow's summit.
The Foreign Secretary will go to Dublin as another incarnation of the "abominable no-man". He will go to object to a long list of measures that are before the intergovernmental conference. As he told the House, he will object to measures intended to simplify the procedures of the European Parliament—
Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how he would get the beef ban lifted next week, if he is not in favour of what the Government have been doing?
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that we debated the matter a month ago. From the Dispatch Box, I recounted the way in which the Labour party would have behaved differently in relation to the BSE crisis over an entire decade—starting back in 1980, when we would not have abandoned the regulations that we left in place and which the Conservative party threw out of the window.
I was about to deal with the objections that the Foreign Secretary will raise in Dublin. One concerns measures designed to simplify procedures in the European Parliament. I must tell the Foreign Secretary that I have tried very hard to understand those procedures. There are six different ways in which the European Parliament passes legislation, and I have never yet managed to understand the distinction between them—and I am fairly confident that, if I cannot understand them, few of my constituents have a clear grasp of them.
If we wish to have a functioning democracy, its procedures must be transparent and understandable. That is why I believe that it would be right to widen the role of co-decision in the European Parliament, and in directives. I have never understood the logic of Conservative Members who complain about what they see as damaging legislation from Brussels, but then object to the European Parliament's having more powers to scrutinise such legislation. Such powers would not be at

445
the expense of our Parliament; they would give it greater power of scrutiny over Brussels—not the right to initiate more legislation, but another hurdle before the passing of legislation.
Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand what he is saying. A power of co-decision is exactly that: it means that, instead of the Council of Ministers' having the sole right to determine legislation—Ministers who are answerable to their own Parliaments and their own electorates—the European Parliament's approval would also be required. If the right hon. Gentleman, in advocating more co-decision, is not even aware of what he is recommending, he really ought to do a little more homework.
Mr. Cook: The Foreign Secretary knows perfectly well that the only proposals for co-decision making are in cases in which the Council of Ministers acts by majority voting. If Conservative Members are constantly worried about Britain's being overruled in majority voting, why do they resist a second hurdle for the European Parliament—where Britain has more representation than it has in the Council of Europe in terms of the weighting of votes—in order to test legislation? I know that Conservative Members have immense difficulty in getting representatives of their party elected to the European Parliament, but that is not an excuse for stopping those who are elected to that Parliament to represent Britain doing a proper job.
Mr. Peter Shore: We have often heard references to the so-called democratic deficit in Europe, but surely this is not a simple matter of saying that what is passed by a majority in the European Parliament is legitimate just because a majority is there. Surely the fundamental distinction is that the "cracy" element of the word "democracy" implies the state, but the word "demos" implies a people. The truth is that there is no European people, in the sense that we would accept the legitimacy of majority decision making by a European Parliament.
Mr. Cook: No one is asking my right hon. Friend or anyone else to accept a decision simply on the basis of a majority in the European Parliament. What co-decision making would require is that any directive would have first to gain a majority in the Council of Ministers, and then to gain a majority in the European Parliament. If hon. Members wish to reduce the number of directives coming from Europe, the best way of doing so is to ensure that a double rather than a single majority is required.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the British people's wish for more powers in the European Parliament be measured by the turnout in today's by-election for that Parliament?
Mr. Cook: I am confident that that by-election will measure the British people's instinct in favour of a Labour representative in Strasbourg. I do not think that it will show the least scintilla of support for those Conservatives who wish to resist either the proper functions of the European Parliament or the advance of a Labour
446
Government. I shall be extraordinarily surprised if any of the votes cast in Merseyside West give any comfort to those who come to the Chamber tonight to argue in favour of a different position on Europe.
The Foreign Secretary will go to Dublin, we understand, to object to powers relating to consumer protection. I gather that the one aspect of the European Union that Conservative Members support is the single market; yet, if we are to have a single market throughout Europe, what will be more important to the interests of the British people than ensuring high standards of consumer protection throughout that single market?
The Foreign Secretary will go to object to a new requirement in the treaty for non-discrimination against people with disabilities. He does not speak for anyone else in Britain on that. Hon. Members who have met members of organisations representing disabled people will know that every such organisation in Britain is in favour of a requirement that would oblige the Commission to have regard to the needs of disabled people when framing directives.
As he told the House, the Foreign Secretary will also go to object to an employment chapter. The employment chapter that will be proposed at Dublin is a modest, reasonable attempt to respond to what is certainly not a modest social problem—mass unemployment across Europe. It provides procedures by which other European Union policies can be assessed for their impact on employment. In fact, all it does is write into the treaty of the European Union the agreements on employment creation that, we understood, the Government agreed at the Essen summit, but now do not want turned into a treaty amendment.
As a result of the Maastricht treaty, the treaty of the European Union now contains precise targets on Government borrowing, national debt, interest rates and inflation. Why should not those demanding financial targets be balanced by a commitment to high employment? Why should we not take the measure to ensure that those monetary targets are not pursued at the expense of jobs?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Cook: I will give way to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), without whom a debate on Europe would be like "Hamlet" without the first grave-digger.
Mr. Cash: First, has not the right hon. Gentleman noticed that article 2 of the treaty already contains a commitment to employment, so why is he now trying to amplify what is already there? Secondly, has he not noticed that the social chapter has led German companies to flee Germany in their droves and relocate here? They are aware that the policies that are being pursued by him and his crowd behind him are creating unemployment on a massive scale, which is leading to riots and disorder in France and to a critical position in Germany? He should be thinking far more about the effect of his policies on the working people of this country.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman lives in pure fantasy land if he imagines that the strikes in France are directed against the social chapter. If he really wants to reflect on the relative flow of investment, I suggest that he should

447
consider two pieces of news. The first is the interesting statement by the head of BMW that its decision to make a major £500 million investment in Britain had absolutely nothing to do with the social chapter, and that Britain would eventually join the standards of the social chapter.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman should consider the flow of investment. If he does, he will find that, since the social chapter was implemented on the continent, there has been record investment by British businesses in the European nations that have signed the social chapter. If he wants to preen himself on the relative employment record of his Government, he could call on Ministers to publish the report that it is delaying and that was prepared by the Training and Enterprise Councils Secretariat, which says:
"Between 1980 and 1994"—
I think that those years coincide with the Government's stewardship of our nation's economy—
"civilian employment grew by 1.7 per cent. in France, 5.2 per cent. in West Germany—but less than 0.1 per cent. in the UK."
That is the truth of the comparison between the nations of Europe.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: I will give way, but then I must move on to another matter.
Mr. Leigh: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the convergence criteria? He will find in the documents provided to us by the Library that, in relation to general Government gross debt as a percentage of gross domestic product, only three out of the 15 nations pass: the percentage in Belgium is 130 per cent, for instance, and that in Italy is 123 per cent. In relation to general Government deficit as a percentage of GDP, only four pass. If it became clear in the next few months that most nations were not going to meet those criteria by any means, and if grotesque fudging and fiddling were going on, would a Labour Government—if there were one—rule out joining a single currency on those grounds?
Mr. Cook: We have repeatedly made it clear that we shall not join a single currency if there is grotesque fudging of the criteria anywhere. Those decisions can be taken only at the end of next year when we see the figures for next year, but if there is grotesque fudging, that plainly will not stand up to what we have promised the British people in our draft manifesto, which is a hard-headed assessment of the economic criteria for membership.
Finally on the issues that the Foreign Secretary goes to Dublin to object to, he goes famously to object to any extension of qualified majority voting—at any rate., that is what he says. I do not know whether my hon. Friends noticed the Prime Minister saying on Sunday that there might be something "hiding in the undergrowth" where QMV might be "worth while". I warn Conservative Members below the Gangway that, in that phrase, I detect the sound of the start of an equivocation.
The Minister of State, who is shaking his head, has thoroughly beaten about the bushes of the intergovernmental conference. There could be nothing hidden in the undergrowth on which he had not yet stubbed his toe. Does he know what the Prime Minister might have been talking about as a worthwhile extension
448
of QMV? May I possibly help him and the Foreign Secretary in mentioning exactly one such worthwhile area, of which the Prime Minister might have been thinking?
The Danish Government have tabled a new proposal on fraud—
Sir Patrick Cormack: Frog?
Mr. Cook: No, fraud. It would be distinctly anti-European to table a proposal on frog. I was about to say that fraud is a massive blot on the European Union's record, but, in view of that intervention, perhaps I should rephrase my sentence.
The European Union loses 1 million ecu a year on fraud, half of it through the wasteful common agricultural policy. The Danish Government have tabled proposals to tighten up on fraud. New article 209 in the treaty offers tougher steps and sanctions against member states that fail to take those tougher steps.
Those new measures would of course work on QMV. They must do so because if everyone has a veto no one would ever suffer a sanction. What are the Government going to do when they are faced with that proposal? Are they really going to fight for the right of Italy to veto sanctions against countries that are soft on fraud? Do they really think that they will be taken seriously in Europe if they dogmatically object to any extension of majority voting, even when, as in this case, it would he in Britain's interests?
Of course our partners may ask why they should take seriously the Conservative Government's negotiating position at the IGC when the Government have already said that, whatever the outcome, they will veto the lot at the next summit out of pique at having to accept the 48-hour directive. We know the Government's position on that. They do not accept that excessive working hours have any effect on health and safety. They have gone to extraordinary lengths to maintain that position. In April the Department of Health reprinted an entire leaflet entitled "Mental Health and Stress in the Workplace". The original, unpublished report contained the sentence:
"Research has shown that working more than 48 hours per week doubles the risk of coronary heart disease".
The eventual published report had that sentence removed.
Sir Patrick Cormack: What about Members of Parliament?
Mr. Cook: Of course, our work is a pure delight.
Sir Peter Tapsell: If that report is accurate, is it not extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman is not addressing an empty Chamber?
Mr. Cook: It is not a frivolous matter. The House of Commons has quite a record of coronary heart disease—so much so that, in 1978, when we were sitting longer hours than we do now, we specifically commissioned a study that documented that high incidence of coronary heart disease. This is not a laughing matter, but the point that the hon. Gentleman must answer is: if he is so robust in defending that proposition, why did the Department of Health go to the length of spending £1,500 on printing 5,000 such leaflets and then a further sum of public

449
money on pulping every one of them to get rid of that single sentence? I will tell him why. It was because the Department and the Government do not want the public to know what they know—that excessive working hours are a health and safety matter.
Thanks to the changes in the labour laws under the Government, Britain has more people working more than 48 hours than the rest of Europe put together. Since the last general election, 500,000 more people in Britain are working more than 48 hours. Conservative Members keep telling us that they support "sovereignty". Real sovereignty is about giving people control over their own lives and the right to say no to excessive hours.
The fact is that 78 per cent. of the public agree with the proposition that people should not be forced to work more than 40 hours if they do not wish to do so, and 90 per cent. agree that there should as an entitlement be a minimum of three weeks' paid holiday. I cannot believe that Conservative Members would be so foolish as to fight the next general election insisting on longer hours and shorter paid holidays—although I go down on my knees every night and pray that they will.
Sir Timothy Sainsbury: Did the right hon. Gentleman's survey of public opinion cover the percentage of the British people who wish Brussels to have the right to legislate against British laws on any health or social matter or on any matter affecting the workplace?
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman exemplifies the problem in the Tory party on this debate. It is not Brussels legislating on that matter, it is the Council of Ministers—in which the Government have played a full part. Ministers have subsequently come to the Dispatch Box to take pride in the fact that all their amendments to the directive were passed. In resisting the final outcome, the Government are representing not the wishes of the British people but the prejudices of Tory backwoodsmen.
The Government do not even represent the views of British personnel directors, one of whom recently wrote a letter to The Times stating that his company had used the directive as a framework for working practices, and that, consequently, it had improved output, achieved greater flexibility and reduced costs.
In all our history, the economic security and diplomatic future of Britain has never been more bound up in Europe, yet we are saddled with a Government whose Back Benchers seem to live in daily hope of more fog in the channel, cutting off the continent.
When commentators come to write about this Government's decline and fall, they will identify the Chancellor's speech yesterday to the House as the moment of truth. There was a revealing moment in his speech, when he mentioned the fact that 70 per cent. of the public support the Government's line on a single currency, and that comment was greeted with loud jeering on the Conservative Benches. How can any Government survive when their own Back Benchers think laughable the idea that the public support the Government line?
Sir Patrick Cormack: I seem to remember that, many years ago, when I was strongly in favour of Europe,
450
the right hon. Gentleman took rather a different line. When was he converted to this passionate advocacy of the European cause?
Mr. Cook: I shall happily answer the hon. Gentleman: in 1984, when I was the Labour party's spokesman on Europe. I changed my position because, by then, we had had more than 10 years' membership of the European Union. We have now been a member for well over 20 years. I do not believe that there can be a future for Britain remaining as a member of a union that plays an increasingly larger role in our trade, our jobs and our economic future while we are constantly and simultaneously sulking, as if we wish that we were not a member. That provides us with the worst of all possible worlds.
In his speech yesterday, the Chancellor was jeered by his own side. It is no wonder that he has observed:
"There are sometimes parties that are simply not capable of being led."
In case anyone was in any about which party he was talking about, up popped the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner), who greeted Sunday's appeal for order by the Prime Minister with the characteristically generous response: "The strife goes on." That calls to mind the slogan of the Militant Tendency:
"Today the struggle, tomorrow the revolution."
Only one year from now, Britain will hold the presidency of the European Union. How will a Conservative party that is constantly wishing to pick fights with Europe—with all the enthusiasm and venom with which they pick fights among themselves—possibly pose as the president of an institution that ever more of its members regard with fear and loathing? The Euro-sceptics would be as embarrassed as the rest us to find that they were the president of Europe. Their entire approach to Europe is to block agreements, to seek confrontation and to go out on a limb. If one is president of the European Union, one must try to achieve agreement, build consensus and find the pivotal point in a debate. Having to fulfil that role in Europe would appal Conservative Members.
I offer them comfort, because we intend to relieve them of that embarrassment. Before the next debate on a European summit, there will be a general election. Something will have gone sadly wrong with our constitution if that does not turn out to be true. I am aware that there is a widespread delusion among Conservative Members that they can escape the fate that awaits them in that election if they fight it not as the party standing against the Labour party but as the party standing against Europe, and that, if they spend the campaign talking solely about Europe, the electorate will forget that they are paying higher taxes for worse public services.
Perhaps I should leave them labouring under that delusion, but I want a fair fight at the general election. I want to tell them that they really should look at the opinion polls, which, for a year, have consistently shown that Labour has a 19-point lead in answer to the question:
"Which party better represents your views on Europe?"
The reason for that belief is that people want a Government who will do business with Europe and who will get a constructive deal for Britain out of Europe. They know that the Conservative Government have amply

451
proved that they cannot do business in Europe, and that the Conservative party no longer even wants to cut a deal in Europe.
The Government's record on Europe of confrontation, failure and isolation will not provide the lifebelt that so many Tory Members imagine. It will be another deadweight, dragging them down in public opinion. When the electorate have the opportunity to express their verdict, the Conservatives' record on Europe will be another reason why they will conclude that the Conservative party cannot provide a competent Government for Britain and is not fit to represent Britain in Europe.
6.5 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: It is always a pleasure to participate in a great debate with the shadow Foreign Secretary, whom I have never followed previously in a debate. One of the best things in life is surprises, and one of the pleasures of listening to the shadow Foreign Secretary is that one never knows quite what he will say, which is rather a change from many of my other colleagues in the House.
By chance, my family have been afforded a series of leper's squints at European evolution. My great-grandfather was chaplain to "Dear Vicky"—Queen Victoria's eldest daughter—who was married to Crown Prince Friedrich of Prussia. Family legend has it that, as his tour of duty came towards an end, she told my great grandfather that the Crown Prince and she were exercised about their son, Wilhelm, felt that he stood in need of a strong dose of English liberalism, and asked my great-grandfather if he would stay on to be his tutor.
My great-grandfather was determined, however, to return to London and declined the offer. But because the Almighty's powers include a sense of irony, my great-grandfather lived until 1916, and, in his declining years, he had to wonder whether the entire course of European history might have been different had the Kaiser passed through his hands. His brother-in-law—who was also the Liberal Member of Parliament for Wakefield, until he decided that he preferred Mr. Disraeli to Mr. Gladstone—was invited by the Hapsburgs, via the Bank of England, to save a bank in Vienna.
In my own—more modest—way, I was Financial Times correspondent in Switzerland, both when, in 1961, the Germans and the Dutch revalued upwards, and when my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and the late Reginald Maudling broke the news to the European Free Trade Association that we would seek entry to the European Community. A decade later, when that ambition was consummated, I was living in Brussels. In a manner that echoed the Duchess of Richmond's ball before Waterloo, the Anglo-Belgian chamber of commerce, coincidentally, dined in tails the night before the European Communities Act 1972 passed the House by eight votes. In the 1980s, I served longer on the Community's Budget Council than any British Minister has done, continuously, since 1972.
Although Sicily was responsible for the only good joke about the single European market, no kinsman of mine, or myself, was present at Messina in 1955. That episode has a precise relation to this debate. In 1954, in an act that would reverse centuries of British policy, we committed four divisions to the continent, until 1998, as a powerful gesture to help lubricate the passage of the Brussels treaty.
452
The inability of Mendes-France to get the Brussels treaty through the French Assembly rendered that gesture nugatory, but it also affected our attitude at Messina the following year. When Spaak, who was, I think, in the chair, made it clear that only those who were serious about European development should remain at the table, we British—affected by our experience the year before and believing that further investment in the project would likewise be nugatory—chose to leave the table, thus condemning ourselves two decades later to a common agricultural policy over whose conception we had had no influence.
Not only do I have no difficulty in supporting the Government's policy over the single currency, I would find any alternative to the wait and see policy an offence against a central tenet of Conservative philosophy—that we should learn from the past. There was one further lesson from Messina. The Dutch, our principal allies among the original six nations that signed the treaty of Rome, sought to delay the treaty and their participation in it to bring us back on board. It was Suez that convinced the Dutch that the era of individual European nations enjoying true independence of action was over. That caused them to sign the treaty and, a fortiori, has a resonance today.
I have spoken of the past. I am more hesitant about speaking of the future. That hesitancy is born of that episode in the life of Anthony Eden's somewhat irascible father, who came down to breakfast one morning when it was sheeting with rain outside, tapped the barometer which was set at very fair and threw it through the french windows with the words, "Go out and see for your something self." My hesitation about the future is shared by many in the Union.
I have ventilated before in the House, in a European context, the metaphor of a cathedral. Cathedrals take varying times to build. Prague took 1,000 years: Durham took 40. Par for the course might be a century. We have so far had 38, with eight years in preparation. Within the century, as with cathedrals, building will sometimes go quickly, sometimes tardily. What is critical, as with cathedrals, is that the foundations are secure, and that includes the consent of the peoples of Europe. The problem, as with most cathedrals that take longer than Durham's 40 years, is that the ordinary people of Europe have never been given a clear and constant blueprint of what the eventual building is intended to look like. Philosophically, that should not concern a nation as pragmatic as the British, but changes of gear among our colleagues can alarm us, as the past few years have demonstrated.
We should be true to ourselves and recover our national self-confidence, as our current economic performance would justify. We are demonstrating—in a way, incidentally, that a Labour Government would jeopardise—that the welfare policies in the rest of the Union are inconsistent with global competition. If we believe in ourselves, we should be confident that our colleagues will be obliged to modify their policies to meet global competition, but we would be truer to ourselves, and incidentally to the interests of the cathedral, if—in Pitt's phrase at Guildhall in my constituency—we save Europe by our example. That line of argument carries over into the single currency. Of course I acknowledge, though the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)

453
appeared not to do so on the "Today" programme earlier this week or in the House yesterday, that there is a major political dimension to that decision.
I have my own views on the decision that we shall eventually take, but at this juncture we need to shape our minds on the economic implications. In the City of London, which I have the privilege to represent, those implications are argued both ways. The Governor of the Bank of England has indicated the ability of the City to continue to prosper outside the single currency. For myself, the City's success, not just in the contemporary era but over the centuries, has lain in the way that it has capitalised on freedom and flexibility and the willingness to offer a price on any risk.
Thus the City's future depends on a continuation of that freedom and flexibility. The present continental instincts—which are misguided in other respects, as I have suggested—militate against freedom and flexibility. It is likely that our example will be needed in that regard too, which is an added reason for remaining in the negotiations.
The way in which global competition is increasing London's role is profoundly encouraging. When I lived in Brussels, a disproportionate number of multinational companies had set up their European headquarters there. My college at Oxford sent one in six of its graduates to India between 1878 and 1914. I felt in Brussels a quarter of century ago that the late 20th century equivalent of the empire, as an international destination for Britons, was the multinational company. Despite the reputation of perfidious Albion, we are trusted as individuals internationally, and our maritime past gives us a flexibility that is the hallmark I mentioned of the City's success. The shadow Foreign Secretary's speech reminded me of when I was on the Budget Council and we held the presidency of the Community. A German Social Democratic economic spokesman confided to me that he would be happy if the British held the presidency on a permanent basis.
As the world shrinks and the Japanese philosophy of treating the whole world as their economic oyster gains ground, we are seeing an increasing number of foreign companies, in finance as well as in industries as diverse as contracting and pharmaceuticals, putting not just their European headquarters but their world headquarters in London. A profound benefit to the building of the European cathedral will occur as European companies report back from the City that our emphasis on freedom and flexibility is superior to the continental preference. That freedom and flexibility is the more important because, in so many existing financial markets, electronics has taken over from human judgment, which makes those markets potentially much more mobile.
As a believer in the cathedral, not least for future generations, I hope that we shall not need at any stage to dismantle and rebuild. Our best contribution must be to remain true to ourselves and offer our experience and our current economic success as an example and a guide. Otherwise, we will run the risk of finding ourselves at what anyone who has ever sung "Abide with me" in French will recall is le dernier rendezvous.
6.15 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) referred to the pragmatism of the British,
454
but that pragmatism seems to have deserted the Conservatives. We saw yesterday, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) referred to it today, the barracking of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—something I never expected to see.
It was astonishing because, in my political life, I was brought up to believe that the secret weapon of the Tories was loyalty. I now see that their loyalty was based on the absence of dogma. They subordinated all principles to that of retaining power and it was when they violated that approach, such as at the time of the corn laws, that they became divided and lost their power and influence. That is Margaret Thatcher's legacy. She gave dogma to the Conservative party, and the squabbling and the antagonisms are the inheritance that she has bequeathed to them. Following the Labour party's divisions over dogma 15 years ago, we now see the Tory version, which is likely to be fierce and long-lasting.
I am a pro-European, although I have certain reservations on economic and monetary union. I voted for entry into the Community against a three-line Whip, and I have never seen any reason to regret it. In this debate, we have heard from a number of Euro-sceptics. Engel, the confidant of Karl Marx, said that an agnostic is a shamefaced atheist, and Lord Roll said in another place that many a Euro-sceptic is probably a shamefaced anti-European. Many of them are against the European Community and several wish to withdraw from it. Their hostility has come to a head over the debates on EMU.
I suppose it is possible that, despite the enthusiasms from prominent players, EMU may be postponed, perhaps for some time. To my mind, that would be an adequate solution. The problems of convergence are bound up with the difficulties of nationalism, which are likely to continue for a number of years. It is a pity that the project is being rushed by Chancellor Kohl, who wants to see it in place before he goes. His time as Chancellor is coming to an end and he is in a hurry.
Although outside EMU we can still decide many things for ourselves, the area of independence is dwindling all the time. As examples of that, we have only to observe the effect of Alan Greenspan's decision last week, which brought turmoil to the City of London and many other parts of the world, and the effect of Bundesbank decisions. Can anyone believe that an EMU with Britain outside will not have an even greater effect upon our domestic economic and financial affairs?
My preferred solution is for there to be some delay in the implementation of EMU. There is more to be done in the matter of convergence, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said, and such a postponement may yet happen. But at this stage, we must assume that EMU will go ahead roughly as planned and roughly according to the timetable envisaged. In all of this, we must assess the level of uncertainty in what we propose, and I regard staying out of EMU as representing the greater risk. If we stay out and EMU is successful, it will be likely in some ways—some of them unknown at this stage—to discriminate against us. As we know, the absent are always in the wrong. Excluded from the inner councils, our weight will be diminished.
A real danger, as mentioned by the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South, is a struggle between Frankfurt and London, and we should not take too much comfort from the expectation that all our skills will remain with us in such a contest.
Mr. Dykes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sheldon: I am sorry, but I have only ten minutes.
We should not take too much comfort from the rules that we hope to establish. We must not depend on rules—which will not always help us—but on practice. Even if EMU is not successful—it is interesting to speculate on the mechanics for dealing with an unsuccessful EMU—we will gain no credit and no friends for any hostility that we may show.
The major question for Dublin, and beyond Dublin, should be whether the criteria for convergence will be firm. Will the criteria be tough in terms of admissions? If they are, the stability criteria will be less severe. If the criteria are firm and the admissions policy is tough, the stability criteria will be less severe. What steps can be taken to ensure that latecomers to EMU come in without discrimination? Ideally, there should be no disadvantage in late entry, providing that the conditions are met. In practice, the founders will have a greater influence on both the rules and the way in which they operate.
I am uneasy about establishing a rigid formula for stabilisation, convergence or any of the criteria that will decide important matters. If a country is in financial difficulties, it has the choice at present of raising interest rates, raising taxes or cutting expenditure. Under EMU, that range of choice—as well as devaluation—will not be available. The only choices available will be increasing taxes or reducing expenditure. What happens if convergence is not realised? What if a Government cannot politically increase taxes or reduce expenditure? What if they cannot do any of these things? In such circumstances, how real a discipline is a fine?
There are political problems, and there are things that the Government can and cannot do. It would be foolish to assume that all we need is to establish a rule that: will apply to bring countries into line. What happens if a Government face lorries and tractors on the roads, or even greater civil disturbance? In that connection, how real a discipline will a fine be? The political imperative may be much greater than the financial one. In any case, it is a peculiar comment to impose fines on a country that will not pay because it cannot pay.
We must accept that we cannot be too rigid. There are those who say that, once one starts easing the criteria, it will bring problems—particularly for the Germans, who will feel that they are exchanging their strong deutschmark for a weak euro. It is unlikely that the euro will be anything like as strong as the deutschmark, as too many countries are involved and there are too many problems. We must not be too rigid, and if that is the price for achieving EMU, the Germans may well have second thoughts about it.
Maastricht did not represent the end of nationalism, and we must allow for some of the practices, as well as the characteristics, of certain countries, which cannot be dismissed. We will not bring about social change in a year or two just because we have something called EMU. We must accommodate these matters and if that is the spirit in which the negotiations are conducted, EMU may well succeed. In our dealings with the Community, history is unswervingly against our claim to high statesmanship. So often we have assumed that that which we do not like will fail. Let us for once in our miserable experience in these matters assume that that which so many expect to fail may actually succeed.
6.24 pm
Mr. John Redwood: The other day, I was speaking at the Henley management centre. Perhaps because it was near Henley, I was asked whether I was ever invited to speak in Europe, given my views. I was delighted to affirm that I received many invitations, including that one for that day in Henley. Here I am again, today—speaking in Europe. Britain must be proud that we are a part of Europe—but Europe is our continent, not our country. We believe, rightly, in a Europe of nations. I agree with M. Santer that we are fast approaching an important decision point for us and the other member states of the European Community.
We have the Chancellor Kohl version of how we should develop. Chancellor Kohl wishes to have ever deeper and wider integration, and he wishes to see ever more powers going to the centre. He is quite open in saying that he likes the German federal model, where there is strong central control but where the centre decides to devolve some of the powers and decisions to the lander, the individual regional parliaments. The authority for that system comes from the democratic authority of the German people, expressed through the German parliament.
That is why I believe that Britain must offer an alternative to Chancellor Kohl's vision. I believe that true democratic legitimacy will remain in Germany in the German Parliament, and will remain in Britain in the British Parliament. We therefore need a Europe of nations, because I do not believe that we are about to establish democratic legitimacy at the European level through the European Parliament, which would be the only democratic way of proceeding towards a more centralised or a federal state.
What need does a Europe of nations have of an anthem, a common passport, a common flag, a supreme court or all the other institutions that are clearly the institutions of a proto-state in the making? We must now put it clearly to the British people—the choice is there. It is said that it would be quite impossible for Britain to negotiate a common market but not common government. It is said that we would be isolated in Europe if we took the Government's view of a Europe of nations, developed it and thought it through for ourselves, and for the other member states who like our vision better than Chancellor Kohl's.
There are a lot of people in western Europe who share exactly our view. They want the European Community to add to the prosperity and happiness of the peoples of western Europe, and they wish us to co-operate and to find out whether there are things that Governments can better do together by their mutual agreement. But just as there are growing resentments in our country about the number of ways in which the European Court and the European institutions interfere in our democratic decisions, so there are tensions and disagreements visible in other member states of the Community about the interferences, and the consequences of those interferences, in their policies.
The biggest step towards federal union that is currently before us is the step to a single currency. It is wrong to suggest that no power would transfer from this country if we abolished the pound and joined a single currency. Of course it would. We know that the power to settle interest

457
rates and to influence exchange rates would go from British institutions and from this Parliament to the institution of a central bank.
We know that there would have to be limits to the budget deficit that we would be allowed to pursue. People might say that we should never want a bigger budget deficit than that laid down in the treaty. None the less, the right to choose to have a bigger or smaller budget deficit would have been limited by that decision.
Of course, if we joined, soon afterwards we would be told that to make it really work one needed common taxation throughout the Union, and common financial and expenditure policies. People are already beginning to suggest that. In Brussels, they are saying today that we need to bring our value added tax rates together. They are saying that there should be a minimum and a maximum rate, and their intention would be to narrow the gap between the rates until there was a standard rate throughout the Community. They want us to impose VAT on the same items as other member countries.
We already see that they think that it would be unfair of the United Kingdom to get rid of capital taxes, because other countries in western Europe have them and we would obviously have an advantage if we got rid of them while they retained them. We might find that they would try to build that into the system, and that a limit would be placed on this Parliament removing or reducing capital taxes below a certain level.
People would soon discover that, as Chancellor Kohl said, with a single currency one would need a political union to have any chance of making it work. Let us be open in our debates about what is proposed, and be positive in suggesting an alternative that might be better.
The best parallel that I can draw for the single currency is with taking out a joint bank account. It would be extremely foolish to do so with someone that one did not know very well, or with a mere friend or neighbour. Normally, one would contemplate doing it only with someone with whom one had a very intimate relationship. That joint account can work only if the two or more parties have confidence in each other's actions and know how much money they are putting in and drawing out.
If we combined with other countries and had a single currency, it would be like having a joint bank account. Indeed, the deposit account part has to transfer to the central authorities. Our foreign exchange reserves would have to be taken to the central bank in Frankfurt and the deposit account would be controlled by that institution and would no longer be under the control of the British people through their Bank of England and this House, which has democratic control over British institutions.
The joint current account would be a little freer, but one would discover that there had to be strong controls over what was put in and taken out, because the consequence of one country borrowing would be to drive up the interest rates of the others. The consequence of one part of the union over-borrowing is to affect the creditworthiness and stature of the currency of the others. There is an optimum size for currency unions. A currency union stretching over France, Germany and Britain, given their different labour markets, the inflexibility between them and the different styles and histories of the countries, could not work as a practical proposition.
458
I trust that, in Dublin and beyond, our Government will represent a different view of Europe—not wishing to withdraw, not saying that we have no time for Europe and its institutions, but saying that we want those institutions to have limited powers over the peoples of western Europe, and that those limited powers should be used to promote jobs, prosperity and free trade, not to undermine those things.
The policies that are leading to monetary union are destroying jobs on the continent of Europe, and they need to be reversed. There is no need for all those people to be out of work in France, Italy and Germany. It is the direct result of exchange manipulation, and the interest rate and budget policies required under the Maastricht treaty. Those countries would be much better advised to take a leaf out of our book and to have floating exchange rates and interest rates that really work for their economies—policies that promote growth rather than stifle it.
On the other issues, I hope that the Government will demand a better deal on beef and fish. I hope that they will say that independent nations co-operating with one another cannot be answerable to a supreme court that overturns Acts of Parliament. Of course there needs to be a court to adjudicate trade disputes between parties, but it should have some limit on its power if it wishes to overturn sovereign decisions of sovereign Parliaments, solemnly expressed in the light of the treaty and the advice of the European institutions.
I hope that we will say that we want a clear opt-out on social and employment policy, which really works. I trust that we will be saying that, on matters of the European budget, we do not want any more money to pass to European institutions—certainly not before they have tightened up on fraud and waste, and probably never, because we find their present requirements high enough.
I do not believe that it is unrealistic to negotiate that agenda. We have vetoes over every treaty change that other members states wish to propose—over the regulations they need to develop their currency union. We should use those vetoes constructively, saying that we will not lift them so that they can progress in the way that they want until we, Britain, have got the satisfaction we deserve on the fish, beef, court and budget issues—things that matter very much to us.
We should go in there proud that we are the second biggest contributor financially to the Community, proud that we make a big contribution to western European defence, proud that we are a successful economy trading within the European Community and well beyond it, and proud that we are a global nation with global vision, capable of influencing around the world and trading—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Time is up. I call Mr. Jimmy Hood.
6.35 pm
Mr. Jimmy Hood: It is good that we are finally having this debate on the Floor of the House. The Select Committee on European Legislation, which I chair, thought the matter important enough to recommend that the three European monetary union documents be debated on the Floor. It is not something we do lightly, but nevertheless that was our unanimous recommendation, and we were confident that the House would endorse it.

459
Unfortunately, the debate is not on a substantive and amendable motion as the Committee would have preferred, but I am not inclined to be too ungrateful to the Leader of the House. Indeed, in the Christmas spirit, I find myself somewhat sympathetic towards him and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and perhaps even to the Chancellor, because it seems that, every time they see a light at the end of the tunnel, it turns out to be an on-coming Euro-sceptic train.
The Government's refusal to allow time for the House to debate the documents was bad politics. It was the bad judgment that flows from a Government who are directionless and void of a firm strategy other than to do anything to keep from self-destruction. The integrity of Parliament was in danger of being held up to ridicule. For that reason as much as for any other, my Committee was determined to fight so fiercely against the Government's refusal to sanction this debate. I should place on record my appreciation to all those hon. Members who supported my Committee by appending their names to our motion.
In the time available, I shall concentrate on three lessons of this whole affair. The first is the scrutiny process. The sixth report of my Committee, which was published on Monday, was listed on yesterday's Order Paper. It reminds the House of recommendations that we have made, which have been given a ringing endorsement by the present row.
I shall give two examples. First, we think that there should be a general agreement that, when the Select Committee recommends a debate on the Floor of the House, which we do sparingly, the Government should have to seek the House's approval before it can refer the matter to a Standing Committee. Secondly, we think that there is a strong argument—as the Chancellor's statements in this case have shown—for adapting the questions plus debate format of European Standing Committees to the Floor of the House procedure. I commend that report to the House.
In the summer, the Select Committee published a major report on all aspects of the scrutiny system—how it works, its strengths and weaknesses, and how it could be improved. We made a number of proposals to make it much more effective. The main thing that is wrong with the scrutiny system in the House is that it is not sufficiently well known by Members. The system provides endless opportunities for European issues to be examined in detail, both in the House and outside it, yet it is woefully under-used.
We do our job on the Scrutiny Committee every week, publishing our blue books of analysis and criticism, and we are right up to date: we were the first Select Committee to go on the Internet. If any hon. Members want to surf the Internet and find about European issues, they are welcome.
Scrutiny is not an end in itself. We are a bit of a burglar alarm: we can tell people when someone is trying to get into their bathroom window, but at that point it is up to hon. Members to do something about it. I hope that one positive result of the fuss of the past month will be to raise the profile of European scrutiny and to get people to use the process to its full potential. The report we published in July is an ideal handbook, and I recommend it to the House.
It is incumbent on me to assure the House that our scrutiny system compares well with those of other Parliaments in the Union. Some hold the Danish system
460
up as the best, but I am not a convert to that view. It is fair to say that, had the Danes been dealing with those European monetary union documents, they would not have been able to have the reports that we had, or, indeed, to hold this debate on the Floor of the House.
The events of the past few weeks have hammered home the point that national Parliaments must have their own distinct voice in the Union. The European Parliament has a role to play, but it is a different role, and we should understand the difference. For two years, the Scrutiny Committee has been pressing for the role of national Parliaments to be enhanced. We have made a number of suggestions, some of which have fallen on deaf ears, but I hope that more ears will listen in the future.
A principal suggestion is that there should be a four-week notice period between all national Parliaments receiving the official text of any legislative or related proposal and the Council of Ministers being able to take a decision. Under our proposal, there would be time for scrutiny and debate, if necessary, in national Parliaments. We—and, more importantly, our constituents—would not be bounced as they have been in the past. I am glad to say that, in Dublin in October, at the Conference of European Affairs Committees, known as COSAC, we achieved unanimity in favour of our suggestion among the 25 committees attending.
Again, in the spirit of Christmas, I recognise the support that our proposal has had from both the Foreign Secretary and the Minister, who tabled the appropriate treaty amendment for the intergovernmental conference.
No decision taken by a British Government will be as important as the one on European monetary union and the single currency. The Chancellor was right yesterday when he pointed to the positive benefits of our membership, while others, most of them of his own party, are so hostile to Europe that they sometimes sound like, and appear to have much in common with, headless chickens.
It was sad that the Foreign Secretary, who spoke for 46 minutes today, spent 38 minutes trying to appease his party before he mentioned the Labour party. My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor made an outstanding contribution to the debate yesterday, as did my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary today. My party is committed to Europe and to being at the heart of it. However, as both my right hon. Friends said, the convergence criteria must not and cannot be fudged. Real convergence of real economies will bring great benefits if the United Kingdom is involved.
If it is in our national interest to be in, and if our people would be better off in than out, the House will first take the decision to recommend that, and a referendum of the people will make the final decision. I only wish that those on the extreme nationalist wing of the argument would address our national interest instead of indulging in the depressing xenophobia that we have heard over the past few days.
I hope that the sound and fury of the past four weeks have taught us two useful lessons: the first about how we should deal with European matters now and in the future, and the second underlining the importance of national Governments in the process of European decision making. If we have achieved that, perhaps it has been worth while, but I suspect that nothing short of a general election and a new Government will resolve the matter.
6.45 pm
Sir Terence Higgins: It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and to congratulate him on the immense amount of hard work that he and the Select Committee on European Legislation do. He referred to the origins of this two-day debate, and I want to say a couple of things in that context.
The hon. Gentleman has a tremendous amount of work to do, and I am a little concerned by his 27th report, which refers to the suggestion that he might extend his operations into broader European matters than merely legislation. Such matters might more appropriately be dealt with by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee or, possibly, by a specific European committee. That is a matter that we will need to discuss.
At all events, it is clear that the current arrangements for scrutiny of European legislation, despite all the hon. Gentleman's efforts, are not satisfactory. It is right that he should act as a filter, but I think that the present system of European Standing Committees A and B does not work satisfactorily. I hope that, in the next Parliament, it will be possible to reconsider my suggestion that the departmental Select Committees with expertise in the area should have sub-committees of some of the members of the Committee concerned with the particular departmental matters and others from outside. Those sub-committees could then examine matters in greater depth, under the supervision, in effect, of the Scrutiny Committee.
I have a further procedural point regarding the 10-minute rule. We all understand why it is necessary to limit speeches to 10 minutes to allow more people to speak, but something extremely bad is happening to Front-Bench speeches. Ministers and shadow Ministers are giving way far too often—the old tradition was to give way once, twice or, at the outside, three times—with the result, both yesterday and today, that, while Front-Benchers have been on their feet, we have been engaging not in debate but in conversation. That is not good for the House.
I believe that the Government's policy, of first negotiating the opt-out from the single currency and then maintaining the option, is right. If we were to say at this stage whether we intended to join, that would seriously diminish our ability to negotiate, and that would be extremely bad, because we need to exercise our influence. I do not understand those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who want to take what I view as a premature decision on the issue, given that we have the opt-out, because that would reduce our ability to shape Europe in the way we would like.
I am even more puzzled by the way in which many of my colleagues are creating dissent to an extent that could well lead to the election of a Labour Government, which would have precisely the result that those who take the most sceptical attitude to Europe say they are most determined to prevent. That is an extremely important point.
We must consider what the Chancellor and the Prime Minister and the others involved in the negotiations ought to achieve. Much attention has been paid to the convergence criteria. There is already a great deal of fudge about them, not least in respect of the debt-GDP ratio, as well as the actual deficits. The Chancellor said yesterday that we must worry not only about the
462
arithmetic but about whether there is genuine convergence. I do not believe that there is; nor do I believe that it can be achieved in the time scale that has been set. As I have stressed before, there will be a core currency, not a single currency. If countries go ahead without having had convergence over any length of time, the system will break down and they will have to consider how to get out of the core currency.
There will be a period in which the euro will operate alongside other currencies. That will be period of frightful trauma if countries have gone ahead without adequate convergence. Countries are seeking to achieve convergence by repressive measures. We have only to watch television to see people in various countries protesting about measures that are designed to enable them to enter a single currency. If those countries lock themselves into a core currency, the tensions will go on indefinitely. The strains will be such that those countries will not be able to maintain the currency. I hope that the Government will stress in the negotiations the problems of proceeding in that headlong way, which I believe will result in disaster.
It may be that the countries in a single currency will succeed in keeping it going, but if they do, the German idea that the euro will be as strong as the deutschmark is absurd; it clearly will not be. If we get what I have described previously as a camembert currency, with a soft centre, the euro will go down and we will be left with le pound fort. That may give cause for concern in respect of competitiveness, but it may also have advantages.
If countries go ahead with the single currency, there will be the question of the rate at which each country joins. There have been comparisons with the gold standard. We should remember what happened when Winston Churchill took us back on to the gold standard at the wrong rate. If countries go into the core currency at the wrong rate, it will cause serious problems. I hope that the Chancellor will bring home to our European partners the dangers of going ahead in the way they seem to be going.
The speech of the shadow Chancellor yesterday was deplorable. He was more concerned with rumours about conversations that might have happened in some café than with the substance of the issue. On the stability pact, the word "fines" did not once cross his lips.
I am seriously concerned about the matter. Historically, parliamentary democracy rests on the control of money: the right to raise taxes and control expenditure. While I do not accept all the arguments about a reduction in our sovereignty, I am worried about fines. They are a negation—a take-over—of sovereignty of a different order. We will have a supranational authority which automatically, or without our consent, could impose fines on us. Comparison has been made with German reparations after the first world war.
Mr. Dykes: Ridiculous.
Sir Terence Higgins: It is not ridiculous, in respect of either scale or effect. The difference is that, with reparations, the Germans borrowed to pay. With fines, we will not be allowed to borrow more, so the House will have no option but to raise taxes or cut expenditure. That strikes at the basis of Parliament. I therefore hope that, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor negotiates, he will accept that we should not go along with fines.

463
I fully accept that, if we are going ahead with the single currency, we will need some supervision, with good statistics and so on, but fines are a different matter. I realise that there is a danger that one country may borrow too much, but there will be strong pressure on it to put the matter right. We had a long period of currency stability under the Bretton Woods agreement, but no one suggested that the International Monetary Fund should impose fines. The system could work perfectly well without them.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), Mr. Kaletsky spelt out in an excellent article the possible extent of such fines. They are not out of line—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I could not attend yesterday's debate, because I was visiting the European Parliament. I was given to understand by colleagues that yesterday's debate was to have been primarily on economic and monetary union and today's on the intergovernmental conference. I have a brilliant speech on the IGC lined up.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There may have been a misunderstanding. Today's debate is about the European Union.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There cannot be a further point of order because I have already ruled on the matter. Is this a different point of order?
Mr. Mackinlay: Yes. After tonight's debate, could you consider whether, when the Leader of the House announced the business last week, it was clearly stated that the IGC was to be the subject of debate today and EMU yesterday?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already ruled on that. This debate is on the European Union. The hon. Gentleman said that he had a different point of order, which I allowed accordingly.
6.56 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: The only matter that I want to clarify is whether those exchanges ate into my 10 minutes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) spoke on economic and monetary union yesterday; shall talk about the intergovernmental conference. Like my hon. Friend in response to the Chancellor's remarks yesterday, I welcome the more robust pro-Europeanism expressed by the Foreign Secretary today. The Prime Minister also expressed it rather well in his television interview at the weekend.
The bad news for the Conservatives is that it is too little, too late. If they had shown firmer resolve at the top of the Government, they might not have got into the terrible quagmire that has developed since the Maastricht treaty, with the whipless Tories and so on. It is not merely
464
a case of the tail wagging the dog; the tail has got bigger and bigger because those in charge of the animal have not imposed the necessary discipline.
The Foreign Secretary's comments on the IGC were strange, coming from a Conservative. He bewailed the tendency in Europe towards endless modification. I had always thought that one of the great tenets of British Conservatism was that our unwritten constitutional procedures gave us limitless scope for endless modification—not pulling the plant up by the roots to see how it was growing, but pruning and nurturing it in a conservative way. His complaints about modification in the context of the IGC are inconsistent with that view.
In the latter stages of his speech, the Foreign Secretary said that the differences among the Opposition were substantive and very real. He would have better addressed those remarks over his shoulder to his Back Benchers, where the fatal—from the point of view of the British Tory party—splits are all too evident.
One thing is coming through clearly as the IGC process continues: the underlying arrogance that we hear, particularly from Conservative Members with a certain cast of mind on matters European. They suggest that the process of negotiation involves the British explaining to everyone else in Europe—perhaps not even bothering to explain, but simply haranguing them—that we know best, that our procedures are unimpeachable and that if everyone else followed our lead they would get on much better.
Negotiation, by definition, involves give and take—meeting people halfway and accepting that other traditions and cultures can have a beneficial impact on ours, just as we like to believe that our cultures and traditions can have a worthwhile impact on others. The process of negotiation as conducted by the present Government is what Lord Carrington, in a different context several years ago, famously described as megaphone diplomacy.
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is still in his place. I wish to pick up not so much what he said in the House tonight as what he said on the vexed issue of qualified majority voting, which goes to the heart of the intergovernmental process. The only surprise about the Government's White Paper "A Partnership of Nations", published earlier in the year, was that it did not have a question mark at the end of its title. Throughout their period of office, the Government have flagged up and welcomed the extension of QMV, particularly its role in delivering near completion of the single market.
In a review of a book co-written by Christopher Booker—a name to conjure with in this context—published some time ago in The Daily Telegraph, the right hon. Member for Wokingham wrote:
"We now need to try and make the single market a freer market: a market with fewer laws and more rights of access for our goods and services. We should also say that now that Europe's idea of a single market is completed, we should revert to voting on the basis of unanimity."
His analysis is flawed and his prescription is wrong.
On the key subject of the utilities, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in June of this year, electricity liberalisation—something that the Government favour and that they say is in this country's vital national interest—passed through the Council of Ministers only because it

465
was subject to QMV? The French were threatening to block liberalisation procedures. Gas liberalisation is another such case. I therefore disagree with the prescription suggested by the right hon. Gentleman; there is clearly a need for further QMV in more areas that suit Britain and suit the proper liberalisation of the single market.
Mr. Redwood: We should try to persuade our partners to agree to bring about the good news in their economies that we have brought about in ours with utility deregulation. We should not, however, have the right to make them do it under QMV. We would derive a great advantage under the system of unanimity, because our partners would not be able to impose on us rules and regulations that we do not like.
Mr. James Wallace: What about the common fisheries policy?
Mr. Kennedy: My hon. Friend, who, for constituency reasons, speaks with more direct knowledge of such matters than perhaps anyone else in the House, asks how on earth we could achieve reform of the common fisheries policy if we were to take the "heads we win, tails you lose" approach of the right hon. Member for Wokingham.
The Conservatives' confusion over QMV is but a mirror image of what we hear from the top. When the Foreign Secretary appeared before the Select Committee on European Legislation on 13 February this year, he said:
"If there were an area of EU policy which could only be advanced through Majority Voting and which we were convinced would serve an important UK interest, then it would be foolish and illogical of us not to support Majority Voting in that area."
What did the Minister of State who is handling the minutiae of the discussions say to the same Committee, as reported in the Financial Times in the past week?
"We will not accept any undermining or dilution of the veto in any circumstances".
The Foreign Secretary says one thing and the Minister of State, who is handling the detail of the IGC, contradicts him. It is no wonder that the Conservative party is in such an abject mess.
There are areas where we should retain a national veto. I should have thought there were primarily four of them—budgetary and tax matters; constitutional issues, specifically treaty changes; the deployment of national forces; and social security and employment promotion measures in the context of the social chapter—but elsewhere, if we are to maintain the momentum of Europe, we must, in our own national interest, apply a sensible, qualified extension of majority voting in a pragmatic way.
It is a shame that we never hear from the Government any discussion at the IGC of proportional representation for the next diet of European elections. I pay tribute to our sister party, the FDP, in west Germany, and Werner Hoyer, who has raised the subject consistently.
We have heard a great deal lately about the most recent proposals for common borders policy that have emerged in the context of the IGC. That is a red rag to a bull for the Euro-sceptics, and there is much hysteria about it. The United Kingdom should, of course, retain domestic
466
control over its borders until and unless there is a clear political, administrative and public acceptance of enhanced security for European frontiers as a whole. It would be wrong, however, to deny or decry the fact that there is much cross-border activity, such as anti-drug trafficking, on which it makes sense to have cross-border co-operation and co-ordination for the benefit of all citizens of the EU.
Whatever the outcome of the IGC—and the parallel, and probably slightly longer, discussions on EMU—one thing is clear from the division that was so graphically drawn yesterday: the Chancellor was supported by perhaps 20 per cent. of Conservative Back Benchers but, despite the detailed and principled policy differences, received pretty general acceptance and support for his position from the Opposition.
It is therefore clear that we cannot have a sane debate that reflects the realities of the European issue when the Government are caught in the headlights of their own divisions. That is why a referendum that flushes the argument out into the country will be both necessary and desirable. I believe that, in due course—as before—the voters of this country will use a referendum to commend the further sensible and progressive integration of Britain with the rest of Europe.
7.8 pm
Mr. John MacGregor: I agree almost totally with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) said yesterday and what Lord Owen said in a debate in the other place last week. I shall not repeat all their points. Like them, I have always been a passionate and convinced supporter of British membership of the European Union, and I remain so.
At the first national conference at which I spoke when I was a student, I proposed a resolution urging the Government of the day to join the original six and become an original member of the treaty of Rome but, like my two colleagues, I do not therefore embrace the concept of the single currency—certainly not at this stage of European development.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor put the economic advantages and disadvantages of the single currency concisely and impeccably yesterday, and made it clear that he is genuinely waiting to decide. I agree entirely with his analysis; I differ from him only in that I am more strongly persuaded of the disadvantages. At this moment—I stress, at this moment—I am opposed to British membership of the first phase of the single currency. The time to judge that matter properly and definitively will come later. I do not know exactly when that will be. I know what the timetable is at the moment, but I recall many European negotiations where the clock has been stopped and the timetable has moved backwards.
My inclination at present is to look to the disadvantages because I believe that the pressures for the single currency are pushing us too far, too fast, both politically and economically. I fear that it may bear the seeds of its own destruction—I follow a number of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins). I speak not merely of the fudging of the criteria before entry—which many of us are now noticing is happening in other countries—but of the likely impossibility of holding to those criteria later, depending on who initially enters the single monetary union.

467
Different economies are at substantially different levels of development and growth. There are different levels of inflation; different pressures on public expenditure and debt; different levels of, and pressures on, unemployment. The political pressures that some Governments may be unable to resist when holding to the criteria may mean that the criteria will be breached. Alternatively, there may have to be transfers of expenditure between different member states on a much greater scale than anything we have hitherto experienced. Real tensions could therefore build up if we move too far, too fast.
In the context of public expenditure, I want briefly to mention pensions. I share the concerns of many about the funding of our pensions in 10 to 20 years' time being in a much better state than those in most other European Union member states, with the possible exception of the Netherlands. I know that there are constraints—indeed sanctions—against the transfer of public expenditure from one country to another to fund the huge pension burden that many other member states will face in 10 to 15 years' time, but I was impressed by the Social Security Committee's report on the point. The response of the President of the European Commission was certainly not consoling.
We all know that, at a certain stage, pressures will become such that the pension burden may be funded from some central, European public expenditure pot or, indeed, from the central reserves. I am concerned about that, and think that we need much firmer sanctions and clear commitments to prevent it. There is also the problem of whether moving towards a single currency at this stage is compatible with the timetable of, and progress with the widening of, the EU, as well as a mass of other technical issues. For all those reasons, I am doubtful.
There is everything to be said for our participating fully and positively in the negotiations, as we have been doing. If the single currency goes ahead and breaks up, we would have made our case and be able to play a much more crucial part in putting the pieces together again. If it succeeds, against my expectations at the moment—I keep stressing that we do not know exactly what shape the final proposals for the single currency will be—and we decide to join later, which is an option that I am strongly in favour of keeping open, we will have helped to shape it.
I spent four years of my ministerial life negotiating on and trying to reform the common agricultural policy. I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) said about that, if we had been in on the early discussions of the CAP, we would have had nothing like the problems that we have had subsequently.
If there is a two-speed Europe as a result of some member states going ahead with the single currency and our not doing so, we will participate in shaping the kind of problems that will arise from a two-speed Europe. In that respect, I share the views expressed by my right hon. Friends the Members for Witney and for Wokingham. I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham on a number of the points that he made, but I agree with him that we are not alone in Europe in the kind of developments that we want. Indeed, I am much impressed by the number of German and French business men who keep urging us to maintain our position on the social chapter because they agree with it.
468
The position that I hold leads me, unlike some of my hon. Friends, to the view that we should in no way be shackling our Government in the present negotiations. I fear that some of the commitments and comments that have been made have had precisely that effect. I repeat that I genuinely believe that we cannot decide on a single currency now, because we do not know its final shape. I remain doubtful about whether we should join.
Above all, I should stress that to speak in this way is not to be a Euro-sceptic. To be cautious about a development that we genuinely think is taking place too far and too fast does not mean that we do not continue to want to be strong and committed members of the wider European Union. There is a world of difference between my position and those who are commonly described as Euro-sceptics.
I am glad that the Referendum party has been flushed out and forced to indicate what its question will be. It is quite clear from that question that it is advocating withdrawal from the European Union and joining a European free trade area of us and Switzerland—
Mr. Jessel: And Norway.
Mr. MacGregor: Perhaps Norway as well. That is a big deal for British business and the British economy. Some of my hon. Friends and others who carry on the debate in the media and elsewhere outside the House are being less than honest in making their points. In the final sentence of his speech yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) was honest; he faced up to the fact that the position that he holds will mean that, at some point, he will have to judge whether we should pull out of the European Union altogether. That was an honest position; I totally disagree with it, and profoundly do not join him on it.
For all the reasons that I have given, I believe that the Cabinet has got it right at the present time; it is right to suspend judgment until we see the final proposals; it is right to have a referendum if we decide to move ahead; and it is why the Cabinet should be supported.
7.14 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: It has been interesting to witness the degree of caution that has developed in the past few days' debates. From the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), who spoke yesterday from a foreign policy point of view, northwards to the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and southwards to the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) on the south coast, Members who might otherwise have been desperate to increase political union inside the European Community are now being rather cautious. The cause of that might be some disagreement on what is meant by political union.
Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made some extraordinary statements. As we all know, he is a man with a most attractive means of presentation. I do not know whether anyone has analysed the construction of his sentences, the choice of his vocabulary or the quality of his voice, but I suspect that their combination not infrequently makes the implausible sound plausible and the plausible sound well founded, when often that is not so. My exchange with the Foreign Secretary at the beginning of today's debate shows that the Chancellor's

469
speech yesterday was a very good example of, from some people's point of view, his best, and from the point of view of the best parliamentary debates, his worst.
The Chancellor said:
"we shall also have to consider not only the economic argument, but what EMU implies about the political future of the European Union. As I said several times already, I do not believe EMU will lead to a European super-state. If I did, I would not contemplate Britain joining it. However, we need to satisfy ourselves about the intentions of our EU partners."
I shall comment on that in two parts. The first concerns the European super-state and the political future.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk mentioned reserves. The calculation of pension liability, on which we happen to be well off when others are not, could include currency reserves as a whole throughout the economic area of a single currency and even, I take it, reserves in banks and institutions. The uncertainties are great. Are they not also specifically political?
How can the Chancellor talk about there being no possibility of a super-state when there will be a super-currency and a super-bank? How can that in any way not be super-political as well? I put that as an unsustainable proposition, not just to the House but to anybody who may be listening. When it comes from the lips of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it sounds reasonable, but it is totally unreasonable. I put it to the Minister who will be winding up the debate that he cannot sustain that proposition either.
The Chancellor went a bit further when he said:
"we need to satisfy ourselves about the intentions of our EU partners."—[Official Report, 11 December 1996; Vol. 287. c. 295.]
Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer not know what our EU partners' intentions of were? Did he not ask the Foreign Secretary?
Mr. Dykes: Are these rhetorical questions?
Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman thinks that I am asking too many questions. I hope that the development of the argument disturbs him somewhat, but it gives me no cause for disturbance.
Did the Chancellor not ask anyone what our partners' intentions were? Did he not know about the solemn declaration of the European Union that was signed by Mrs. Thatcher in 1983? That was an intention of union, which must mean political union; it did not mean a football union or anything else.
Has the Chancellor forgotten the communiqué from the previous Dublin conference, on 25 and 26 June 1990? Paragraph 1 of that communiqué states that the European Council
"agreed to convene an intergovernmental Conference on Political Union; it reviewed the preparatory work for the intergovernmental Conference, already agreed, on Economic and Monetary Union; and fixed the opening dates for these two intergovernmental Conferences".
In case they have forgotten, I remind the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and others that when Baroness Thatcher, as Prime Minister, went to Madrid and agreed the famous Delors three-part proposals for economic and monetary union, two Select Committees of
470
the House said that we should have a debate. The right hon. Member for Worthing was then Chairman of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and I was Chairman of the EEC Legislation Committee, now chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood). Both Committees were unanimous in asking for a debate.
Did we get a debate? No, we did not. Baroness Thatcher went off and, in effect, gave her consent to an intergovernmental conference on monetary union to be held. She had no choice, in the circumstances. The same thing happened when she went to Dublin in 1990: she could not say no.
We now have the meshing together of political and monetary union, one impinging on the other. If that is not a super-state, I do not know what is. Whatever view hon. Members take of the advantages—or what they believe to be the advantages—or the disadvantages of the European single market, the union, or whatever one prefers to call it, it is a coming state.
Earlier, I disagreed with the Foreign Secretary about his use of the word "federal" which, as the hon. Member for Harrow, East knows, for the past 10 or 15 years I have repeatedly said is inconsistent and wrong. The European Union is the prototype of a unitary state. All the institutions of government are in place, ready to expand at the expense of national Parliaments.
Mr. Tony Banksindicated assent.
Mr. Spearing: I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) agrees.
Every Member of the House should have an elementary knowledge of constitutional structures. There is a great difference between a unitary state and a federal state. The treaties of the European Union and its predecessor, the common market, are unique in that they have tried to impose an over-arching unitary state on independent and otherwise sovereign states.
That difference undergirds the misunderstandings that arise between the German use of the word "federal"—which guarantees a degree of distribution of power among the Lander, which are historic communities, building up to the Zollverein and their specific form of federation—and the use by Conservative Members and some Opposition Members of the word "federal" when they mean, "We fear a unitary state." That is fundamental to the mess that the Government have got themselves into, as have the European Movement and others.
Unemployment affects all members of the European citizenry, if I may so call it: we have been forced to be citizens of the treaty state because that is what it is, whether we like it or not, without consent—from democratic motion, so-called.
The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), mentioned unemployment and said that words should be added to the treaty. He is right. One cannot create—except in bureaucracy to run conferences about unemployment—one extra job simply by writing it into the treaty. The treaty bears down hard and says that nothing can be done unless it is in the treaty; anything else is undemocratic. No political party can advocate anything that is not within the terms of the treaty, whether one likes those terms or not, whether it is capitalist or collectivist.

471
Any form of partnership between private and public enterprise—any subsidy, any matter of finance, any specification—must be within the terms of the treaty. That is undemocratic in itself, but the aspect that affects unemployment is that there is forced competition. Forced competition in a time of great advance and change means unemployment. That is what the treaty means, and we can do little about it, even by changing the terms of the treaty that is at fault.
7.25 pm
Sir Rhodes Boyson: On 21 May 1992, I spoke on Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. I voted for Second Reading and against Third Reading. At that time I was worried about the agricultural policy, the single currency and all regulations from Europe. I am still worried about the single currency, and I am now worried about over-regulation, the opt-outs and how we should proceed.
The exchange rate mechanism did untold harm to this country. It put our prosperity back four years, increased unemployment and destroyed much of our reserves. To my mind, the single currency would repeat that. I do not support a single currency. Like the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), I speak as a schoolmaster. A single currency is similar to a three-legged race, like those that are run in infants schools. People can run together, but if there is a three-legged race they all fall down because they run at different speeds. That is exactly what happens to economies, and they will never work any other way. I do not want the single currency.
I continue to be worried about the common agricultural policy, especially bearing in mind the harm that it has done to the third world. Third-world countries can no longer sell us their goods at the right price, and these days we have to give aid instead of trade, when trade is always better for those countries. I am still not happy about that.
Europe is becoming over-regulated. If the trend continues, it will become an over-regulated morass. There is every sign that, in terms of prosperity, growth in inward investment and trade, Europe is falling behind not just America and the far east but other parts of the world. Our exports to the far east have doubled proportionately compared with our exports to Europe. Similarly, the amount invested by British business men using their own money has decreased as a percentage of investment in Europe. When we entered the common market, 29 per cent. of our investment overseas was in Europe. The proportion has now dropped to 20 per cent. and those people are making decisions for their own firms.
I wonder whether we need Europe if we have GATT. If we do not have GATT, we must be in a geographical body. But if we have GATT and free trade, we can compete throughout the world. Thus, I believe that Europe is becoming an incubus on our economy.
Size does not really matter. The countries that have expanded most, economically, since the second world war are small countries, such as Taiwan, which was expelled from the United Nations. That small island, with a population of about a third of this country and with little agriculture, now has an economy almost equal to ours. The same applies to Hong Kong and Korea. If a country makes goods of the right quality, sells them at the right price and provides the right service, it will do well. If it
472
does not, it will not. As they say, if you make a better mousetrap in the forests of Canada, the world will beat a path to your door.
We are not dependent on Europe. I do not say that we should come out of it: I simply say that it would not be a disadvantage if we were forced to do so because of other circumstances. Europe needs us more than we need Europe. Opposition Members do not have the same confidence in the people of Britain as I have. I am confident in this country. I do not speak as a little Englander. Those who want to keep us in Europe under any terms are little Englanders because they have no confidence in this country or in what we are doing. If one believes that this country can help other countries and provide a good standard of living, I do not see how we could improve matters.
I shall conclude because this is a short debate and many other hon. Members want to speak. Britain has always made goods well and has sold to the rest of the world. We are the same people as we were before, and so long as we have free trade, we have no need to be propped up in any other way. I am suspicious of a single currency and all that goes with it. It would be of no advantage to this country.
Those of us who are Euro-sceptics should not be called little Englanders: the little Englanders are those who do not believe that this country could cope without being linked with other countries. This country has the same enterprise and the same ability as we had in the past. I do not say for one minute that we should come out of Europe, but I do not fear the possibility.
7.31 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: The right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) is an honest man and a Methodist, but he was only a step away from saying that he would favour withdrawal because he saw no serious disadvantages for our country in being outside the Community.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) put forward arguments in the same direction. He argued in an Anglo-centric way—I stress the "Anglo"—that Britain could recreate Europe in our image, and that, if we stood firm, if we were positive and proud, and if we set out our stall as we would want, our European partners would inevitably see the virtue of our position and follow us. That was the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's position.
Mr. Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Anderson: No, I must get on, because I have only 10 minutes.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) spoke of repatriating elements within the competence of the European Court of Justice. In effect, part of the original treaty gave the European Court of Justice supervision and jurisdiction over a substantial part of our policy; hence, our laws within those areas will be subject to European laws. If one talks seriously about repatriating parts of the European Courts of Justice, one is only a step away from saying, "Let us withdraw from Europe and from that which our referendum agreed in 1975".
I find it puzzling that many of those who are most vocal in favour of a referendum because they think that it will decide the issue once and for all pay no heed to the

473
decision made by our people in 1975. I therefore conclude that another referendum will not decide the issue, because people will go on arguing about it.
When our people made that decision in 1975, they voted not just for a static Europe—the Europe that existed in 1975 on the basis of the treaty of Rome and the common agricultural policy. As the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) said so eloquently, we suffered from that because we were excluded, and we used that as a precedent, quite properly, for taking part in the current discussions on currency union. Our people voted not for a static Europe but for a dynamic Europe. In that treaty there is the ever closer union of the people of Europe, which implies evolution and development. That was starkly clear at the time of the decision in 1975.

Our partners in Europe must be amazed at the nature of the debate that we still have in this country. We still dither about our vocation and whether we are in or out. That is an absurd position. If we are to be a part of our natural region, and if we are to see where our trade flows have gone and how we can punch much harder in the world, we must be part of Europe. Would Scotch whisky manufacturers, for example, prefer to negotiate with the Japanese simply through our Trade Minister on our own as a single economy, or be part of a bloc that can negotiate hard?
Inward investment is another advantage. The Koreans and others come to this country not only because they see many natural advantages here but—the right hon. Member for Wokingham ignores this—because we are part of a wider market and a launching pad or springboard to a wider Europe. If we were outside Europe, it follows as night follows day that we would be less attractive to inward investment.
This is part of the agenda that those who still dither and pretend that little England can stand on its own ignore. Some of them claim that we could form a new European Free Trade Association. I wonder where those countries would come from. Some claim that there is an alternative economic arrangement, whereby perhaps we could talk to our American friends and form a north Atlantic free trade association. I have news for them: although, some 35 or 36 years ago, Senator Javits and others spoke about that, no lobby or serious group in the United States flirts with that idea now. It takes two to tango, and those who talk about a new EFTA or a NAFTA are indulging in the politics of illusion. That is the worst sort of illusion, which does severe damage to our country.
That is part of the burden that this country must bear, and it causes such astonishment to our partners. They are amazed that the debate on Europe in this country, particularly in the media, is so violent. It is astonishing that those with no stake in the United Kingdom—Sir James Goldsmith and Mr. Murdoch—seek, from their foreign vantage points, to influence the decision and to wallow in old illusions of sovereignty, or a populism that sells newspapers, which are irrelevant to our country.
I fully concede that there are major disadvantages, potential and actual, in a single currency. The right hon. Members for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) made those points well. As always, a balance must be struck. At the moment we
474
see through a glass darkly. We do not know a number of different factors: membership; the convergence criteria; or the degree of fudge. Surely the sensible position, then, is to wait until many of those matters are clarified. Perhaps the nation will say that it makes sense to help in the formation of that currency, but our national interest will ensure that we are not and should not be part of the first wave. Ultimately, however, it would be absurd for us to marginalise ourselves and reduce our influence and punching power. That is an argument for wait and see. Surely that is the sensible position. We do not know so many of the intangibles.
Because of our experience in the City, we can play a major role in pointing out to the enthusiasts the problems that are likely to arise. I heartily accept the view of Chancellor Kohl as an old man in a hurry. Perhaps there is a strong argument for trying to curb some of the enthusiasm.
If there are problems, they may multiply and be exacerbated if the new members queuing to join the EU are admitted. It is odd that, as we dither on the edge, countries queue to join the EU because of the advantages that they see. The current proposition is that those countries would have to join the single currency immediately, which would create great complications.
To dither and to be divided, as the Government are, cannot be in the national interest that the Prime Minister claims to espouse. During Prime Minister's questions today, he was asked whether, if the conditions were right, he would recommend entry. He seemed to have great difficulty in answering that simple question. He had to look over his shoulder to see who was there and whether he was saying the right thing. The Chancellor yesterday was forthright and put forward the honest position. The Prime Minister could not even answer a simple question.
It is dishonest—the current word is "dissembling", which is rather Shakespearean—if one enters into negotiations with one's partners without being able to say plainly that one is negotiating on the assumption that if the conditions were right, one would enter. It is a great pity that there is such a division in the Conservative party. I accept, of course, that there are differing voices in the Labour party, but there is a fundamental difference—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
7.41 pm
Sir Norman Fowler: I take up a point made eloquently yesterday by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). His speech disposed at a stroke of the notion that the Labour party is united on the European issue. We do not need such nonsense in the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the fundamental question of who governs Britain. He cited the single currency and moves towards a common foreign policy as examples of the way in which power is passing. Tactfully, perhaps, he omitted to mention the most glaring example: social policy and, in particular, how the directive on working time—the 48-hour week—is being applied in the United Kingdom.
On other occasions we can debate which party is right on that subject. I was singularly unconvinced by the comments of the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). What concerns me, however, is not the

475
argument, but the process. It is common ground that the two major parties are entirely divided on the issue. It is common ground that our opposition to the proposals was the opposition of the elected Government of the UK. It is common ground that at Brussels the Government have put their views forcefully and consistently against the working time proposals. When I was Employment Secretary, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) may remember, I—and, I think, he—put the case strongly.
It is also common ground that if, God forbid, the Government were defeated at the next election or any other election, it would be open to Labour to introduce its proposals in legislation. There has not, however, been a change of Government. At Maastricht the Prime Minister negotiated an opt-out from the social chapter. As chairman of the Conservative committee on European affairs, I argued strongly for that.
To most people, that might have seemed the end of the matter, but the Commission went on as though nothing had happened. It had argued that working time was a health and safety issue. Did the Commission's position change in the light of the Maastricht opt-out? Not one jot. That was entirely contrary to the spirit of the opt-out agreed by elected Ministers. Appointed officials went smack against the declared policy of the elected Government of the UK. That is unacceptable.
The Commission argued that on a strict interpretation of a European law, its action was justified. Regrettably, the European Court upheld that view. The European Court did not, however, consider the fundamental question of whether it was right for labour law to be determined at national level or at the Brussels level. We have always argued for the national level.
There is a further aspect that I find objectionable. We are supposed to be members of a community—a union—of friendly parties working together, yet the very spirit of the Maastricht opt-out has been avoided. The message that has gone out has not been one of friendly co-operation. The message has been that, if one has discussions, one had better go armed with battalions of lawyers and sign nothing until weeks later, when every conceivable point has been covered. Above all, one should not rely on the spirit of any agreement.
Mr. Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Norman Fowler: I should love to give way, as my hon. Friend knows, but I cannot.
When Commissioner Flynn spoke about the working time directive, he said not that it was good for health and safety but that it was good for social Europe. One of the crassest statements ever made by a senior political figure was the statement by President Santer, who warned against
"a return to the Dickensian sweatshops of the 19th century".
Working hours are not the only social issue. The issue of immigration control and frontier control is once more raising its head. Any change on that would be unacceptable to Parliament.
My views, like those of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), are not the views of a long-term Euro-sceptic. I sometimes feel that, in my two years as party chairman, I spent most of my
476
time in conflict with those who are regarded as Euro-sceptics. Nor am I particularly influenced by foreign-owned newspapers or foreign-based politicians. I am influenced by the way in which I see the views of middle England developing. I see a marked shift of opinion against the European Union. That must be recognised.
Politicians in other European countries may not appreciate the great resentment that has built up in Britain about the unnecessary interference in our affairs. Politicians in other European countries may not agree or even care, but they should understand what is happening. They should not believe for a moment that, if there were a change of Government, the public mood would change overnight. The public mood would not change.
We are reaching a critical stage in the debate on many European issues—the hour of truth, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary called it. The real question now for the public is which party has the will, courage and determination to fight on these issues and to stand up for British interests. We know, because they say so, that the Opposition will abandon the social chapter opt-out and embrace the working time directive. We know that they live in fear of being in a minority of one in European debates. Labour was totally opposed to Europe at one stage, and it now exhibits the weakest characteristics of the European convert. The Conservatives want a Europe of the single market with maximum power devolved to individual nation states.
With humility, I say to my hon. Friends: we must decide whether we are content to carry on the internal debate or enter the real debate between the two sides in the House of Commons. The divisions on our Benches—I emphasise that they do not exist only on our Benches—will aid the election of a party whose Front Benchers adopt a view on Europe that is entirely alien from our own. We would not be easily forgiven if we allowed that to happen, as we would hand over control of British politics on Europe at a vital time in our national history.
7.50 pm
Mr. Ken Livingstone: The current confusion in Britain arises partly from the fact that, for the best part of the past four years, the anti-European factions in British politics have made all the running. As the opinion polls have started to shift against the European project—the latest polls show a 50:50 split on the issue of remaining in Europe—those politicians who favour European union have kept their heads down rather than risk alienating marginal voters.
From the beginning, the European project was treated as the creation of a federal Europe—a united states of Europe. Its motive in the late 1940s and early 1950s was the desire to avoid another great European war. However, by the mid-1960s, that desire was no longer at the forefront of political thinking. Most people who now pursue the dream of a federal Europe—and I am one—see that as the only way in which Europe can defend its economic interests against the vast economic empire of the United States of America, which has created its own free trade association whereby it uses the mineral resources of Canada and the cheap labour pool of Mexico, and a much looser arrangement whereby Japan works with a succession of south-east Asian nations using their cheap labour.

477
We cannot avoid the fact that the rest of Europe will create a united states of Europe—although it may take a generation. The simple issue before the British people and the House is whether we wish to be part of it or whether we shall stand outside it. The creation of a united states of Europe is not a German plot: it is led by economic forces. We must create an economic bloc that is capable of fighting for markets and of challenging American interests around the globe. That desire is not fuelled simply by nationalism. The world economy has developed in such a way as to necessitate economic blocs the size of North America or Europe in order to generate the economic strength to operate in the global market.
For example, we can no longer choose between half a dozen competing car firms within one nation. With the technologies of the future, it will be hard to sustain more than one or two major competitors in any area. At present there is room in the world for only one microprocessor producer, the Intel Corporation. The Microsoft company predominates in the personal computer operating systems industry. The world is able to sustain only two large civilian aircraft producers: Boeing and European airbus. Economic forces are driving Europe to create a genuine economic bloc, and they will ensure that the process of European union goes ahead, whether we like it or not.
The British people have been lied to by successive British Governments, who have told them that European union was just about trade and not about creating a united states of Europe. They claimed that the reasons were simply economic, whereas European statesmen and women from the left and the right talked openly from the beginning about creating a united states of Europe. Britain faces a choice: there is no future for an advanced capitalist society such as ours outside the great trading blocs. If we are not part of the European bloc—where we could be equal leaders with France and Germany—we will have to play a completely subordinate role in a relationship with the United States of America or Japan, which is even less likely.
That is why the Conservative party is torn apart—it is not a question of the Conservatives not liking Germans. Running through the Conservative party is a strong commitment to a global leadership alliance with the United States, the origins of which date back to the second world war and to the alliance between Churchill and Roosevelt. A smaller split of that nature exists on the Labour Benches. I am struck by those Labour Members of Parliament who genuinely resist the European Movement—as opposed to those who have some doubts about the Maastricht treaty or the timing of monetary union. It is hard to find any Labour Members under the age of 60 who are anti the European project, but there is a small handful of Labour Members whose thinking was shaped by the second world war and events of that period. I cannot think of one hon. Member elected to the Labour Benches in the last three intakes who is genuinely anti-Europe. I do not wish to smear anyone or cast aspersions: that is the reality.
At Question Time on Tuesday the Prime Minister claimed that there were equal divisions on both sides of the House, but that is not so. I voted against the Maastricht treaty. I am in favour of a common currency, but I want to ensure that we get the timing right. The debate within the Labour party is about getting the timing
478
right and not repeating the mistake made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Prime Minister, who took us into the exchange rate mechanism at a grossly overvalued level and precipitated the worst recession since the 1930s, which wiped out 10 per cent. of our manufacturing industry. They are vital issues: we must get the timing and the exchange rate level right and so on.
I think that the Bundesbank established a series of economic policies and constrictions that had appalling consequences across Europe. It did not do so deliberately: it is not wicked. The ideologies that fuel the Bundesbank are the fear of inflation and the terror of recreating the circumstances of Weimar. That society saw the collapse of its financial policies open the way to Nazism, and I can understand how that has a strong effect on the formulation of fiscal and monetary policies.
The problem is that the tight economic policies that the Bundesbank imposes on Germany and which set the standard for the rest of Europe are creating long-standing resentment and social upheaval. We have seen unrest erupt on the streets of France and a pro-fascist party receive 25 per cent. of votes in Austrian elections. Europe should say to the Bundesbank, "Your policies are making the prospect of monetary union difficult and unworkable". Anyone who travels by train—when it is running—to Paris, walks into the first cafe and orders a coffee and a croissant which costs the equivalent of £5, will realise that the franc is grossly over-valued.

Monetary union must be based on realistic policies rather than over-inflated exchange rates. The franc is locked into the same nonsense that we were locked into on the exchange rate mechanism. It is causing high unemployment. I am concerned that the ham-fisted and bureaucratic way in which the Bundesbank has led Europe towards monetary union runs the risk of derailing the project and setting it back years. It is nonsense to talk about monetary union based on a fusion of the franc at its present level with the deutschmark. The franc must be devalued, and perhaps the project should be put back to 2002.
Britain will certainly need that extra time, as the shambles that we shall inherit next year will not be turned around in 18 months. By the end of a Labour Government's first term, the British economy could have reached the levels of investment and competitiveness that would allow us to be part of a monetary union without suffering dire consequences. That is the debate that we are having on this side of the House: it will not tear us apart, and it will not cause a split in the Labour party. It is a debate about technical issues. Therefore, it is nonsense to say that there is a split that runs through the parties, and this is of an equivalent nature.
I remember that, at the age of about 16—when I was not at all terribly interested in politics; I was trying to rake up newts from the pond most the time—the first political idea that ever appealed to me was when Macmillan applied to take Britain into the Common Market, as it then was. I remember being excited about that, because I do not feel anti-European.
I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) say that this is not about a unity of peoples but a unity of laws. That is not the case for my generation. I feel happy when I meet people in Madrid or Munich. I feel at home with Europeans of my generation. I do not

479
feel that there is something that makes me different or sets me apart from them. I look forward to the day when we get a proper united states of Europe. I hope that we see it in my lifetime, but there is no way for Britain—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
8 pm
Sir Michael Spicer: I do not know whether the rest of the House was as struck as I was by the irony of hearing the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) giving a lecturette to us all on the wonders of capitalism. He was on a particularly weak point when he spoke about "big is beautiful". He might look at the recent history of IBM to clear up some of his misconceptions.
The Government's objective on Europe—a very admirable one—is to establish a close association of nation states, freely trading and associating on matters on which it is in their common interest so to do. The problem is that there are two obstacles in their way.
The first of these is the inexorable movement towards monetary union. Some people say that that is not there, particularly the Germans, but they will have a terrible shock when they read the treaty, as will their constitutional court when it looks at it more carefully; article 109j is absolutely clear; the single currency will be set up by, at the latest, 1 January 1999. That is one reason why some of us voted against the Maastricht treaty. What is more, article 109k says that the convergence rules can be bent by qualified majority voting to ensure that people can join the single currency, which they have to do by law unless the law is changed, on 1 January 1999.
Nor is it true that, by joining a single currency, one avoids the political association that goes with it. That is one of the extraordinary things that has been said in the past few days. It is quite clear that a single currency is bound to lead towards a single fiscal policy and a single taxation policy. It is not just a question of the stability pact, although that factor has emerged and shows that other things, in addition to monetary policy, are associated with a single currency.
If Europe has a single currency, it will mean a single price system, except for different cost structures for transportation or whatever, with different wages. For example, in Greece there would be German prices but Greek wages; in that case there would either be a revolution or there would be pressure for a massive transfer of resources from the north to the south. The introduction of single fiscal and taxation policies to go with a single currency policy will be inevitable; otherwise, the single currency will simply bust apart. That is sheer logic.
If Britain joins a single currency, it is inevitable that by law we go into something that is "irrevocable". That is the word that the Maastricht treaty uses. It means "for ever", which means that the essence of British democracy—the sovereignty of Parliament and the fact that no Parliament can bind any other Parliament—will be destroyed by the existence of that policy. To argue that somehow there is a remoteness, a separation, between a single currency and deep political matters to do with the federalism of Europe is disingenuous, to say the least.
The question arose in the past few weeks as to whether the British opt-out was foolproof. The House of Commons was at its best when it rumbled the possibility that Britain could be forced into the single currency, or something very similar, through the back door. Anybody who has
480
studied the workings of the European Court and looked at the treaty will know that specific parts of the treaty give the Court total powers, under article 171, to impose fines—the issue in dispute a few days ago—where it considers that countries are operating outside the treaty.
In Roman law—a law that depends largely on political intent and relies on the preambles to the law—it is at least possible that the European Court would be able to argue that if Britain was not complying with the convergence conditions, which it would have to do, even if opted out, it was disobeying the law that had been laid down and should therefore be subject to fines. That was at least a possibility, and the House rumbled that. The matter has now—very satisfactorily, in my view—been delayed for resolution for at least six months. That is the way it should be.
The second obstacle in the way of the Government's proper objective of forming a closely associated group of nation states is the inexorable move of European law. As has been already been mentioned, this is based on certain principles—direct applicability, supremacy of European law, the ability of the Court to make its own laws, and the whole issue of acquis communautaire—most of which the Court has arrogated itself. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said that this was laid down earlier on. It was not. In most cases, the Court has created for itself those important principles. If they are allowed to continue, into what Lord Denning called the tidal rush of European law, swamping our own law, the object of a closely associating group of sovereign nation states will be made impossible.
What do we do about all this? I do not believe that a Conservative Government will ever go into a single currency. I personally wish that they should not, and I wish therefore that they would say so. Failing that, I am personally interested in what has been reported to be going on at the moment in the Cabinet: that a paper is to be produced in the early new year, analysing the position on convergence and the conditions for it. I presume that, if the paper shows that the convergence conditions are not what they are thought to be, and that Britain could not under those circumstances join the single currency, we will say so.
The Conservative party would rally round very quickly if we interpreted that as saying that we will not go into the first wave of the single currency. That is a way through for us. I am very happy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health—and others like him not noted as Euro-sceptics—is making the running on this matter. It is right that those who are not Euro-sceptics should make the running. I very much hope that they will, and that this matter will be consolidated into the policy that I have just indicated.
There is no question that what ultimately is required is serious amendment to the treaty of Rome. The question is whether that is possible, because it requires unanimity. The answer is possibly, because other countries also require changes to the treaty of Rome. They keep on jumping up and down, saying that they want to abolish the pillars on foreign and defence policy, that they want single borders. All these matters require changes to the treaty of Rome. They are the demanders in the matter.
Therefore, it is possible for the British Government to go with a set of equal demands for changes to the treaty of Rome, and to say, for example, "We will let you have

481
your single foreign policy," whether it is to the French, Germans, Italians or whatever, "in return for which we want back our Parliament. We want a clear protection within the treaty that Parliament will be supreme over such matters as defence, foreign policy, the constitution, the economy and our borders." That is a package for which the British Government could ask; others are demanding treaty changes, in return for which we should be allowed treaty changes along the lines that we require.
Failing changes to the treaty of Rome, I submit that all the aspirations for the kind of Europe that we want would come to nought, for the reasons that I have given. If there is an inexorable, unstoppable move towards a federal united states of Europe, which the British people do not want—and what the vast majority of the Conservative party do not want—there will be an unstoppable move towards pressing for a renegotiation of our position with respect to the treaty and to the European Union. We cannot have it both ways. Either we believe in an association of sovereign states, or we accept what is really going on. That is the option that faces us, and we had better address it before it is too late and the option no longer exists.
8.10 pm
Mr. Terry Davis: There are three big issues facing the European Union: the single currency, defence and enlargement. Before I comment on those, I want to comment on the more general issue, as exemplified by a statement that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made yesterday. He told the House:
"fewer and fewer people on the continent"—
I would prefer to say "in Europe"—
"see economic and monetary union as a tool for political integration."—[Official Report, 11 December 1996; Vol. 287, c. 288.]
The Chancellor has not been listening.
As a member of our delegation to the Council of Europe Assembly and the Assembly of the Western European Union for the past four years, I have listened to many Ministers, Prime Ministers and Heads of State, and I have talked with many Members of Parliament from the member countries of the European Union. I do not know whether fewer people are talking about economic and monetary union as a tool for political integration than were talking about it five years ago, but I am absolutely sure that the overwhelming majority of the Governments of the other member countries in the European Union, most of the political parties and probably most Members of Parliament in many of those countries see economic and monetary union as a tool of political integration. That is their aim, and it does us no service to disguise that fact.
We should have the honesty to face the facts. We may disagree about whether political union is a desirable aim, either in the short or the long term, but let us not kid ourselves or the people of this country by pretending that that is not the objective of economic and monetary union. That is the objective.
I can understand the attraction for any Government of a wait-and-see policy on the single currency in the run-up to a general election. However, I can see enough of the outline of this proposal for a single currency to make up my mind that I do not agree with it. I shall not rehearse the details: many of my hon. Friend have made specific points with which I agree.
482
What we mean by an independent central bank is that it will be independent of political control. Whatever criticisms we may have of the Chancellor's economic policies, the fact is that if we had had a totally independent Bank of England in recent months, we would have had higher interest rates.
I am in favour of a Labour Government having the ability to control interest rates and exchange rates, or at least to affect them. I recognise that, towards the end of the 20th century, there are limits on any Government's freedom of action, whether inside or outside a single currency, but if we are part of the single currency, we will lose all control of interest rates and exchange rates.
The Chancellor is right—although it is misleading—when he says that we would preserve the right to be responsible for taxation. Yes, we would have that right, just as the state of Arkansas, the province of Alberta or the state of Queensland has the right to taxation. There is no argument about that. What we will not have, however, is the ability to make decisions that affect interest rates and exchange rates.
That view is not as extreme as people pretend. If we are outside the single currency, we will not have complete freedom. If we are inside the single currency, we will not have total influence. We must decide whether we want some influence and very little freedom inside a single currency, or some freedom and very little influence outside it. I would choose freedom—not freedom for myself, but for a Labour Government to make decisions that affect the important aspects of economic policy.
On defence, there is no difference between the political parties, and very little dissent in the House. I think that we are all agreed—I have not heard anyone disagree—that defence should remain a national responsibility. That is expressed through our existing alliances in NATO and, more relevant in this context, in Western European Union.
I totally disagree with Ministers who say that the Labour party's position—which is identical to that of the Conservative party on defence—is responsible for weakening national interests. What is damaging the national interest is the constant reiteration by Ministers that people in other countries, if they only wait, will get an easier time from a Labour Government than they will get from a Conservative Government. That is weakening the national interest.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have made it clear time after time—as we have done in the WEU Assembly—that there is no difference between the main political parties on whether defence is an integral part of the European Union or remains a separate, national responsibility of national Governments who are responsible to national Parliaments, with those national Parliaments coming together to hammer out agreements through the Western European Union Assembly.
Indeed, at the Western European Union Assembly, not only did Conservative and Labour Members agree, when it came to the vote at the special session of that assembly, very few integrationists dissented from the proposal that the agreement of all 10 allied countries must be obtained. As some of us clearly would not agree to defence being part of the European Union, the others must wait and must accept that Britain is an integral part of the alliance. As we were not going to go along with integration into the EU, the most that the others can do is keep alive that dream for the future—and no more than that. If only

483
Governments, including our own, would listen to the views of the representatives of national Parliaments, we would all get on much better.
The biggest issue of all is enlargement. It is depressing that little reference has been made to enlargement—some of my hon. Friends have mentioned it. Other countries want to join the European Union. Most hon. Members support applications for membership from countries such as Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and many others in central and eastern Europe.
I am worried about one aspect of the matter that has not been mentioned in the debate. In the discussions at the intergovernmental conference, the existing members of the club will take decisions about the future organisation of the European Union, and then say to applicant countries, "You join on these terms. We made up the rules without consulting or involving you, and if you want to join, that is the way it is going to be." That is how it will be not just on the single currency, but on other matters. If people were serious about enlargement, they would involve those countries in the discussions about the future architecture of Europe.
The European Union covers only a part of Europe: it is most of the countries of western Europe. We should recognise that other countries such as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have an equal right to be involved in discussions, and that we are imposing on them a decision, an agreement and a treaty that has been made by the existing 15 members of the club. That is wrong. If we are serious about equality and the inclusion of those countries, we should include them at this stage.
Many people in the European Union do not want to include those countries, and will put obstacles in the way of enlargement. I have heard members of the European Parliament say that those countries are not ready and should not join in their own interests, because their industry is not yet equipped to cope with competition. The truth of the matter is that their agriculture is well equipped, but people in the existing member states want to keep them out because they are afraid of the competition for agricultural produce.
The most depressing aspect of the debate is the way in which many hon. Members have sought to polarise the argument, and turn it into a choice between integration on the one hand, and isolation on the other hand.
The fact is that many people such as myself, who do not agree with the idea of a single currency or with many other aspects of the European Union, are not isolationists. We reject the description "anti-Europe", and the allegaiton that we are hostile to Europe. There is a third option—co-operation and partnership. Eventually, co-operation and partnership may well lead to integration; the trouble at the moment is that Europe is dominated not by people under 60, as one of my hon. Friends suggested, but by people aged well over 60—people whose minds were set in concrete by the second world war—what several of my hon. Friends have called the "old men of Europe".
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
8.20 pm
Sir Timothy Sainsbury: If the debate has clone nothing else, it has reminded the House and, I hope, a wider audience of the extent of the differences of view
484
about Europe on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), following the federalist views of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), stretched the views of the Opposition quite extensively—but, of course, they were not the only ones to do that.
In Dublin, my right hon. Friends will discuss—both formally and informally—many issues relating to European Union activities from which we derive benefit. Issues such as combating international terrorism, drug smuggling and organised crime, and protecting the environment or even endangered species such as migratory birds, will be touched on, but I want to focus on matters in which I was particularly involved during my time as a Minister.
Two issues have an especially serious impact on our economy, and also on our influence in the world. The first has already been mentioned a number of times in the debate. Inward investment is a great British success story, and, if I may say so, a great Conservative success story. Some of us remember the opposition and reservations that Labour Members expressed in the early days of that success; it could be described as scepticism. When we debated the subject last week, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade clearly set out facts and figures showing the scale of our success. Most obvious and impressive was the creation of 800,000 jobs in the United Kingdom since 1979.
The full scale of the benefit that our economy derives from inward investment is often not fully appreciated. Those 800,000 jobs are clearly a big enough achievement in themselves, particularly as many of them are in development areas, but they are only the "direct" jobs. There are also the "indirect" jobs—the jobs that go with the suppliers of businesses that decide to locate here, and with the contractors who build and repair their premises. There is the advantage of the new technology that many inward investors have brought to us—and not only the new technology, but, in many instances, the new managment techniques, such as personnel management skills, that have proved so rewarding to many British businesses. Inward investors have made a major contribution to the raising of performance standards, and to improving the productivity of British industry as a whole.
The best example of that is, I think, the motor industry. In 1979, the Conservative Government inherited a motor industry that appeared to be in terminal decline: if any industry was ever a basket case, that was it. Our industrial relations reforms—again, opposed by the Labour party—opened the door to the inward investment that has transformed the motor industry, which is now one of the most successful and competitive not only in Europe but in the world.
I do not suggest that all that inward investment would disappear if we withdrew from the European Union. What I am saying is that every step that we take away from full and active membership weakens the attraction that the United Kingdom holds for inward investors, especially those—I can say from personal experience of responsibility for promoting inward investment that they constitute the majority—who come here because they want a base in the European Union: a manufacturing plant, perhaps, or a head office.

485
I remind the House, however, that those are not the only people who would be discouraged by our drawing back from whole-hearted commitment to the European Union. We would run a much larger risk if we weakened that commitment, and it would not be just a risk to our position as the most successful and the preferred location for inward investment. Every time a multinational company—a company operating in several European countries—had to make decisions such as inward investors make, involving where to site the plant to manufacture a new model, where to use new technology and where to develop new techniques, it would make the same assessment as those inward investors. In today's fast-moving industrial and commercial world, such decisions need to be made very frequently.
Many constituencies have inward investors. Surprisingly, my constituency has a major investor from Japan and another from the United States, but almost every constituency has employers who might relocate jobs elsewhere in the European Union if they felt that our commitment and involvement in the Union was diminishing or at risk. Those employers are the multinational companies, with plants in more than one state in the Union. We are fooling ourselves if we believe that withdrawing from active participation and full membership of the European Union would not dramatically affect our country's economic prospects. It would damage employment immediately, and would continue to damage it for a long time. We would put literally millions of jobs at risk—a risk that we should neither take nor underestimate.
A second issue that is of vital interest to our economy is one that frequently took me to Brussels during my ministerial career. I refer to international trade negotiations. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out, we do not just have a single market from which we have removed all internal tariff barriers, as well as non-tariff barriers; we also have a single market that is open to the outside world. It is not "fortress Europe", but a single market with very low tariff barriers and the minimum of obstacles to trade from outside. That is greatly in our interest, given that we are a major trading nation—indeed, by some measures the major trading nation.
We have succeeded in rejecting protectionism, not just for ourselves—we could always have done that—but for the whole European Union, the world's largest trading bloc and our major trading partner. That is an outstanding example of Britain's success in influencing the Union in the British national interest. Negotiations to that end were not always easy. I recall that, on more than one occasion, it was 11 against one: the French were isolated. But we succeeded in persuading the European Union—our partners—to reject protectionism, and that led eventually to a pretty satisfactory settlement in Marrakesh which, in turn, led to the creation of the World Trade Organisation.
Our committed membership of the European Union has given us a strong voice in world trade negotiations. Only three parties matter in those negotiations: the European Union, Japan and the United States of America. If we were not playing an active part in the European Union, our voice would be small, single and largely neglected. We are not eligible to join other groups, whether it be Cairns or the Association of South-East Asian Nations.
486
People who think that we could succeed in those negotiations outside the European Union are deluding themselves.
Therefore, for trade, for inward investment and for so many other reasons, our membership is overwhelmingly in the national interest, but we shall not gain membership's full benefits if we stay on the EU's sidelines. We must show a willingness and a commitment to play a full and constructive part in the EU's affairs if we are to gain those benefits. If we do that, however, we shall continue to see the economic benefits. They will continue to grow. I therefore urge my right hon. Friends to negotiate with that end in mind, because it is jobs and our economy that are at stake.
8.30 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury). It would be economic lunacy for us to contemplate the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. Many Conservative Members still seem to contemplate that, but they remind me in many ways of the famous weather report that said, "Fog in channel—continent cut off." They believe somehow that we could survive on our own, and that, by our leaving the EU, the EU would be the loser. That is not so, and more people are prepared to say that in the EU.
The right hon. Gentleman made great play about inward investment. Forty per cent. of inward investment into Europe comes into the United Kingdom—Ministers keep bragging about it—but I remind him that the statistics show that it was also 40 per cent. during the Attlee Governments of 1945 to 1951. He should also remember that, for every one pound of inward investment into Britain, there is £3 of outward investment. Where is that going? It is setting up competition elsewhere, so the Government should be careful before they start bragging about that set of statistics.
The Government should be worried about another statistic. Britain is bottom of the European league in terms of the percentage of gross domestic product we spend on investment. They should be concerned about that statistic, but undoubtedly they are not.
It was an amazing scene yesterday when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was at the Dispatch Box. It was the political equivalent of Landseer's "The Stag at Bay". I know that he is a rather portly stag, but rabid hounds were all around him—well, they were not all around him; they were all behind him.
I do not think anyone who has sat through various big debates in the House can recall quite as bloodthirsty a scene in terms of an attempt being made to rip one of the most senior Ministers to pieces. [Interruption.] I take the point. There is something very attractive about the Chancellor. He gives as good as he gets, but it was no stag party that we were watching yesterday.
Of course, the Chancellor found that there was more support for what he was saying from Labour Members than from Conservative Members. I do not suppose that that helped him much. I am sure that he would have preferred us to stand up and start having a go at him. It merely confirms some Conservative Members' suspicions when the Chancellor receives support from Labour Members. In fact, I heard some Conservative Members say to the Chancellor, "Why don't you join the Labour

487
party?" Our party has been so thoroughly cleansed that it is fit, I am sure, for ex-Conservative Chancellors to join. Who knows, we might yet see him sitting with us, but there it is.
I go along with the Chancellor position's that to wait and see makes sense, which was endorsed by the Labour Front-Bench team, but only if it is a genuine position. Too many Conservative Members are paying lip service to that stand now, but frankly they would be better off being more honest and saying that, whatever the circumstances—convergence criteria or whatever—they do not want, will not go for and will not support the UK joining a single currency.
It is tempting for Labour Members just to sit back and watch the Conservative party rip itself to pieces over the issue, but we should not do that. That would provide short-term political gain for the Labour party, but the issue is far too important. The future of the UK in the EU is far too important for the issue to be left to a vicious dogfight among Conservative Members. We must play our part in the debate, in Parliament and outside.
What is fascinating is that the debate is far more within the parties than between the parties. That point has been made before, but we need to be aware of it. The Conservative party has real problems. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said that the Labour party has its splits. He is absolutely wrong about that.
In the Conservative party, it seems to be a left-right split. I do not know all the Conservatives on both sides of the argument, but one does not often see or hear anyone who could be described as on the left of the Conservative party bitterly opposing further economic and monetary union. One does not find Euro-sceptics on the left wing of the Conservative party. [Interruption.] Perhaps there are one or two. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) is merely the exception that proves the rule. That is not the position in the Labour party. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said, effectively the split was more generational than ideological.
I also notice that most of the Euro-sceptics, if not all, are also anti the Prime Minister. They have never really supported him, and they are using this issue as a way of getting at him. That is the way in which I observe the matter. Members can disagree. Increasingly, people outside observe it in that way, too.
Whatever one thinks, the public are seeing not the big issue of Britain's role and future in the European Union being debated, but the governing party ripping itself to pieces. That is looking good for the Labour party, but, as I have said before, we should not allow that to be the only way in which we let the debate proceed. The Labour party must join in.
The differences among Labour Members are not left-right differences or ideological differences, as the differences seem to be among Conservative Members, but genuine differences of opinion. People in the Campaign Group such as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East and myself disagree with other members of the Campaign Group—which incidentally, for Members who do not know, is laughingly referred to as the hard left group in the parliamentary Labour party—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who are
488
also on the left of the Labour party; so ours are differences of opinion. Conservative Members' differences involve ideological thoughts. They might laugh at that, but it is true, and they are destroying their own party. I do not mourn that, but it is worth putting it on the record.
It was disingenuous of the Chancellor to say in his speech that European monetary union will not lead to a political super-state. It might lead to such a state. A single currency will, however, undoubtedly lead to closer political union. The single currency issue is a political issue before it is an economic issue. Any number of Members have said, "Listen to what the politicians are saying in the EU. They are going for a federal Europe"—whatever the definition of federal is—but enough people want a united states of Europe.
I agree with the whole analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who drew attention to precisely that development, but I thoroughly disagree with his conclusion. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East, I want a united states of Europe, so we have an interesting division, even within the borough of Newham, but it is not a left-right issue, as it is on the Conservative Benches.
I want a united states of Europe because that is the most exciting prospect we have. I want a European Government and a European President, and I want them to be based in a European Parliament. We need to do many things to democratise the institutions, but I want those things because it seems that it has been given to this political generation, perhaps uniquely, to reconstruct Europe peacefully for the first time. We must seize that opportunity with both hands.
How could a single currency be so disastrous? How can I believe the tales of woe—told mostly by Conservative Members, but also by one or two Opposition Members—when so many British business men want a single currency? Do they want to destroy their businesses and bankrupt their companies? Why is the Trades Union Congress such an avid supporter of the single currency—because it wants more unemployment in this country? That is absolute nonsense. All those scare stories that are being spread about by the Euro-sceptics do not frighten me, and I do not think that they are frightening the electorate.
I should like the issue to be taken out to the electorate, and, so far as possible, debated dispassionately—rather than allowing it to continue as the basis for a dogfight among Tory Members.
8.39 pm
Mr. Tim Eggar: I much enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), but I should tell him that the Olga Korbut award for the perfect Labour somersault will have to go to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who did it with slightly more panache.
It is with some relief that I can now say publicly what I have long felt privately on European issues. Within the Government, I think that I was unusual, if not unique, in giving no briefings and in joining no factions on European issues. I omitted to do so because I believe that the Conservative party has always been a pragmatic party. On that matter, I agree with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). Such pragmatism has always been my party's strength, and I believe that we are

489
a pragmatic party or we are nothing. My party has always encompassed a wide range of views, which are strongly and sincerely held, but there has also been a strong culture of tolerance and of courtesy to those with whom we disagree. That approach and that culture have always been to the benefit of our party and of our country.
Almost two years ago, I made a serious misjudgment. I failed to make it sufficiently clear to party managers that I simply could not accept a further erosion of what was then the Government's stance on Europe. Since then, I have seen the salami sliced to a point at which there is simply no sausage left. I feel rather strongly that my tolerance, and my loyalty to the Government and to my party, have been abused by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Some have been pursuing a factional agenda with a ruthlessness that would have done credit, in the early 1980s, to the hon. Members for Brent, East and for Newham, North-West.
I do not remember, however, any Labour Front-Bench spokesman being attacked quite so viciously, in public or in private, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has been attacked. For a short time, I was the parliamentary private secretary to Sir Neil Marten. He was an arch-opponent of the European Economic Community, but I have no hesitation in saying that he would have been as shocked and as saddened as I was by yesterday's barracking of my right hon. and learned Friend.
I am sadder, I am wiser, and I blame myself, but we are where we are, and we are about to embark on a critical negotiation at the intergovernmental conference. In any negotiation, it is as well to try to understand the other parties' assumptions. Outside the United Kingdom, within the European Union, most politicians and most voters take it as axiomatic that the European Union is not only a political but an economic union. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said today, that is, after all, what the treaty of Rome states. Such a union is what we joined, and that is our partners' underlying assumption.
We must also appreciate that the United Kingdom has the most adversarial political system in the European Union. Most politicians in the EU assume that, if they are to be in government, they will be in government as part of a coalition. To most other EU politicians, and to their voters, compromise and negotiation are almost synonymous with the political process. We may not like that point of view, and we may find it alien to the conduct of our political process, but if we fail to appreciate those basic truths, we will not negotiate as effectively as we should.
The single currency is the main issue before us. I do not wish to detain the House with detailed arguments on it, but there are certain basic truths. The first is that the single currency will come. It may not come according to the current time scale, but come it will. We cannot ignore it, and we cannot simply wish it away. My position on the matter is fairly clear. I am predisposed to joining a single currency in the first wave, although, in that, I suspect that I differ from some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I have read the speeches of my right hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Mr. Hurd) and for Guildford (Mr. Howell), and I completely share their view that we must be actively involved in the negotiations on the single currency because, in or out, we have a huge stake in making it credible.
490
To the surprise of some of my hon. Friends, I gladly signed the advertisement of the European Movement. I did so, and I have as big a stake as any other hon. Member—if not a bigger one—in ensuring that the convergence criteria are effective in getting right the details of the stability pact. I share the reservation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) about the concept of fines in a stability pact: there are very powerful political and economic argument against going down that route. We must be in there arguing, however, because that is the only way in which we can seize the opportunity of furthering our national interest through a stronger Europe.
A rather sad theme has recently emerged in Britain's approach to European Union matters. When we have come across an idea or an argument in the EU that we do not like, we start by ignoring it and pretending that it does not exist. As it gains credibility, we start to mock or abuse it or those who promote it. We react negatively. As the idea or approach becomes even better established, we claim that it will not work in practice. Very often we are right, because the details have not been thought through. The idea or argument may then be improved upon, largely because of our practical, constructive criticism. Instead of welcoming that change in stance, however, we find other practical grounds for opposing it. We then lose credibility, because those grounds are often unfounded, or less than well founded.
Consequently, we find ourselves faced with a very simple choice: do we agree or do we disagree? More often than not, we agree, and we go along with the directive or with the idea. We then end up with an approach that is less beneficial to our national interest than would have been achieved if we had taken a pro-active stance from the very beginning. I think it was Sir Leon Brittan who said some time ago that the United Kingdom would have more influence in the European Union if we only learnt to say, "Yes, but," rather than, "No, unless." The tone matters if we are to do what all of us want to do—to further our national interest in the context of a European union.
I have one final plea to my right hon. and hon. Friends. For goodness' sake give my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friends the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary the room to negotiate effectively on our behalf. It is a sad criticism of the state of my party on Europe that I have to make that plea, because it should be entirely self-evident.
8.49 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), whose speech was frank and fair. In a 10-minute speech, it is difficult to do more than paint a broad canvas of one's views, and there will be other occasions for me to develop my ideas.
I see myself as a proud Brit, but I also unashamedly describe myself as a European. The two descriptions are wholly compatible and, indeed, statements of fact. I am therefore pleased to be able to participate in this debate and to say that I support the policy of my party leader, who has effectively set out a modern and realistic approach to what will be the next Government's attitude to the developments of the European Union. Of course, in reality, in supporting my leader—both he and the

491
Prime Minister might not like what I am about to say—I am more or less supporting the view of the Prime Minister. If we put aside all the relatively detailed differences on the European Union that have been discussed in the past two days, there is general agreement between the occupants of the two Front Benches on the big issues, because there is a real world out there.
Whichever party is in office, it has a duty to be actively involved in the discussions at the intergovernmental conference about the future developments and institutions of the EU and in the debate on the formulation of economic and monetary union. It would be foolhardy in the extreme, not to say a reckless abdication of a British Government's duty, not to be in the discussions on how economic and monetary union should develop. It is the Government's duty to maximise the options of the Government and the British people on whether to enter a monetary union at some stage. It is foolish and reckless to suggest that we should say that we will have nothing to do with discussions on monetary union.
We have had an interesting debate—indeed, one of the best I have attended. I largely agreed with the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). If we put aside his ritualistic swipe at the social chapter, his comments were realistic and broadly reflected my opinion. I am a European and I believe in the European Union. I do not accept everything and I am cautious about some aspects, but to suggest that we can be anything other than part of the EU is ludicrous.
There is a degree of common sense across the political spectrum. The dangerous division is caused not by the handful of my colleagues who have consistently opposed Britain's membership of the EU, but by the substantial wedge of Conservative Members who snipe at our plenipotentiaries in Brussels, and their discussions at the intergovernmental conference and on monetary union. They are doing great harm to Britain's interests by undermining the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister. Of course, the Foreign Secretary skated over that fact—skilfully: I give him full marks for that—but he cannot disguise the fact that he and his colleagues are disadvantaged, and their negotiating position impaired, by the great gulf that exists between Conservative Members.
I described myself earlier as a European. I think that the EU has been good for commerce, has increased job opportunities and is a guarantee for democracy and peace. The latter point should not be dismissed or minimised, and it is one of the reasons why I am keen to see the enlargement of the EU and why I want the IGC to be a success.
There must be agreement at the IGC before we can invite and welcome other countries into the European Union. I am especially keen that the Visegrad countries—Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and, perhaps, Slovakia—should have some reasonable expectation of admission to the European Union in the not too distant future. Other states may join later, but those countries should be in the first tranche. They now have robust democracies—certainly Poland, Hungary, Slovenia and the Czech Republic do—and they are entitled to join a free association of states. We must work towards the goal of finding institutional arrangements to allow those countries early entry, even if they face a long transitional period thereafter.
492
The Foreign Secretary referred to the fact that the idea of a flexible Europe is canvassed in the documents relating to the IGC. If we are to have enlargement, there will have to be some flexibility. That should be welcomed because, whether we have a Labour or a Conservative Government, the United Kingdom will wish to reserve to itself some matters that are coveted by the Euro-federalists.
A lot of rubbish is spoken about federalists, but I know of very few federalists in the House. The vast majority recognise that the EU is a unique political concept and institution, but there is not a word that describes it adequately. It is nonsense to suggest that, in my lifetime, we will see a United States of Europe comparable to the United States of America. The EU is a unique political animal, and we do not have an appropriate word for it, but there is no substantial party of federalists here who would bring us to some nightmare scenario such as is painted by those who are opposed to working in any way with colleagues and nation states elsewhere in Europe.
The issue of flexibility raises some problems—what might be called a European West Lothian question. If we have extensive flexibility, who is to decide what will be the subject of collective agreement and unanimity, and what will be a matter for the countries that have decided to exercise some flexibility? These are real and difficult questions that we ought to be debating. That European West Lothian question would apply to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.
The European Parliament is important, but its power can be exaggerated—by and large, by Members of the European Parliament. I do not set my face against allowing Members of the European Parliament to have more influence or initiative in what is called European legislation but, ultimately, these are matters for nation states to decide. I hesitate to suggest this, but we should examine the concept of a Bundesrat, whereby the Governments of the member states have an assembly. At present, we have permanent representatives in the EU and the Council of Ministers, but we need an assembly where politicians can meet, in public, with Hansard, to put the case of the European Governments, as distinct from the European Parliament. That would be worth while and democratic.
I would like to hear the Minister of State's views on the size of the European Parliament if enlargement occurs. The European Parliament is too big as it is, but it is clear that there will be problems if we cap or reduce its size when new members join the EU. What about representation for Luxembourg, for example? The Parliament is too big now, and needs to be capped.
The voting system—or, rather, the lack of one—is ludicrous. We need some parity across the EU, and I favour some proportionality. I believe that we must also look to the future of the Commission and the Council of Ministers. That is why I return to the idea that there should be an assembly where Governments are represented, but it should not be conducted behind closed doors.
I am pleased to have contributed to the debate. It is a pity that the Foreign Secretary is not now in attendance—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.
9 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who made some important points about

493
enlargement. Clearly, if the European Union is to be enlarged, the present institutions—including the structural funds—will have to be looked at with great care. We cannot have a parliament with a thousand members, nor can we necessarily have Commissioners from every country. It would be sensible if, at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, proper priority attention could be devoted to that, as I believe enlargement to be a far more important issue than the single currency.
I wholly and completely support the Government's line on the single currency, and I do so unashamedly and without reservation. It would be ludicrous for one of the major nations of the EU not to be deeply involved in the negotiations that are directed towards the evolution of a single currency. My personal preference is for a common currency, at least to start with. The Prime Minister's advocacy of the hard ecu some years ago had a great deal to commend it, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to devote some attention to this point when he replies to the debate. The whole idea of the hard ecu has been far too quickly abandoned. It would have been much more sensible to work first with a common currency before moving towards a single currency.
I repeat that it is palpably absurd not to be involved in the negotiations, and I deeply deplore and profoundly regret the way in which so many of my colleagues in the Conservative party frankly bayed at the Chancellor yesterday. It was an unprecedented experience, to which many hon. Members from all parties have referred. I felt not only ashamed, but deeply depressed. I still feel deeply depressed, because I was proud—and I am proud—to belong to a party that took our nation into the European Community, as it then was. I had my reservations in the early days, but I strongly supported my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) in his courageous decision.
If I can, in a brief speech, encapsulate it in one sentence, I supported my right hon. Friend's decision for this reason: if I am asked what my identity is—although I have Scottish roots—I say that I am English; if I am asked what my nationality is, I say that I am British; but my continent, my culture and my civilisation are European. We are part of the great tradition of western Christendom in Europe, and for us to cut ourselves off in any way would be quite absurd. I wish that all my colleagues who have their reservations would have the courage and the honesty that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont)—indeed, my oldest friend in the House—showed yesterday when he faced up to the possibility of his views perhaps leading him to conclude that withdrawal was the right course. I believe that he is profoundly wrong, but at least he faced up to that issue.
Many of the so-called Euro-sceptics on the Conservative Benches are Europhobes masquerading as Euro-sceptics. To be honestly sceptical is in many ways to adopt a sensible pose, but to undermine, at every touch and turn, one's Government's attempts to fight for one's country's interests is wrong. It is also tearing apart a party that has always looked beyond these shores.
I hope that Opposition Members will forgive me for making this plea to my right hon. and hon. Friends. I would say to them, "Remember your roots." Remember
494
what the Conservative party is and what it has stood for. Remember that the Conservative party is a national party or it is nothing, but, as Disraeli said in his great speech at Crystal Palace in 1872, I believe, the three great aims of the Tory party were to maintain the institutions of the country, to uphold the empire of England and to elevate the condition of the people. Of course, times have moved on, but he saw this country as part of a great community: the great community of which we are part today is Europe, and that does not involve any negation or surrender of sovereignty in the ultimate sense at all.
In the next century, which will be dominated by China as the greatest and most populous power, with the nations of the Pacific rim controlling economic power to a great degree, if we do not form part of a wider, cohesive and coherent Europe, we shall be selling the pass for future generations. We shall not be honest to those who come after us: we shall be inward looking, introspective and self-destructive. We have to be part—and a constructive part—of our continent, and that is what this is all about. For our party to put itself on the sidelines in these great debates is a political tragedy.
I remember the time when almost all the opposition to Europe came from the other side of the House. I welcome the conversion and the frank and honest answer to my intervention from the shadow Foreign Secretary this afternoon. Yes, he admitted that he had changed his mind. I believe that the change has gone too far and that the ready acceptance of the social chapter and all the other things that are so frequently recited, mantra-like, in this Chamber would do us little good. There are also, of course, deep divisions on the Opposition side of the House.
I welcome the consensus on the general acceptance of Europe, but I want to see the Conservative party in the driving seat. If and when the political pendulum ultimately swings and we find ourselves on the other side of the House at some stage, I still want us to be a coherent and a united party—a party that accepts its European destiny. These have been sad days for the Conservative party, but it is not too late for us to unite behind a policy which, after all, gives nothing away. All it says is that we want to be there, negotiating for our country when these great decisions are taken. That seems to be a sensible policy—a robust policy which not only can but should unite people in all parts of the country and all parts of the House.
It is sad that our Prime Minister, who is an exceptionally skilful negotiator, is going to Dublin tomorrow, together with our right hon. and learned Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, without the vociferously united backing of Conservative Members and, indeed, of Opposition Members too.
Mr. Mackinlay: He has mine.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am delighted to hear that.
When our Prime Minister goes to any international council with bipartisan support, as we have seen with Northern Ireland and other issues, that strengthens not only his position but his resolve. I hope that it is not too late for this great party of ours to give the Prime Minister and the Government the support that they truly deserve, and for the Government and the Cabinet to adopt a far

495
more united posture than in recent weeks and to stop leaks and divisive briefings, which have done nothing for the name of British democracy.
9.9 pm
Mr. Toby Jessel: To me, the most chilling remarks in this debate came from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), when he spoke of his dream of a federal united states of Europe. He once dominated a large political empire at the Greater London council. Now he seems to want the power to lie in Brussels or Strasbourg. It is worth asking why he wants it to be anywhere but in the Palace of Westminster.
I would answer the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) by saying that both the main parties are coalitions of opinion and always have been. Either we must have coalitions within great political parties or we must have coalitions between them. I believe that it is better to have a coalition within them, and that is how it has normally been.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) referred to the 1975 referendum under the last Labour Government on whether Britain should stay in the European Common Market—I believe that that is how most people thought of it at the time: they thought that it was mainly economic.
Since then, Mr. Delors said, "We are not in business, but in politics." I have been amazed that so many right hon. and hon. Members in this debate have viewed the question of the European currency not as a matter of principle but merely as a balance of economic advantages and disadvantages. Beyond doubt, it is a matter of principle. Whether our country is governed from outside is a constitutional question, and the European currency would undoubtedly affect that.
To illustrate, probably the biggest continuous political issue in the United Kingdom since the second world war has been how to steer the best course between inflation and unemployment. A single European currency means a single European bank and hence a single European rate of interest. A single currency would therefore drastically curtail Britain's control over interest rates, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) said in an excellent speech yesterday, are particularly important for us because owner-occupation of houses affects so much higher a proportion of people in this country than in continental countries, where a larger proportion of people live in rented houses and flats. Interest rates are hugely important to many of our householders, and the power to control them would pass to unelected foreign bank managers with their own agenda, not answerable to us and, so it seems, hardly answerable to anyone.
All through human history, peoples have cherished their freedom from being ruled from another country. The United States, India, Ireland or—at the time of the second world war—France and Russia, are but a few examples of countries that have been occupied or have been part of an empire controlled from another country. That is why the currency question is not a Mrs. Beeton matter—a mere question of management—but a Joan of Arc issue: an issue of principle.
Sovereignty can mean different things, but basically it has one of two meanings: either it means us being controlled by others or it means others being controlled
496
by us. I do not mind at all whether we have any power over countries such as Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal, but I mind very much indeed whether they have a share in governing us. I am totally against pooling our government with other countries. Our relationship with the European Union should be much more like that of Norway, which has a common market in industrial goods and financial services with the European Union, without the agricultural policy, the fisheries policy or any of the political overtones.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have used words such as "Europhobic". The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) referred to "Europhobic ideologues" and xenophobia. The hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) talked of the anti-Europeans. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) spoke of people who do not like foreigners. The right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) referred to anti-Europeans. It is wrong for hon. Members to use such language. I for one have friends in most European countries, probably more so than most people. This is not about whom people like or dislike: it is a question of who rules.
Constitutions must reflect the public will, whether they are political unions or federations. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said that the European Union was unique, but there are all sorts of federations and unions between countries, provinces and states. Other federations and unions around the world have been crumbling: the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia. In the Commonwealth, there were problems with the Federation of the West Indies and the Central African Federation. There have been provincial problems in Quebec, Kashmir, Nigeria and many other places. Their constitutions, as with the internal constitutions of countries, must reflect the public will, or centrifugal forces will pull them apart.
I doubt whether British people will continue to accept all the European Court rulings. In the debate on Maastricht on 18 December 1991, almost five years ago, I said:
"The European Community, in clasping the member states … too closely is planting the seeds of its own destruction … It is only a matter of time before small national or nationalist parties spring up in Britain. To occupy their ground and to stop their advance, both the main parties will have to become less Euro-centred and more national again."
I believe that that has begun to happen and that we have not seen the last of it. I continued:
"In the end, I believe that one party or another"—
probably mine—
"will secure a majority in the House on the platform of flouting the European Community, its institutions and its courts. We shall then have a constitutional crisis, and it will be a question of who the army and the police obey. I would rather have a smaller constitutional crisis now than a big one later on."—[Official Report, 18 December 1991; Vol. 201, c. 384.]
Nothing has happened in this debate to change any of the views that I have consistently held over 25 years.
Just over 25 years ago, in a debate on the principle of whether this country should join the European Common Market on 28 October 1971, the House resolved by 356 votes to 244
"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."—[Official Report, 28 October 1971; Vol. 823, c. 2217.]

497
Thirty-nine Conservative and Unionist Members of Parliament voted against. Seven are still in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) was one and I am another. Of the other five, one is an Ulster Unionist. That was the view that I held then, and I have held it consistently.
The issue dogged the Parliament of 1970 to 1974 and I am afraid that it has dogged this one, too. There are, rightly, broad ranges of views within both parties, which is only to be expected. Whether or not one is in favour of closer European union is not a matter of party political doctrine. What makes one basically Conservative or basically Labour is one's view on a broad range of economic and other issues such as law and order, the monarchy and defence.
9.19 pm
Ms Joyce Quin: This has been a good debate, in which many thoughtful and thought-provoking speeches obviously derived from strong and sincerely held convictions were made. I should like to think that the debate will be as fully reported as it deserves to be but, sadly, I fear that it will not be. Press and media interest in our Thursday evening activities on Adjournment motions is depressingly and discouragingly low.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, rightly referred to the importance of scrutiny procedures in the House of Commons. I should like to pay tribute to him and his colleagues on the Select Committee for the work that they do. I know that many of us follow their work closely and find it extremely useful.
I very much agreed, as did other Labour Front Benchers, with the Select Committee's desire for the single currency documents to be fully debated on the Floor of the House. I know that the Committee has frequently been frustrated because its recommendations for debates on the Floor of the House have been ignored by the Government. The incident involving the single currency documents was not a one-off, but the culmination of several examples of the Government ignoring the Select Committee's recommendations.
We are having this debate on a motion for the Adjournment. A couple of weeks ago at business questions, the Leader of the House said that it had been the practice for some years to have such debates on a motion for the Adjournment. His interpretation was slightly imaginative as, two years ago, the Government changed their policy and introduced the Adjournment procedure for such debates. We know that two years ago the Government were so badly divided on such issues that they found it convenient to deal with them in that form.
I agree with the points made about improved scrutiny in the House of Commons. I endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) about the importance of scrutiny work in the European Parliament as well as in the House of Commons. We believe that the two systems can work in a complementary way. We rejoice in the fact that the Labour party fully expects the number of its Members of the European
498
Parliament to be swollen by the election today of the talented and well-respected Richard Corbett in Merseyside West.
In opening the debate, the Foreign Secretary said much with which I agreed. I particularly agreed with what he said about defence co-operation within the European Union and its limits and the need to retain the intergovernmental pillar structure for common foreign and security policy and for justice and home affairs issues.
I was glad that the Foreign Secretary reminded us of some of the history and background of the present situation. He also reminded us, as did many other hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and the right hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), that what we joined in the 1970s was not simply an organisation that dealt with free trade but one with certain important political, economic and even social commitments.
In the 1970s the contrast was frequently made between the two choices: belonging to the European Economic Community, which represented some form of deeper co-operation, and belonging to EFTA, which was simply a free trade area. I am rather surprised that Sir James Goldsmith, who was around at the time, seems to be particularly guilty of rewriting history in that respect in the drafting of his referendum question.
Sir Patrick Cormack: He was guilty of rewriting other things as well.
Ms Quin: Indeed. Sir James Goldsmith seems to have conveniently forgotten the terms of the debate that most of us remember being held in the 1970s.
The terms of our entry into the European Economic Community in the 1970s are in danger of being rewritten, and the Government are in danger of rewriting the history of the European social dimension. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) seemed to be particularly guilty in that respect when he talked about the working time directive. I remind him that the legal base for that directive is the Single European Act 1986, which contained health and safety provisions and which was steam-rollered through the House of Commons. It also contained a massive extension of qualified majority voting and it was the responsibility of Baroness Thatcher and her Government. We need to remember these things.
The social opt-out that the Foreign Secretary and others in the Government secured in negotiating the Maastricht treaty does not destroy or nullify previous treaty bases on social policy. It is not a way of getting Britain out of all social obligations; it is a mechanism that allows the other countries to go ahead if they wish to do so. It does not undermine important commitments such as that in article 119 of the treaty of Rome, for example, relating to equal pay of men and women, which has been the basis of helpful European legislation. I stress that there has always been a social dimension.
The social chapter has also been mentioned—in intemperate terms by the Foreign Secretary in particular, who once again called it the "job-destroying social chapter". I am never sure which of the two modest measures—that on works councils or the voluntary agreement on parental leave—is responsible for destroying jobs. It seems to me that both help rather than hinder competitiveness.

499
I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said about inward investors and why they chose our country. He quoted the example of BMW and I could also cite Siemens and Nissan in my part of the country, for whom the social chapter holds no terrors. Both have identified one of the important reasons why firms locate here: the English language. Not only do we allow access to the European market, which is tremendously important, but we have good links, which in no way I would want to undermine, with the English-speaking world. Those are important assets about which we ought to be pleased.
I agreed with much of the Foreign Secretary's speech, but his attack on Labour for being a pushover and a soft touch in Europe was particularly silly. I cannot think of any Governments in the European Union who unquestioningly sign directives proposed by the European Commission without examining the small print.
Before I entered the House, I was a Member of the European Parliament, which it was not always popular to admit. It was very much concerned with the examination of written texts—directives, draft directives and resolutions. I realised that one has to look at every written line and every clause in a resolution. One has to get down to clause 127(e) and ensure that one is not signing up to something that is not in one's interests. It is simply puerile and insulting to suggest that Labour would act otherwise in that respect.
I accept that there are differences of views on both sides of the House, as the debate has shown, but I must agree with the description of the different nature of divisions given by my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea, East, for Brent, East and for Durham, North (Mr. Radice). As European spokesperson for my party, I visit constituency Labour parties throughout the country, and I am always struck by the depth and extent of the constructive approach to Europe. Labour candidates in the forthcoming general election take a similar approach.
Mr. Donald Anderson: One crucial difference between us is not always mentioned: whereas the shadow Cabinet is united, the Cabinet is fundamentally split.
Ms Quin: Indeed. Yesterday, we witnessed some of the divisions between Ministers, especially when, in his closing speech, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury appeared directly to contradict what the Chancellor had said earlier.
Some Conservative Members' speeches showed how worried they are about the bitterness and deep divisions in the Conservative party. The regrettable barracking and heckling of the Chancellor yesterday has been mentioned by many Conservative Members—especially the right hon. Member for Enfield, North and the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)—in dramatic tones.
Obviously, there is great concern about what happened yesterday and the bitterness that those exchanges revealed. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) mentioned that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said that it reminded him of some o f the turbulent times that the Labour party experienced in the early 1980s, which tempted me to add that at least we had
500
the good grace to be in opposition during that time of turmoil and not inflict it on the country, as is happening at present.
Sir Patrick Cormack: You were deliberately in opposition, were you?
Mr. Mackinlay: Parties that are divided lose elections.
Ms Quin: We have learnt the lesson of history, as Conservative Members will realise when a Labour Government are elected in May.
Despite those divisions, it is possible, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said, that the Conservatives will be tempted to adopt a pseudo-patriotism and run an anti-Brussels general election campaign. I hope that they will not, not because I am fearful of that but because it would be a completely discreditable approach. It would work. As evidenced by the debate tonight, it might provoke some Tory pro-Europeans beyond endurance, and it would greatly alarm large sections of British industry, including some of the inward investors to whom reference has been made. That would not work with the British people.
I was heartened to read an opinion poll in The Daily Telegraph on 9 December, which showed a 37-point difference in positive support for Labour on the European issue. Whereas Labour apparently lagged 20 percentage points behind the Government on that issue in the 1992 general election campaign, it is now 17 points ahead. It was the biggest change recorded in that opinion poll.
We must not forget that the electorate are concerned about other important political issues. When I take part in European debates in the House and in Committee, sometimes I am half—only half—persuaded by hon. Members such as the hon. Members for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) that the country is up in arms about Europe and is demanding referendums every couple of minutes, yet my constituency mailbag seems to be full of cases about the Child Support Agency, the jobseeker's allowance or education, health and other issues. Fear of crime outweighs fear of Brussels by 1,000:1.
Labour, if in power at the time of the conclusion of the intergovernmental conference, will adopt a constructive approach but will not be a pushover. What will be our priorities? We shall adopt a positive approach to the employment chapter, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said. When that employment chapter was originally proposed by the Swedish Government, the British Government rubbished it and said that no one else wanted it. Now it appears that the majority of countries want it, and a Labour Government would enable that balance to be tipped decisively. We shall sign the social chapter, partly for the reason that I have given—that the social dimension has been part of the European process from the start. We shall urge the completion of the single market—I welcome what the Foreign Secretary said in that respect—in areas that will be important for British industry, such as telecommunications.
We shall take a constructive approach to environmental policy and to regional policy. We welcome the fact that so many of our local authorities have developed links with Brussels and are making their views felt as well as being the recipients of European regional aid.

501
We shall take a positive approach to intergovernmental co-operation on the common foreign and security policy. We should particularly like the foreign policy secretariat to analyse and evaluate trends in Europe so that we can get into conflict prevention and perhaps learn some of the lessons of Bosnia and, more recently and tragically, of Rwanda and Zaire.
Next year will be the European year against racism. A Labour Government would do their best to ensure that that was not simply a slogan but involved positive activities and programmes. We are keen that the European Union should work in an open and democratic way and we support various reforms of other Governments in that respect. If the institutions were more open, that would help greatly the cause that we all hold dear—giving the public as much information as possible about what is going on in the European Union.
I endorse the comments made by, among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) on the importance of enlargement. That issue has tended to be common ground among hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is an exciting prospect and we should try to enthuse the public about it. We are creating a new political, economic and cultural relationship with countries from which we were formerly separated by the iron curtain. That is an important and exciting opportunity that we should work towards.
We are also keen on reforming the common agricultural policy and I pay tribute to the work that the shadow Agriculture Minister has done in producing a document that gives details of the Labour party's approach to reforming the CAP. It also outlines the ideas that we would like to put to the intergovernmental conference. We would try to ensure a much better approach to agriculture in the future. We believe that the CAP should rely less on price support and should not get swallowed by fraud, but should help those in rural areas who need it. It should work much more fairly in terms of world markets and the agricultural needs of developing countries. We also want to reform the common fisheries policy.
The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) talked about the frustration that Britain experienced through not having been a negotiator at the very beginning when the agriculture and, later, the fisheries policies were being decided. I endorse what he said. He made some telling points, which showed how difficult it is to try to reframe the rules if one is not part of the negotiation process from the outset.
Mr. Spearing: We were open to negotiation by the Conservative party and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) before we joined. Does my hon. Friend agree that, unhappily, despite the known characteristics of fishing as a competitive but hunting economy, the common fisheries policy has been disastrous for almost all concerned and it has not yet been resolved?
Ms Quin: One can make telling criticisms about the common fisheries policy. I tend to support the fish in that battle because they do not have much of an opportunity these days. Fish conservation is certainly vital.
502
Our constructive programme, which I have explained to the House this evening, is fully in line with the domestic policies that we shall put at the next election. If we argue for high environmental standards at home, we also argue for high environmental standards in the European Union. If we argue for good working conditions at home—as we do—we must argue for good working conditions in European discussions. If we are arguing for decentralisation and greater openness at home, we must also favour a decentralised and open system in the European Union.
With our constructive programme of European policies and its consistency with our domestic policies, we have every confidence that we can convince the electorate that, far from being a sell-out, our European policies are firmly in the interests of the British people and will give them a better deal from their EU membership than the deal given to them through the Government's ineffectiveness and marginalisation. Far from being intimidated by the European issues, we believe that they will be part of a winning platform of ideas that the British people will support.
Yesterday we were struck by the calls from Tory Members for their Chancellor to resign. I conclude by calling on the whole Government to resign—the sooner the better, so that British interests can be properly represented in the European Union.
9.40 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): Tomorrow the European Council will meet in Dublin and discuss the intergovernmental conference, enlargement and a number of other matters relating to the European Union.
As the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) said, we have had an excellent debate today, much of it on monetary union. I know that I will disappoint several of my right hon. and hon. Friends when I tell them that of necessity I must focus on IGC matters. For a junior Foreign Office Minister to wander around the economic and monetary union debate is probably sufficiently hazardous to health to warrant a European directive against it.
I shall comment briefly on the excellent contributions to the debate. I was impressed by the powerful arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on a hard ECU. I was much taken with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) on the difficulties engendered by EMU. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor answered questions on that in yesterday's debate.
I was extremely impressed by the persuasive and forceful exposition from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who put the Government position and the reasons for the Government position in pursuit of the national interest as well as anyone could. I remind all those who spoke on the matter that the Chancellor said that the assessment of the national interest takes into account not just economic but constitutional matters, as all Conservative Members recognise.
Throughout the debate today and yesterday, I have been amazed by the hypocrisy of the Labour party, which voted against the EMU opt-out in the Maastricht treaty and since then has been hiding behind it. That sheds light on Labour's policies.

503
The Dublin discussions will engage on different visions of the future of Europe encompassed in the Irish presidency document on the IGC, which is tagged for today's debate. There can be no doubt that the debate is fundamental to the future of this country, the new democracies and the whole of Europe.
On one side is the centralising federalist vision, which seeks to arrogate power away from the nation state to the institutions of the union; which insists that, in the jargon, wider must mean deeper; which has led to a progressive loss of faith in the union by the peoples of the union. We reject that vision.
The British vision was set out in the White Paper, "A Partnership of Nations", presented to the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. Britain's agenda for Europe concentrates on the real issues—job creation through competitiveness, encouraging enterprise, scrapping unnecessary regulations and making an effective effort to tackle the fraud and waste that damage public respect for the union. It concentrates on enhancing Europe's internal and external security through practical measures, rather than through doctrinal Euro-theology.
The key challenge facing the union is enlargement. It is probably the most important vocation for the EU in this half of the century. We have to do a great deal to prepare the Union for enlargement. That is, in part, what the intergovernmental conference is about: creating a Union that is capable of meeting the challenges of the accession of up to 13 new countries. However, the IGC will not be enough—arguably, it may not even be the most important issue in the context of enlargement. We shall also need policy reform—particularly of the common agricultural policy and the structural funds. I suspect that that will prove at least as difficult to conclude as the IGC, but just as important. Candidate countries also have much to do to prepare for accession.
Sir Roger Moate: My hon. Friend mentioned the difficulty of securing agricultural reform and the way that enlargement makes it fundamentally necessary. What is the mechanism for securing progress on reform of the common agricultural policy, as there seems to be a distinct lack of will in Europe to make any progress in that area?
Mr. Davis: The principal recipients will oppose reform. One of the important primary driving agents will be the timetable for the general agreement on tariffs and trade reforms at the turn of the century. The issue will be addressed in the next few years.
We need a flexible Europe that builds on intergovernmental structures instead of trying to dismantle them. We need a European Union that recognises that the structures that work well for a single market would not work for foreign security policy or for a number of other policies. The Prime Minister pioneered the concept of flexibility in his speech in Leiden more than two years ago—a proactive action which I am sure would please my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar). Since then, others have taken up the idea.
We do not agree with all subsequent proposals. Indeed, I am reminded of Ernest Bevin's comment:
"If you open that Pandora's box, you never know what Trojan horses will jump out."
504
While I would not quite describe the Franco-German proposals as a Trojan horse, they clearly have a different aim from ours. Our view is straightforward: the Union has already developed flexibility in important areas, such as the social protocol, to which I shall return in a moment; the EMU, where Britain can exercise its opt out; and defence, where we are part of the inner majority and others are more reticent about their commitments.
We are faced with a choice that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) mentioned in his speech, which I enjoyed. We must choose either to introduce new treaty clauses to facilitate flexibility or to continue with ad hoc arrangements. If flexibility is not to prove divisive or to undermine the achievements that it is designed to accommodate, any new treaty language must be very clear. In the jargon that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor have developed between them, it must be cast-iron and copper-bottomed.
If others wish to co-operate together outside the institutions—as with the Schengen agreement—that is fine. However, if a small group is to use the institutions and the budget—which are the common property of all member states—all should have a say about how it should be done. The United Kingdom will not allow others to use flexibility to circumvent the veto by the back door. Flexibility should not allow countries to form exclusive inner groups—arrangements should be open to all—and, importantly, it must not compel countries to join groups, even over time. In the jargon, the model is multi-track, not merely multi-speed.

I turn now to the IGC negotiations, and particularly the Irish presidency document outlining the options facing the Union. Over the years, many game-playing analogies have been drawn regarding the negotiation process in the IGC—some have likened it to poker and some to a 15-dimensional game of skill. In truth, its rules fall somewhere between chess and rugby league. To follow the chess analogy, the European Council tomorrow marks the mid-game of the IGC: it is complex and there are many tactical threads that make exact prediction difficult. However, we can see some clear lines developing.
A degree of consensus has grown around some major issues that we have championed. The hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) raised the question of national Parliaments. In the spirit of Christmas, I thank him and the European Legislation Committee for their good work in that area. One of the Government's main objectives at the IGC is to reinforce the role of national Parliaments, which are the source of the Union's democratic legitimacy. I will not outline again the details of those proposals, but I am confident that that section of the British proposal will form part of the revised treaty in June.
Britain also has a proposal for regular Council reports on the second and third pillars, which we shall pursue in the next few months.
Similarly, we have long argued for the entrenchment of subsidiarity in the treaty. Since the birth of article 3b at Maastricht, the principle has started to work. We want it to work better, and that is why we want to put a protocol into the treaty. I am confident that such a protocol will be attached to the treaty next June.
On common foreign and security policy, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary laid out our proposals in some detail. They have attracted a great deal

505
of support. It is not quite unanimous. There is still some discussion to go, but proposals for improving the operation of CFSP are broadly accepted. Discussions are still under way about how we make decisions on CFSP. We regard unanimity as the only realistic basis for decision making in important policy.
Mr. Spearing: The Minister said "unanimity". In the draft treaty, it says unanimity as to permission for action. Do the Government believe that unanimity goes beyond that in terms of execution, particularly on matters such as rules of engagement, if peacekeeping gets hot?
Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not get too drawn into what is still a hot negotiation, to use his term, but our position is fairly clear. The point of unanimity at the start of any policy discussion is that it gives the leverage required for the next step.
As for the so-called third pillar—justice and home affairs—we have argued, and will continue to argue, for the improved co-operation in the fight against drugs and international crime. The federalists—the centralisers—wanted to communitise some of these areas, arguing that the third pillar has not worked. That is simply not true. It is new, and much has been achieved in practical terms since its inception. There have been seven major conventions, three protocols and much useful co-operation between national law enforcement agencies.
To give an example, in 1995, Europol dealt with nearly 1,500 requests for information, and its action led to arrests and seizures in crimes as diverse as immigrant smuggling and drug trafficking. There is still scope for streamlining decision-making procedures in this area, but it must remain firmly intergovernmental.
Communitisation would not save a single life. Nor would it stop a single drugs trafficker. It would complicate and probably delay practical progress. How can it help the people of Europe to have every bogus asylum seeker thinking that he or she can appeal to the European Court of Justice? How does it improve the acceptability of those policies to give the Commission the monopoly of initiative in them? It cannot, of course. We must concentrate on the substance of third pillar co-operation; on practical improvements, not institutional change. Only in that way can we deliver results for the people of Europe.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) raised some interesting points on employment, because the document contains a proposal for a chapter on employment. Some try to accuse the British Government of failing to pay proper regard to the importance of employment because we oppose treaty changes to bring in an employment chapter. Ironically, those same people are among those who want to impose the job-destroying social chapter on Britain.
The United Kingdom has an outstanding record in Europe on creating jobs, a point made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham and, indeed, for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury) in his excellent speech. Since 1979, the United Kingdom has created as many jobs in the private sector as the whole of the rest of the European Union. That is no accident. It comes from an approach based on free trade and competition, reform of inflexible labour market regulations, reduction of non-wage costs, investment in skills and sound macro-economic policies.
506
That is also one reason why Britain is successful at attracting overseas investment. Britain accounts for a massively disproportionate share of inward investment in the European Union. We are also the number one destination for German overseas investment. We heard the point of view, represented by the Labour party, of one German business man. It might be a little more representative if I quote the president of the German equivalent of the CBI, Mr. Henkel, who has drawn attention on more than one occasion to the British Government's record—our success in dealing with unemployment, in reducing state interference, in privatisation, in reducing the state share of national income and in the low taxation of profits. He said:
"Great Britain has become the most attractive location for investment in Europe. Although the German market is twice as large as the British, since 1985 foreigners have invested 10 times as much in Britain as in Germany."
The Government prefer to let results speak for themselves, but we are prepared to listen to the views of others. I listened very carefully to a speech on Europe that the French Prime Minister Alain Juppé made in the Assemblée Nationale at the end of November. He said:
"The spectacular results which the UK has obtained on employment are less the result of changes in her exchange rate… than of the structural reforms undertaken over the last 15 years."
If one knew as much as one ought about the French tradition in these matters, one would know that that was an outstanding statement, and a compliment to our policies.
The results that Mr. Juppé was referring to were not achieved by writing empty words into the European treaty. Fine words in the treaty will not create a single job. Businesses create jobs. They would be able to create more of them if they were left to get on with it without bright new initiatives from Brussels.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield pointed out, earlier this year the United Kingdom Government lost their case in the European Court against the application of the working time directive—the so-called 48-hour week. The directive was brought under article 118A, the health and safety article.
It is difficult to compare health and safety statistics between countries, because there are different definitions, and some countries are slow to produce the figures, but it is possible to make the important comparison of fatal accidents at work, which are measured in deaths per 100,000 employees. The latest comparisons show that the United Kingdom has about 1.4 deaths per 100,000 employees, whereas Germany has twice that number, France has three times and Spain has six times that number.
Britain can easily show that it takes safety at work at least as seriously as any other country in Europe. Any attempt by anybody else to change our laws had better be pretty well argued.
What does the European Court judgment say? In effect, it says that so-called health and safety legislation does not have to be based on scientific evidence. That is an open door to all those in Europe who would wrap labour law in bogus health and safety clothes, and who seek to impose competitive burdens on our industry, big or small. That is why we are demanding that the directive be disapplied to the United Kingdom, and even more important, that the loophole in our opt-out be shut once and for all.

507
The next six months—from Dublin to Amsterdam—will see some of the most important negotiations on the future of Europe since the treaty of Rome. Amsterdam will decide whether Europe stays a partnership of free nations, as we advocate, or whether a core group pushes ahead to further political union. The question for the British people will be who they can trust to stand up for Britain at Amsterdam.
The Government will continue arguing for a strong Europe that remains a Europe of nation states. We have shown that we are prepared to stand alone in defending Britain's interest, and have fought for our opt-outs. The Prime Minister has made it clear that if the rest of Europe goes federal, Britain under the Conservatives will not follow.
It is crystal clear why this country needs a Conservative Government fighting hard in the IGC for Britain's national interests. People should be in no doubt what the election of a Labour Government would mean. If there were a general election on 1 May, within six weeks there would be a summit at Amsterdam to finalise the new treaty. If there were a Labour Government, in those six weeks there would be a sell-out of Britain, and 17 years of Conservative achievement would be wiped out at a stroke.
Labour would unconditionally surrender the British veto in four important areas: regional, industrial, social and environmental policy. Labour would sign up to the madness of the social chapter and accept the working time directive, which would be a disaster for the British economy. Labour would back a new treaty chapter on employment, thus opening the door to more interference and regulation from Brussels. Labour would support an increase in the powers of the European Parliament at the expense of the House of Commons.
All that would be the consequence of the Labour Leader's fear of "being isolated" in Europe—a six-week sell-out; a six-week surrender.
The Labour party has no principle in European politics, other than the dubious principle of not being isolated. It stands for nothing—and those who stand for nothing will fall for anything. That is why, when we count what is at stake in Amsterdam, British people will decide that they cannot risk a Labour Government.
The federalists think that, if Europe does not go somewhere it will go nowhere, and that if it does not integrate it will disintegrate. That is the line that Labour is falling for. That is why we hear endlessly about catching buses, riding trains and missing boats: those are metaphors designed to serve a misconception. Unless we like the destination, we will not buy the ticket. The Labour party, however—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

M20 (Widening)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]
10 pm
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): The M20 motorway is the main motorway route to the channel tunnel, and therefore to the rest of Europe. Junction 3, at Wrotham in my constituency, is the point at which the two major motorway arms funnel traffic from the rest of England—and therefore from Britain—through to the channel tunnel, along the final section of the M20 through Kent.
The first stream of the motorway comes from the M20, taking traffic from the north of London and East Anglia, and the second stream takes traffic from the M26 spur off the M25, from the south of London and the west of the country. From junction 3 to the east was always going to be an extremely heavily used section of motorway, and for that reason—this was relatively unusual at the time when this section of the motorway was built; it was opened in December 1971—it was built to three lanes in each direction.
Then, in the 1980s, along came the channel tunnel—or, rather along came the channel tunnel again. The channel tunnel project had been signed and sealed under a Conservative Government in the early 1970s, only to be scrapped by a Labour Government in 1975—a decision that seemed extremely short-sighted at the time, and looks even more short-sighted with the benefit of hindsight.
By the late 1980s, it was clear that this section of the motorway, with the channel tunnel then being built, simply would not be able to meet the volume of traffic that would be taken on it. On 18 May 1989, the then Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), announced in his White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" that the motorway would be widened to four lanes in each direction between junctions 3 and 5.
I might say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I have kept our right hon. Friend's White Paper, and also the statement that he made on 18 May 1989 in introducing it. It seems to me that the case he advanced about the inextricable link in this country between prosperity and a decently functioning road system holds good today.
Following the announcement that that section of the M20 would be widened to four lanes in each direction, there ensued what I can only describe as an extraordinarily unhappy saga for my constituents.
The immediate effect of announcing the widening of that section of the M20 was to create a swathe of blight along both sides of it. That resulted in some 300 houses having to be compulsorily acquired under statutory blight purchase procedures.
It turned out subsequently that virtually none of those houses was going to be required for the widened motorway. That meant that some £30 million of taxpayers' money was unnecessarily expended on the purchase of those properties, and that the lives of several hundred of my constituents were made a misery as a result of secondary blight. The standard of the estates of people with houses immediately adjacent to the statutory blight deteriorated as houses were kept empty. Some unsuitable

509
tenants moved into properties. There was vandalism, and so on. I was obliged to refer the whole matter to the Comptroller and Auditor General for a formal investigation by the National Audit Office.
Amid all the difficulties for my constituents, the statutory procedures continued. There was a long public consultation exercise, an exhibition showing how the widening scheme would take place, a full-scale public inquiry and a final definition of the scheme. A detailed noise mitigation programme was built into the scheme. Everything was finalised and ready to go. Then, a fortnight ago, on 26 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport delivered what was in our area a killer blow to the scheme, announcing that it would be abandoned altogether.
The deeply unhappy history of the past seven and a half years is that, since the widening was announced, some tens of millions of pounds of public money has gone down the drain and the lives of many hundreds of my constituents have been made difficult and in some cases miserable as a result of secondary blight. Heaven knows how many tens of thousands of man hours worked by civil servants, local government and housing officers have been devoted to progressing the widening scheme, apart from the enormous involvement by probably thousands of my constituents in their representations on it.
Seven and a half years after the scheme was announced, they have ended up with absolutely nothing, and the whole thing has been a total waste of time and money. My hon. Friend the Minister and I are familiar with the expression, "It's a funny way to run a railway." I can say only that it is a funny way to run a road programme.
I am aware that the Labour and Liberal parties have consistently opposed a decent road programme in Britain, although, on this issue, the Liberals tend to face both ways at once. Locally, they advocate road and village bypass schemes, but nationally they oppose such schemes. It is a matter of great regret and considerable concern that the Government appear to have largely followed the direction of the Opposition parties. I have considerable anxieties and doubts as to whether that is the right course.
I may now be in a very small minority in the House, but I believe that a proper functioning main road system is part of the essential economic lifeblood of Britain. With its small land area and huge range of businesses and economic activity, it will never be economic to shift goods transported in Britain from road to rail. For the great majority of goods, that will never be an economic proposition.
I believe that it is absolutely essential for our competitiveness, for our prosperity, and therefore for our job prospects, that we continue to have a properly functioning motorway system. The Government should consider very carefully the long-term implications of their policy—the impact of which has been felt by those who live between junctions 3 and 5 of the M20.
I was very struck by an article that appeared in the 8 December 1996 issue of The Sunday Times, headed "Warning: 20 years of gridlock ahead as new roads are axed". The article contained two diagrams of England and Wales. One was headed "Motorway Congestion Now", and the other "And in 2015". Each contained black spots in places where traffic grinds to a halt on more than half
510
the days in a year. The first diagram, on current traffic congestion, showed that there were 21 black spots, whereas the diagram for 2015 showed 86 black spots. Based on that forecast, in less than 20 years such areas will quadruple.
I was not surprised to see that a black spot had been placed on precisely the part of the motorway that we are debating tonight, between junctions 3 and 5 of the M20. If that article represents what is likely to happen to the motorway system, there will have to be a fundamental reconsideration of Government policy.
Where does the current position leave my constituents? It leaves them still facing huge growth in the volume of traffic using that section of the motorway. I have obtained, through parliamentary questions, with the assistance of the Highways Agency, projections for the daily average number of vehicles that will use the M20 between junctions 3 and 5 over the next 20 years if—as is now Government policy—the widening scheme is not implemented.
The figures are set out in Hansard, 2 December 1996, column 477, and show that—for the section between junctions 3 and 4 for which a complete set of figures is available—in 1993 there were 66,000 vehicles per day, but that, by 1995, the figure had already risen to 83,100. There were two projections for 2012—a low-growth projection, at 110,000, and a high-growth projection, at 131,000—which effectively show that, according to the Highways Agency's 20-year projections, traffic will double on that section of motorway. I fear that even the high-growth estimate is conservative.
Therefore, my constituents face a serious increase—a doubling—in the volume of traffic using that section of the motorway. Moreover, they also face the loss of the noise mitigation measures that would have been implemented had the widening scheme proceeded. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend, in his reply, will tell me how the noise mitigation measures which were part of the widening scheme can be salvaged from the wreckage of that programme.
I have four specific questions that I wish to put to my hon. Friend: I gave a copy of them to his private office earlier today, so I hope that he will be able to give precise replies.
First, what are his Department's resurfacing plans for the M20 between junctions 3 and 5, and may I have his assurance that the resurfacing materials that will be used, whether porous asphalt or any other material, will be chosen with noise reduction as the top consideration—after, of course, road safety?
Secondly, can my hon. Friend confirm that the legal effect of his written answers to me of 29 November at column 417 and of 10 December at column 103 is that, although the Department of Transport as the highway authority for motorways has a discretionary power under section 282 of the Highways Act 1980 to fund noise barriers on existing motorways—whether constructed before or after 17 October 1969—as a matter of policy it uses that power only in exceptional circumstances for motorways that were constructed before that date? If that is the case, will my hon. Friend consider a change of policy to permit the funding of noise barriers for the M20, given the traffic forecasts and the serious impact that the noise from that motorway is already having on the lives of people who live adjacent to it?

511
Thirdly, are there any powers under which Kent county council could fund noise barriers along that section of the motorway, on its own or in conjunction with his Department?
Fourthly, I ask my hon. Friend for an assurance that, if Kent county council is able to proceed with a noise mitigation scheme along the section of the motorway between junctions 3 and 5, his Department will give the council all possible assistance, and provide access for the necessary works on the Department's land.
I cannot stress too strongly how deeply I and my constituents feel about the issue. They were told that that section of the M20 was to be widened, and they have suffered blight and ever-increasing noise disturbance. They have devoted time and effort to the public consultation process and to the public inquiry and now they have been told that the whole scheme has been abandoned, even though the volume of traffic will double. I and my constituents insist that noise mitigation measures are preserved, and I look to my hon. Friend to say how that can be achieved.
10.17 pm
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) on securing this debate, and on his strong advocacy of the concerns of his constituents. The proposals to widen the M20 between junctions 3 and 5 entered the road programme with the publication of the White Paper in May 1989, as he reminded the House. Draft side roads orders for the scheme were published, with an environmental statement, in January 1994. The proposals then went to public consultation, and a public inquiry was held in October and November 1994.
Following our review of the roads programme in 1995, the scheme was placed in the longer-term programme, because it was likely to be some time before it could be taken forward. Nevertheless, to remove some uncertainties, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport announced their decision on the scheme on 4 September this year. Because of unresolved issues about noise mitigation, they decided that the draft orders should be withdrawn.
The inquiry, which closed in November 1994, led to the inspectors' report that we received in the middle of January 1995. Normally, we aim to issue a decision within six months, but in this case the inspector's recommendation with regard to the use of porous asphalt required particularly careful consideration because of technical difficulties in applying it to this type of road, made of jointed concrete.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, following a further review that we had to undertake in the current year, the scheme has been withdrawn from the programme. Schemes which were in the longer-term programme had little chance of coming to fruition within a reasonable time scale. But keeping them in the programme perpetuated uncertainty and the damaging effect of blight on individuals and neighbourhoods. Now that the M20 scheme has been withdrawn, the local planning authority will be notified that the safeguarding which protects the proposed route should be removed from local plans.
At that point, safeguarding is withdrawn, statutory blight disappears and the powers to use section 246(2A) of the Highways Act for discretionary purchase are
512
extinguished. There are a handful of discretionary purchase cases which have been agreed but for which the acquisition has not been completed. In those cases, the Highways Agency will be contacting the applicants to ask whether they wish to continue with the sale. If they do, we will honour the agreements.
My right hon. Friend has pressed me on the need to consider additional noise protection along this section of M20, and in this respect he has raised a number of specific questions. The Department has powers under section 282 of the Highways Act 1980 to provide noise barriers on any land in our ownership. Mitigation proposals for the withdrawn scheme comprised just over three miles of noise barriers. These proposals, and the noise amelioration they offered, applied only to the layout of the scheme, and would not necessarily be effective in reducing noise impact from this existing section of M20. If noise barriers were to be provided, it would be necessary to redesign the scheme from first principles.
As my right hon. Friend knows, the Department is required to provide noise mitigation in circumstances where we act as a developer by building a new road or substantially altering an existing one. We are not obliged to do so to deal with noise levels resulting from increased use of an existing unaltered road. I made it clear in answer to a parliamentary question earlier today that we have, in exceptional circumstances and where funds have been available, exercised a discretionary policy for providing noise barriers on roads last improved before 17 October 1969, but that policy is not applicable in respect of this section of road, which opened to traffic in 1971.
My right hon. Friend also asked whether Kent county council, as a highway authority, has discretionary powers to provide noise mitigation on this section of the M20.
Sir John Stanley: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, in law, he is perfectly able to use his discretionary powers to construct noise barriers on motorways that were built after 17 October 1969, and that it is merely a matter of policy that he does not do so? I asked whether he would consider a change in policy and make an exception in the context of this scheme, given the traffic forecasts and the terrible position in which my constituents have been placed for a considerable period.
Mr. Watts: My right hon. Friend was entirely right: we have the powers, and it is a matter of policy that we apply them as we do to new roads or substantially improved roads, and not to deal with the problems of increasing traffic on unaltered roads.
Kent county council has discretionary powers under the Highways Act to provide noise mitigation barriers, but only on roads for which it is the highway authority. On the M20, Kent county council acts as our agent. It is open to Kent county council, or indeed any other body, to offer to fund noise barriers on M20. If any such offer were forthcoming, I can assure my right hon. Friend that the Department would not stand in the way of the implementation of such an offer.
Of course, withdrawing the scheme from the roads programme means that, now that resurfacing will not be undertaken as part of the widening works, the M20 junctions 3 to 5 will have to be reinstated into the trunk road major maintenance programme.
My right hon. Friend has asked what steps we are taking to achieve a quieter surface for that section of the M20 when resurfacing needs to take place. First,

513
reassessment of the condition of the carriageway will be a necessary part of that process. Depending on what the assessment shows, measures to repair or renew the surface will be proposed. At that time, choices will need to be taken about the materials to be used for the surface. Clearly, treating any noise impact at source is more attractive as an option than trying to contain it through barriers.
The arguments in favour of porous asphalt in these cases are well rehearsed. Where the criteria for porous asphalt are met, we are willing to use it. For example, it is already in use on several sections of the trunk road network, including parts of the M25 and M1, and it will be used on the A34 Newbury bypass.
One also has to recognise, however, that the material has drawbacks. It is much more expensive and less durable than hot-rolled asphalt, therefore requiring more frequent replacement, which causes disruption to traffic. It also requires more frequent salt applications in winter. We need to be sure, therefore, that the benefits of using it in particular circumstances outweigh those disbenefits.
In addition, the material is not technically suitable for all roads, particularly those that carry exceptionally high flows of heavy goods vehicles, or for use as an overlay on jointed concrete roads, where the thickness required to ensure that the joints do not show through in cracks in the main surface can present difficulties,—for example, in maintaining headroom through structures. Typically, it would need 4 in or so of overlay. That was identified as a potential problem in the decision letter on the scheme that has now been abandoned.
As part of a continuing programme of research, we are seeking to tackle those drawbacks, and we are examining other forms of quieter road surface, including thin surfacing. Some of the new thin surface materials are already in use—for example, on the A1 in Cambridgeshire, the A12 in Essex and the M6 in Cumbria. They are being monitored for their performance and durability, especially their retention of skidding resistance.
514
Other materials are still in the earlier stages of development. Subject to that work proving successful, when this section of the M20 next requires surface maintenance, we will look closely at the materials available that could reduce noise, and at the possibility of using that section of road as part of the further development of those new surfacing techniques.
The proving of them starts at the laboratory level, considering the results of manufacturer's tests. We then use them on relatively short sections of carriageway to see how they stand up. The final development phase is to use them over a considerable stretch of carriageway to find out how they perform in operation in the live circumstances of a major road.
Clearly, when we are trying a material to test its durability and noise-reducing characteristics, it is sensible to choose locations where we have heavy flows of traffic, a great amount of heavy traffic, and where we are aware of problems with noise that cannot be treated using existing techniques.
I can hold out that hope and comfort to my right hon. Friend and his constituents. If we have the opportunity to use that stretch of road to test the durability and effectiveness of one of the new materials when it is time for it to be resurfaced, we will seek to do so.
Naturally, I sympathise with my right hon. Friend's constituents, who have suffered the uncertainty and blight of schemes being developed and then withdrawn, and who have seen the prospect of noise mitigation being provided as part of an improvement scheme, only to disappear with withdrawal of the scheme. If we are able to tackle the problem at source, rather than seeking merely to contain it, it will provide a better solution.
I give my right hon. Friend the undertaking that we will seek every opportunity to do so and therefore to resolve this long-running problem, which he has brought to the House so many times and so effectively, and with which I have the greatest sympathy.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the(a) capital value and (b) expected start date of each of the private finance initiative schemes relating to transport which are summarised in table 5.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1997–98" and which are expected to start in the period 1997–98 to 1999–2000. [8627]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 11 December 1996]: The information is as follows:

  Estimated capital value (£ million)

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road

  300

  CAA New Scottish Air Traffic Control Centre

  1200

  DBFO road schemes

  350

  London Transport Communications

  150–200

  1 Subject to review.

  Timing is subject to progress with negotiations and with approvals procedures, but most of these schemes are expected to start in 1997–98.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the estimated forward financial commitments for each signed PFI contract agreed by his Department or one of its agencies as summarised in table 5.6 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1997–98". [8620]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 11 December 1996]: Details of individual contracts are commercially sensitive, but we estimate the average annual costs over the next three years to be around £100 million for signed design, build, finance and operate road contracts and a further £100 million for other agreed transport PFI schemes.

  Trunk Road Network
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to conduct the next general review of the trunk road network. [9013]

  Mr. Watts
  We have no plans at present for a further general review of the trunk road network.

  French Lorry Drivers Disputes
  Sir Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many applications his Department has received(a) nationally and (b) from Devon and Cornwall for compensation from regular exporters of fish and fish products as a consequence of the recent French lorry drivers' dispute; and if he will make a statement. [8692]
  294
  Mr. Watts
  We have had two inquiries on behalf of fishing interests, neither specific to Devon or Cornwall, about eligibility for claiming compensation and the procedure. I am not aware of any claims having yet been submitted to the French authorities.

  Sir Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the criteria governing eligibility for compensation for exporters on a regular basis of United Kingdom products to the European Union following the recent lorry drivers' dispute in France; and if he will make a statement. [8708]

  Mr. Watts
  Any business which can demonstrate, with hard supporting evidence, that it has suffered financial loss as a direct result of the dispute is at liberty to submit a claim for compensation to the French authorities for their consideration. We shall publish shortly details of the arrangements for making claims.

  Road and Vehicle Safety Directorate
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the current objectives of the road and vehicle safety directorate. [8328]

  Mr. Bowis
  The road and vehicle safety directorate contributes to my right hon. Friend's objectives set out in the "Transport Report 1966" and, in particular, to promoting transport safety by seeking to reduce the number of road accidents in which people are killed and injured and to reducing the adverse impact of transport on the environment through tighter vehicle standards and other measures.

  Lorries (Wheel Loss)
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road fatalities arising from the loss of road wheels from heavy commercial vehicles occurred in each of the last five years; how many wheel loss incidents there were; what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into this matter; what assessment he has made of the advantages of safety wheel nuts in reducing accidents; and if he will make a statement. [8706]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is estimated that each year there are approximately five to six fatal road accidents involving heavy goods vehicles in which wheel detachment occurs. As data on the causation of accidents are not routinely collected by my Department, figures on the number of fatalities arising from such accidents are not available.

  With regard to the number of incidents involving wheel loss each year the cases indicated by the analysis of the Vehicle Inspectorate database represent only those cases where the police have called upon an investigation to be carried out by the inspectorate.

  My Department has been represented for many years on the British Standards Committee for wheels and tyres who commissioned research by the Motor Industry Research Association—MIRA—into the problems of wheel loss from commercial vehicles. This research complemented work carried out by the University of Exeter on behalf of the Institute of Road Transport Engineers—IRTE—and the Department of Trade and Industry which contributed some £35,000 to the funding.
  295
  Results of the MIRA research showed that the basic cause of the problem of wheel loss is a relaxation of the tension in the wheel fixing and that this took place regardless of whether the vehicle was moving. The British Standard code of practice for the selection and care of tyres and wheels for commercial vehicles advises that wheel fixings should be rechecked for tightness after the vehicle has been standing for 30 minutes or has travelled between 30 or 40 km. Our assessment of the engineering principle of proprietary safety wheel nuts is that they do not address the problem of this initial loss of tension of the wheel fixing and therefore do not reduce the need for regular maintenance.

  Motorway Sound Barriers
  Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 25 November,Official Report, column 52, on sound barriers on motorways, if he will now make a statement. [9182]

  Mr. Watts
  I have completed a review of the policy and have no changes to propose. Noise barriers have been provided on new roads and improvement schemes opened after 16 October 1969 where they offer an effective benefit to an appreciable number of properties which would otherwise have qualified for noise insulation under the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (Statutory Instrument No 1763), and where the cost of providing the barriers did not exceed the cost of individual insulation. For the purpose of determining whether a property would qualify for noise insulation, changes in noise level are calculated on the basis of projected traffic growth 15 years from the date of opening of the scheme.

  It remains the Department's policy, subject to the availability of funds occasionally, and in exceptional circumstances, to exercise a discretionary power of

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Killed

  Injured

  Killed

  Injured

  Killed

  Injured

  Car or van drivers

  15

  149

  11

  134

  9

  146

  Car or van passengers

  24

  800

  15

  599

  10

  508

  Front seat car passengers

  2

  61

  3

  71

  4

  61

  Rear seat car passengers

  20

  696

  11

  509

  6

  420

  All van passengers

  2

  43

  1

  19

  0

  27

  It is not known how many of these casualties were as a direct result of not wearing a seat belt.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Polystyrene (Fire Risks)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for Transport of 29 November,Official Report, column 418, if he will place in the Library copies of the research undertaken by the fire research and development group and the fire research station into the fire and smoke hazards of polystyrene, together with their findings.[7812]

  Mr. Sackville
  I have arranged for this information to be placed in the Library.
  296
  improvement to provide noise barriers alongside trunk roads and motorways which were opened to traffic on or before 16 October 1969, and have not been subject to further improvement.

  Subject to the availability of funds, noise barriers may be provided on such unimproved roads open to traffic on, or before, 16 October 1969 where the cost does not exceed the notional cost of insulating properties which would have qualified had the 1975 regulations applied on 16 October 1969. For these purposes qualifying properties are those which existed on 16 October 1969. The calculation of noise impact is to be based upon the assessed traffic flows at 16 October 1984. It must also be technically possible to provide effective barriers alongside the road.

  This ensures equitable treatment, with respect to noise barriers, between residents living near to roads opened before and after 16 October 1969.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate how many(a) drivers, (b) front seat passengers and (c) back seat passengers have been (i) killed and (ii) injured as a result of not wearing a seat belt in a vehicle in Wales in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [8233]

  Mr. Bowis
  Statistics for seat belt wearing are available only until 1993 and only for the occupants of cars and vans. Data on front and back seat passengers are available only for car passengers. The table shows the recorded number of drivers and passengers killed and injured in Wales whilst not wearing a seat belt whether or not one was fitted. The table does not include figures for casualties where the wearing of a belt was not reported—about a quarter of all accidents.

  Offenders
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the(a) male and (b) female population over the age of 30 years has committed at least one (i) minor criminal offence and (ii) serious criminal offence; and if he will make a statement. [7509]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information available centrally on the percentage of the population with a criminal record relates to convictions for standard list offences only. Standard list offences include all indictable offences, including those triable either way, plus the more serious summary offences. All standard list offences are considered to be serious offences.

  Results from criminal histories of a sample of offenders born in 1953 indicate that 31 per cent. of males and 7 per cent. of females born in that year were convicted of at

  297
  least one standard list offence before the age of 30; and that 34 per cent of males and 8 per cent of females were convicted of at least one standard list offence before the age of 40.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the report, "A Second Exile. The Mental Health Implications of Detention of Asylum Seekers in the United Kingdom", by C. K. Pourgourides, S. P. Sashidharan and P. J. Bracken at the North Birmingham Mental Health trust; and what plans he has to implement its recommendations. [8646]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Copies of this report have been forwarded to us. We cannot accept its main recommendation—that the policy of detaining asylum seekers should be abandoned—but we will take account of its detailed recommendations in taking forward detention policy.

  Detention under the powers contained in the Immigration Act 1971 is used only as a last resort. Temporary admission is granted wherever possible. The primary consideration is whether a person is likely to comply with any restrictions upon him, including any arrangements for his removal from the country. Detention is unavoidable in a small number of cases if we are to retain an effective immigration control.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) how many retailers have been prosecuted for selling(a) lottery tickets and (b) scratch cards to children; and if she will make a statement; [8201]

  (2) how many retailers have been prosecuted for selling (a) lottery tickets and (b) scratch cards to children in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement; [8199]

  (3) how many retailers have been prosecuted for selling (a) lottery tickets and (b) scratch cards to children in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [8202]

  Mr. Sproat
  These are operational matters for Camelot Group plc. I have, therefore, asked the Director General of the National Lottery, who is responsible for regulating the operation of the lottery, to write to the hon. Member, placing copies of his response in the Library of the House.

  British Academy of Sport
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will announce the names of those bids to establish and run the British Academy of Sport that are going forward to the second stage of the evaluation process. [9136]
  298
  Mr. Sproat
  Thirteen of the 26 bids received to establish and run the British Academy of Sport are going forward to stage 2 of the evaluation process. The 13 bids are:

  The Athletes Bid (Hertfordshire)

  Bath

  Birmingham West Midlands

  Central Consortium (Loughborough, Nottingham, Lilleshall)

  De Montford University

  Houghton Grange (Huntingdon)

  Kent Thameside

  Manchester

  Merseyside

  Sheffield

  Sports City Foundation (Kettering)

  UK Academy 2000 (Yorkshire)

  Upper Heyford (Oxfordshire).

  We expect to reach a final decision in the early spring of next year.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken by the United Nations to implement and monitor the oil for food deal in Iraq under the provisions of UN resolution 986. [8652]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We welcome UN Security Council resolution 986 (1995) which took effect on 10 December. Saddam Hussein's failure to agree to implement this humanitarian gesture for over 18 months has caused the Iraqi people much unnecessary suffering. The UN in New York will monitor contracts for the export of oil from Iraq. It has appointed inspectors to monitor the export of oil from Iraq and the import of humanitarian goods. The UN has also appointed observers to ensure that there is an equitable distribution of humanitarian goods once they are inside Iraq.

  European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the cost to United Kingdom public funds of the establishment of a European monitoring centre for racism and xenophobia. [8671]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Discussions are continuing about the form which the European monitoring centre for racism and xenophobia should take. It is too early to estimate its likely cost to United Kingdom public funds.

  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will veto plans to establish a European monitoring centre for racism and xenophobia. [8670]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  No. Agreement was reached at the Florence European Council on 21 to 22 June 1996, on the principle of a European monitoring centre for racism and xenophobia.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the British Government are taking to promote the safeguarding of human rights worldwide. [8788]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We participate actively in bodies dealing with human rights, including the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Council of Europe and the Commonwealth. We raise human rights concerns with individual Governments bilaterally and with European Union partners.

  Nuclear Disarmament
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the British Government are taking in respect of the International Court of Justice ruling of 8 July 1996, relating to nuclear disarmament. [8789]

  Mr. David Davis
  We do not believe that the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons gives rise to any new factors affecting the fundamental principles of United Kingdom and NATO defence policy, including the continuing importance of nuclear deterrence in maintaining peace and stability in Europe.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farm Woodland Premium Scheme
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the outcome of the consultation on proposed changes to the farm woodland premium scheme; and what conclusions have been reached on payment rates. [9216]

  Mr. Baldry
  A wide range of organisations were consulted on the proposed changes to the FWPS announced to Parliament on 24 July,Official Report, column 624. Most organisations welcomed the proposed changes though there were a number of different, often conflicting views. In light of the consultation we will be making some minor modifications to our original proposals and a statutory instrument will be laid before Parliament early next year. Subject to approval by Parliament and the European Commission, it is intended that most of the proposals will be implemented with effect from 1 April 1997. A list of the changes is being placed in the Library of the House.

  The rates of payment to apply from 1 April 1996 will be as follows:

  FWPS £/hectare/year

  FWS £/hectare/year

  Land eligible for Arable Area payments

  Outside of the Less Favoured Areas

  300

  230

  Disadvantaged Areas of the Less Favoured Areas (DA)

  230

  180

  Severely Disadvantaged Areas of the Less Favoured Areas (SDA)

  160

  120

  Other Cropped Land and Improved Grassland

  Outside of the Less Favoured Areas

  260

  200

  DA

  200

  160

  SDA

  140

  110

  300

  FWPS £/hectare/year

  FWS £/hectare/year

  Unimproved Land

  Less Favoured Areas

  60

  30

  Where land is to count against the farmer's set-aside obligation, the payment rate will be restricted to the set-aside rate.

  The FWS was closed to new applicants in 1992.

  Cattle Cull
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current throughput of carcase remains from the over-30-month slaughter programme; and how many weeks it will take to clear the backlog at this rate. [7739]

  Mr. Baldry
  The slaughter rate of cattle under the over-30-month scheme progressively increased through the autumn to around 60,000 animals per week by the middle of November. This rate would have cleared the backlog declared by farmers as at 2 November under the Government's registration system by Christmas, but animals are not being presented for slaughter at levels consistent with the number registered.

  Abattoirs have, therefore, been permitted to take both registered and unregistered OTMS animals provided priority is given to registered animals. In the week ending 8 December just over 40,000 OTMS animals were presented for slaughter against a disposal capacity of around 60,000 animals. Only half of these were registered as part of the backlog which is a good indicator that clearance has almost been achieved.

  Certified Herds
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the National Farmers Union to discuss certified herds; and when he expects to bring forward detailed proposals. [8213]

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food meets the NFU regularly. These meetings cover a range of topics including certified herds. Detailed proposals are currently being drawn up. However, the progress of a certified herds scheme is dependant on whether it is decided to proceed with the selective cull.

  Seafish Consumption (Seals)
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the annual consumption of seafish by seals in United Kingdom waters, expressed as a proportion of the total catch by British fishing vessels in the same waters over the same period. [8178]

  Mr. Baldry
  The estimated number of grey seals associated with breeding sites in the United Kingdom waters in 1995 was 115,000. The Ministry does not have comparable figures of common seals, but the present population is estimated to be 28,000. Scientific work indicates that a seal can eat between 1.4 and 1.8 tonnes of fish each year. Current seal numbers may thus have accounted for between 200,000 and 260,000 tonnes of fish. It is not possible to draw a direct comparison with landings from the United Kingdom fleet, since seals mostly eat species which are not consumed by humans.

TREASURY

  Bank of England (Archive Material)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to ensure that the Bank of England releases all of its archived papers and documents for the year 1966 before the end of the year. [8353]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Although the Bank of England is not subject to the Public Records Acts, it has as a matter of policy released archived papers after 30 years. Papers relating to 1996 will be made available on 1 January 1997.

  Privatised Companies (Individual Shareholders)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage of shares held by individuals in privatised companies(a) on privatisation and (b) as at the most recent date for which figures are available. [8215]

  Mr. Jack
  The following table gives the information requested in part(a) for major primary sales. The present size of share registers is a matter for the companies themselves and their registrars and may be found in individual companies' annual reports.

  Shares sold in the public offer (as a proportion of total shares sold in the offer)

  Offer

  Year

  Actual proportion allocated (per cent.)

  BT

  1984

  34

  British Gas

  1986

  64

  British Airways

  1987

  47

  Rolls Royce

  1987

  42

  BAA

  1987

  52

  British Steel

  1988

  42

  Water

  1989

  47

  Regional Electricity

  1990

  55

  Companies

  Generating

  1991

  49

  Companies

  Scottish Electricity

  1991

  58

  N. Ireland Electricity

  1993

  64

  Railtrack

  1996

  151

  British Energy

  1996

  152

  2 Includes Retail Tender.

  Long-term Care Insurance
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to consult on how to regulate the selling and marketing of long-term care insurance. [9135]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Government's consultation document, "A new partnership for care in old age", published on 7 May, invited comments on a proposed partnership scheme to provide extra protection from the means test for residential care to people who took out a "partnership product" to meet some of the costs of long-term care. Views were also invited on whether the selling and marketing of partnership insurance products, and long-term care insurance more generally should be regulated under the Financial Services Act 1986.

  I informed the House on 24 July 1996, Official Report, column 549, that the responses to the consultation suggested a consensus in favour of regulation under the FSA, covering the marketing and selling of all long-term
  302
  care insurance products, but that before a decision was taken the Treasury would explore further the detailed question of how this should be achieved, and would issue a consultation document seeking the views of interested groups. The Treasury has today published a consultation document which fulfils that undertaking. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The document explains the Treasury's detailed proposals to regulate the selling and marketing of long-term care insurance under the FSA, and includes a draft statutory instrument which would achieve this. Comments are invited from anyone interested. The end of the consultation period will be announced in the new year when the Government's policy statement on other aspects of its plans to take forward the proposals in "A new partnership for care in old age" is made.

  Paymaster Agency
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will report progress with the privatisation of the Paymaster agency. [9183]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Initial bids have been received and three bidders have just been short-listed. These are the management and employee buy-out team in partnership with ITNet, Capita Managed Services, and EDS/Hogg Robinson Financial Services Ltd. Final bids are due in by mid-January.

  European Union Budget
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Council of Ministers has adopted the letter of amendment No. 2 to the preliminary draft general budget of the European Union for 1997. [9184]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 5 December,Official Report, columns 744–46. The Council adopted the letter of amendment No. 2 to the preliminary draft general budget of the European Union for 1997 at its meeting on 19 November. It has now been passed to the European Parliament as the letter of amendment No. 2 to the draft general budget of the European Union for 1997.

  In agreeing this proposal I waived the United Kingdom's scrutiny reserve. I did so because the letter of amendment No. 2 formed an integral part of a package with which the Council aimed to secure the European Parliament's agreement to a budget for 1997 in which total payments would be frozen at 1996 levels in cash terms. Such an outcome would clearly be in the national interest.

  Self-assessment
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the number of taxpayers who will face penalties for late return of self-assessment forms; and what is the expected annual yield from such penalties in each of the next three years. [8275]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 9 December 1996]: The Inland Revenue's current working assumption is that 15 per cent. of taxpayers will file their self-assessment tax return later in the first year of the new system, reducing to 10 per cent. in the third year. These figures are based on current taxpayer behaviour, and do not take into

  303
  account the deterrent effect of late filing penalties or publicity around the filing dates. The automatic penalty for those who do not file by 31 January 1998 will be £100. No estimates have been made of the annual yield from late filing penalties.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria the United Kingdom will propose to govern the choice of the members of the board of the European Central Bank; and if he will take steps to ensure that the Nolan committee's recommendations relating to public appointment will apply to these appointments. [6807]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Article 11 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks-ESCB—annexed to the EC treaty states that the executive board of the European Central Bank—ECB—shall comprise the president and vice-president of the ECB and four other members. It states that the"President, the Vice-President and the other members of the Executive Board shall be appointed from among persons of recognised standing and professional experience in monetary or banking matters",
  by common accord of Governments at the level of Heads of State or Government, on a recommendation from the Council after it has consulted the European Parliament and the Governing Council of the ECB. In accordance with article 43.3 of the statute and paragraph 8 of protocol No. 11, member states which do not participate in the single currency are not involved in this procedure and nationals of these countries may not be members of the executive board. Article 50 of the statute provides for some transitional procedural rules to govern the section of the executive board when it is established.

  The second paragraph of article 11.1 of the statute states that members of the executive board shall
  "perform their duties on a full-time basis. No member shall engage in any occupation, whether gainful or not, unless exception is exceptionally granted by the Governing Council".
  Article 7 of the statute provides that no member of the executive board, as a decision-making body of the ECB,
  "shall seek or take instructions from the Community institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other body".
  Article 11.4 of the statute states that
  "If a member of the executive board no longer fulfils the conditions required for the performance of his duties or if he has been guilty of serious misconduct, the [European] Court of Justice may, on application by the Governing Council or the Executive Board, compulsorily retire him".

  If the United Kingdom were to participate in the single currency and were therefore involved in the selection of the executive board, the Government would want to be confident that members of the executive board would be able to meet the obligations imposed on them by the treaty, including the statute of the ESCB. The Nolan report relates to public life in the United Kingdom.

ENVIRONMENT

  Emission Targets
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action the United Kingdom is taking to ensure that significant emission reduction targets are put forward at the Geneva intersessional conference on climate change in December. [8052]
  304
  Mr. Clappison
  The United Kingdom proposed, at the first conference of the parties to the climate change convention in Berlin in 1995, that developed countries should agree to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases to between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010.

  We expect this proposal to influence negotiations, including at the convention meeting taking place in Geneva this month, which will lead to an agreement on new commitments at the third conference of the parties in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997.

  Building Research Establishment Conservation Support Unit
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those recommendations produced by the consultants for BRECSU which were subsequently not published, indicating the factors underlying their non-publication. [8254]

  Mr. Clappison
  BRECSU is one of the Department of the Environment's managing contractors for its energy efficiency best practice programme. In this role, it has placed some 600 contracts with a range of organisations. The reports submitted by the contractors are used, together with other consensus knowledge and expertise, to produce a wide range of best practice publications in the buildings and related energy management fields.

  Radioactive Waste (Sellafield)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in the attempts by the Environment Agency, as a successor to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, to secure the release of the safety reports relating to the proposed subterranean repository for radioactive waste near Sellafield; and if he will make a statement on the current working relationship between Nirex and the Environment Agency. [8610]

  Mr. Clappison
  Following my written answer to the hon. Member on 11 November,Official Report column 3 UK Nirex Ltd. has provided the Library with a list of its research reports. Until Nirex applies to the Environment Agency for authorisation under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 to dispose of radioactive waste, there is no formal regulatory relationship between the company and the Environment Agency. However, discussions are currently taking place between the two organisations about their future working arrangements.

  Rent Rebates
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the additional rent rebate expenditure incurred by local authorities as a result of the application of his guideline rent increases for each year from 1990–91 to 1995–96. [8872]

  Mr. Clappison
  The guideline rent increases produced gross public expenditure savings which offset the additional cost of rent rebates. The estimated rent rebate expenditure if all authorities had increased their rents in line with the guideline rent increases for each year from 1990–91 to 1995–96 and the estimated gross savings from the extra rent income are:
  305

  £ million

  Additional rent rebate expenditure each year

  Additional rent income each year

  1990–91

  255

  420

  1991–92

  224

  364

  1992–93

  295

  462

  1993–94

  268

  401

  1994–95

  266

  405

  1995–96

  272

  405

  Estate Action
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the level of continuation funding in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 for each estate action scheme (i) in London and (ii) nationally. [8849]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Within the single regeneration budget planned provision nationally for the remaining estate action commitments is currently as follows:

  £ million

  1997–98

  170

  1998–99

  98

  1999–2000

  61

  SRB allocations to each region for 1997–98 for continuing programmes, including estate action, will be determined shortly, following last month's Budget statement. The Government offices in each region then

  Capital challenge—all bids—total bid cost and credit approvals bid for—by service and by region

  (£,000)

  Service

  North East

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  East Mids

  Eastern

  South East

  London

  South West

  West Mids

  North West

  Merseyside

  Totals

  Total bid cost—by service—all bids

  Education

  7,595

  35,639

  27,013

  36,964

  27,297

  76,819

  17,566

  57,493

  46,127

  19,909

  352,422

  Housing

  23,604

  60,145

  31,326

  40,156

  70,327

  170,478

  29,331

  159,947

  123,053

  4,940

  713,307

  Personal Social Services

  6,502

  4,370

  6,595

  11,397

  7,899

  14,865

  5,328

  6,915

  11,034

  3,216

  78,121

  Transport

  39,579

  182,490

  25,674

  92,584

  157,730

  77,605

  45,551

  114,162

  191,470

  79,422

  1,006,267

  Magistrates' Courts

  245

  7,727

  11,614

  6,126

  210

  23,596

  22,000

  2,516

  306

  0

  74,340

  Fire and Civil Defence

  3,360

  7,270

  1,310

  40

  5,120

  13,670

  12,296

  4,983

  7,700

  5,528

  61,277

  Probation Service

  0

  0

  75

  6

  90

  2,086

  4,976

  1,327

  0

  2,261

  10,821

  Coastal Prot'n, Flood Defence

  0

  0

  0

  550

  13,338

  0

  2,125

  1,040

  0

  0

  17,053

  Sport and Recreation

  34,180

  29,484

  34,225

  9,287

  220,802

  15,416

  25,868

  16,405

  65,183

  3,002

  453,852

  Other Services

  67,466

  29,843

  43,154

  76,319

  216,609

  228,222

  226,324

  193,422

  238,052

  24,032

  1,343,443

  Totals

  182,530

  356,968

  180,986

  273,429

  719,422

  622,757

  391,365

  558,210

  682,925

  142,310

  4,110,902

  Credit approvals bid for—by service—all bids

  Education

  7,005

  29,111

  21,886

  18,952

  16,306

  46,313

  10,181

  32,472

  28,385

  14,074

  224,685

  Housing

  8,820

  32,098

  8,381

  21,678

  10,897

  79,433

  11,222

  53,164

  39,628

  500

  265,821

  Personal Social Services

  3,215

  3,055

  3,835

  16,371

  3,132

  8,636

  3,997

  5,970

  8,024

  2,080

  58,315

  Transport

  26,756

  52,519

  29,021

  29,179

  90,751

  39,329

  34,403

  66,402

  48,448

  36,442

  453,250

  Magistrates' Courts

  245

  7,727

  11,614

  6,031

  210

  23,591

  7,200

  2,516

  306

  0

  59,440

  Fire and Civil Defence

  3,346

  7,270

  660

  20

  4,720

  13,545

  12,246

  4,698

  7,700

  5,527

  59,732

  Probation Service

  0

  0

  75

  6

  0

  1,776

  3,101

  1,327

  0

  2,261

  8,546

  Coastal Prot'n,

  0

  0

  0

  275

  0

  0

  1,000

  200

  0

  0

  1,475

  306
  manage their total SRB allocation and have flexibility to vire between programmes where necessary, in order to ensure that all existing estate action commitments continue to be honoured. Regional SRB allocations for subsequent years will be determined by the outcome of future public expenditure surveys.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Environment what allowance he made for inflation in determining estate action allocations in(a) 1993 and (b) 1994; and if he will make statement. [8850]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Local authorities were advised to make due allowance for inflation before submitting their bids for estate action support to the Department. The amounts available to fund new and continuing estate action schemes in 1993–94 and 1994–95 were determined by the public expenditure survey settlements.

  Capital Challenge
  Mr. Austin Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide(a) a breakdown for each region of the source of the resources to finance capital challenge and (b) a breakdown of the bids received from each region. [8851]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  (a) Each Government Department has contributed to capital challenge in proportion to their share of the Government's total provision for local authority capital expenditure. Since total provision is not sub-divided on a regional basis, it is not possible to break down each region's share in the manner requested.

  (b) For each service and region, the attached table shows the total value of all bids and the credit approvals sought.
  307

  Capital challenge—all bids—total bid cost and credit approvals bid for—by service and by region

  (£,000)

  Service

  North East

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  East Mids

  Eastern

  South East

  London

  South West

  West Mids

  North West

  Merseyside

  Totals

  Flood Defence

  Sport and Recreation

  2,769

  4,830

  6,993

  1,193

  21,870

  4,501

  1,512

  8,144

  7,218

  302

  59,332

  Other Services

  11,839

  20,740

  20,151

  18,151

  62,284

  65,071

  38,056

  39,473

  50,520

  5,117

  331,402

  Totals

  63,995

  157,351

  102,616

  111,856

  210,170

  282,195

  122,918

  214,366

  190,229

  66,303

  1,521,999

  Resource Allocation (London)
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cost compensation factor used in determining resource allocation for London in(a) the generalised needs index, (b) the single regeneration budget and (c) capital challenge; and what plans he has to amend the allocation. [8852]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  (a) The generalised needs index, which is used in the distribution of housing annual capital guidelines for local authorities in England, uses regional cost compensation factors to reflect the different costs of capital works in different parts of the country. There were separate factors for the new provision and renovation parts of the index.

  Relative cost compensation factors are calculated for each region and the factors are scaled so that the factors for the lowest regions equal 100. The cost compensation factors for London used in the GNI for 1996–97 were 155 (new provision) and 137 (renovation); the figures for other regions range between 100 to 130 and 100 to 114 respectively. The methodology underlying the cost compensation factors, which are updated annually, was reviewed in detail in 1995.

  (b) Cost compensation factors are not used in determining the indicative regional allocations for the single regeneration budget challenge fund. Individual bids for resources are based on forecast actual costs, and so should take account of any regional variations in prices.

  (c) The apportionment amongst regions of the sums available under the capital challenge pilot scheme is based on each region's share of the national total of local authorities' annual capital guidelines, supplementary credit approvals and capital grants for all services. It takes no account of a cost compensation factor except in so far as it is included in the housing ACG as discussed above.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Cameroon
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received with regard to the environmental impact of World bank-funded transport projects in the Cameroon. [8411]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The Friends of the Earth wrote to my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker on 6 September expressing concern about the possible environmental impact of this programme. The ODA acknowledged the possible risks but pointed out that the 308
  World bank was working with the Government of Cameroon to ensure that environmental impact was considered when individual projects were being selected.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts are being made by Her Majesty's Government to enable the Save the Children Fund to enter northern Iraq. [8654]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  We understand that two members of Save the Children Fund have recently entered northern Iraq.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British aid agencies are operating in(a) northern Iraq and (b) Iraq. [8653]

  Dr. Fox
  As far as we are aware there are eight British
  non-governmental organisations operating in northern Iraq and one in Baghdad-controlled Iraq.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which British aid agencies are being denied access to northern Iraq. [8655]

  Dr. Fox
  The usual route for western NGOs carrying out humanitarian work in northern Iraq since 1991 has been via Turkey. The Turkish Government introduced new requirements in August, since when no British NGOs have been given authority to travel into northern Iraq from Turkey. We have raised this on several occasions with the Turkish Government, urging them to allow reputable British NGOs, who have complied with their new requirements, to enter northern Iraq.

  Zambia
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of human rights in Zambia. [8737]

  Dr. Fox
  Our high commission closely monitors respect of human rights in Zambia. We welcomed the recent legislation establishing a human rights commission but we were concerned that two non-governmental organisations' leaders were questioned by police on 24 November following their reports on the recent elections.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received about the current internal political situation in Zambia. [8736]

  Dr. Fox
  We receive regular reports from our high commission at Lusaka. There have been no reports of any civil unrest since the presidential and parliamentary elections which were held on 18 November. The current internal political situation is stable.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the budget of the Immigration Appellate Authority in the financial year 1996–97; and what it was in financial years(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1994–95. [7793]

  Mr. Streeter
  The question concerns a matter which has been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Doug Henderson, dated 12 December 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the budget of the Immigration Appellate Authority.
  In 1994/95 the Immigration Appellate Authority spent £6,965,344 and in 1995/96 this rose to £8,404,699. The current estimate of the expenditure for the financial year 1996/97 is £9,917,983.
  I can confirm that these figures include both tribunal staff and judicial salaries; they do not include any provision for accommodation expenditure.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time special adjudicators were employed by the Immigration Appellate Authority (i) at the latest available date, (ii) on 1 January 1995 and (iii) on 1 August 1993. [7785]

  Mr. Streeter
  At the latest available date, 6 December 1996, 29 full-time and 97 part-time immigration adjudicators were designated as special adjudicators by the Lord Chancellor. On 1 January 1995 there were 18 full-time and 44 part-time immigration adjudicators who were so designated. On 1 August 1993 there were 16 full-time and 15 part-time immigration adjudicators so designated.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many appeals against a refusal of asylum are currently outstanding; and what was the number on(a) 1 January 1996, (b) 1 January 1995 and (c) 1 January 1994. [7786]

  Mr. Streeter
  The question concerns a matter which has been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Doug Henderson, dated 12 December 1996.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of outstanding asylum appeals.
  As at the end of November 1996 there were 20,388 appeals outstanding. This compares with 11,691 at the beginning of 1996, approximately 3,400 in January 1995 and 1,069 in April 1994.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the eligibility for legal aid of young people who are suing local education authorities over their school education. [7779]
  310
  Mr. Streeter
  In addition to qualifying financially, an applicant must also show to the Legal Aid Board that he or she has reasonable grounds for taking, defending or being a party to proceedings, and that it is reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case for legal aid to be granted. However, I should make clear that, as yet, the Legal Aid Board has not yet received any applications for legal aid in the case relating to educational achievement, which was recently reported in the press.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has received from the Bar Council on the subject of reform of the legal aid budget; and if he will make a statement. [7915]

  Mr. Streeter
  I recently met the chairman of the Bar Council to discuss the reforms. I look forward to having further discussion and consultations with the Bar and other interested bodies as the reforms progress.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many certificates issued by the Legal Aid Board were revoked in (i) 1992, (ii) 1993, (iii) 1994 and (iv) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [7907]

  Mr. Streeter
  The number of civil legal aid certificates revoked in each year was as follows:

  1992–93: 11,630

  1993–94: 19,503

  1994–95: 21,773

  1995–96: 25,032.

  The figure for 1992–93 represents revoked emergency certificates only because revoked substantive certificates were not recorded on the Legal Aid Board's case administration computer system until 1993–94. The 1993–94 figure does not include substantive revoked certificates for Cardiff as that office was not upgraded with the new computer system until August 1994.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many cases in the past six months claims for legal aid to pursue civil claims for compensation in cases involving(a) criminal harassment by landlords, (b) illegal eviction and (c) disrepair have been refused; and how many of these claims have been granted on appeal. [7800]

  Mr. Streeter
  The information requested is not available as the data gathered by the Legal Aid Board do not separately identify those categories of cases.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he last met the Law Society to discuss the provision and funding of legal aid; and if he will make a statement. [7916]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Lord Chancellor, I and officials in my Department regularly meet representatives of the Law Society to discuss a very wide range of issues relating to the provision and funding of legal aid.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the 20(a) solicitors firms and (b) barristers who have received the largest sums of money from the legal aid scheme for each year for which information is available. [8700]
  311
  Mr. Streeter
  In the time available it has not been possible to provide the information requested. I will reply as soon as possible.

  Molestation
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the advantages of statutory tort of molestation following the Court of Appeal judgment in the Burris v. Azadani case in July 1995. [7795]

  Mr. Streeter
  The consultation paper, "Stalking—the Solutions", which was published by the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department in July 1996, discussed the question whether there should be a statutory tort of molestation or whether cases of molestation should be dealt with under the common law, in the light of recent cases. Its conclusion, that there should be a statutory tort, was supported on consultation and the Protection from Harassment Bill, which was introduced on 5 December, accordingly contains a statutory tort.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 December. [7453]

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

  War Pensions
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will now publish in the Official Report the ministerial correspondence and discussion papers that led to the change in rules for the award of war pensions for deafness and pension increases for further deterioration. [8728]

  The Prime Minister
  The texts of the address and the background note given to members of the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions about the change in medical opinion regarding the interaction between service-related noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss and subsequent hearing loss have been placed in the Library. Inter-ministerial correspondence and discussion papers leading up to a change are not normally published.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list(a) the planned timetable, (b) the planned number participating and (c) the estimated public expenditure for the introduction of modern apprenticeships in each Government Department. [8840]

  Mr. Freeman
  The use of modern apprenticeships is a decision taken by individual Government Departments.312
  Information on take-up in the civil service is not held centrally. Departments are actively encouraged to consider modern apprenticeships as part of their human resource strategies to develop future managers and encourage lifetime learning.

  Fire Safety
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what cost compliance assessment has been undertaken of the proposed Workplace (Fire Precautions) Regulations by the deregulation unit. [8345]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Workplace (Fire Precautions) Regulations are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Earlier proposals for implementing the directives had significant costs associated with them which had led us to adopt a new approach, recognising the high standards of fire safety that already exist in workplaces. The Home Secretary undertook a further public consultation during the summer on a revised draft of these regulations, which, amongst other issues, specifically sought advice from business on compliance costs. The Home Office is currently preparing a compliance cost assessment which will accompany the proposed regulations.

  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment the deregulation task force has made of the introduction of the proposed Workplace (Fire Precautions) Regulations; and what meetings he has had with business representatives to discuss their possible compliance costs. [8344]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Workplace (Fire Precautions) Regulations are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The deregulation task force commented on the Government's proposed approach in its 1995–96 report. The Home Secretary undertook a public consultation during the summer on a draft of these regulations, and members of the task force have since provided views on the draft regulations. My noble Friend Baroness Blatch, Minister of State at the Home Office, and I are also discussing compliance costs for these regulations with the British Retail Consortium with whom yesterday we visited some premises.

  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the efficiency scrutiny report on the implementation and enforcement of EC law in the United Kingdom in respect of its fire safety provisions. [8343]

  Mr. Freeman
  The recommendations on fire safety issues were largely taken forward in the later fire safety scrutiny, the Government's response to which was announced on 21 May 1996,Official Report, column 100. The Government have also acted upon the two recommendations relating to examination by fire service inspectors of complaints about enforcement action and encourage of fire authority participation in local business partnerships.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 14 November,Official Report, column 342, if she will list individually those national vocational qualifications accredited at 30 June that (a) had not attracted full awards and (b) had attracted fewer than 100 awards. [6971]

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is contained in a number of tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library. As I said in my answer of 14 November, individual vocational qualifications are subject to accreditation at regular intervals and, given the time it takes after accreditation for awards to become available to centres, and individuals to train towards them, at any one time a considerable proportion of individual NVQs will have attracted few awards. Only about a quarter of the titles listed had an award accredited before 1994.

  Public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP, 1984 to 1993

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  North America

  Canada

  7.2

  6.9

  7.0

  6.9

  6.8

  6.2

  6.2

  6.7

  7.2

  6.9

  Mexico

  3.9

  3.8

  3.5

  3.3

  3.3

  3.6

  4.0

  4.5

  4.9

  4.1

  United States

  4.6

  4.6

  4.8

  4.8

  4.9

  5.0

  5.2

  5.5

  5.4

  5.2

  Pacific Area

  Australia

  5.4

  5.4

  5.3

  5.1

  5.5

  n/a

  4.6

  4.7

  5.5

  5.6

  Japan

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  3.7

  3.6

  3.7

  3.6

  3.6

  New Zealand

  4.7

  5.1

  5.8

  5.9

  6.1

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  6.5

  6.7

  European Union

  Austria

  5.8

  5.8

  6.0

  5.9

  5.6

  5.5

  5.4

  5.6

  5.8

  5.5

  Denmark

  n/a

  6.2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  6.3

  n/a

  n/a

  6.6

  Finland

  5.5

  5.7

  5.7

  5.8

  5.7

  5.7

  6.0

  6.1

  8.3

  7.9

  France

  5.7

  5.7

  5.7

  5.6

  5.5

  5.1

  5.1

  5.4

  5.5

  5.7

  Germany

  4.6

  4.6

  4.5

  4.4

  4.3

  4.2

  4.1

  4.1

  4.1

  4.8

  Greece

  3.8

  4.0

  3.8

  3.8

  3.4

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  3.5

  Ireland

  6.0

  6.0

  6.3

  6.2

  5.4

  5.1

  5.0

  5.2

  5.5

  5.6

  Italy

  5.1

  5.0

  5.0

  4.8

  4.9

  5.0

  5.2

  n/a

  5.1

  5.1

  Netherlands

  6.6

  6.6

  6.7

  6.9

  6.1

  5.7

  5.7

  5.6

  5.6

  5.4

  Portugal

  4.0

  4.0

  4.3

  4.1

  4.2

  4.0

  4.3

  5.5

  n/a

  5.4

  Spain

  3.4

  3.6

  3.6

  3.7

  3.9

  4.2

  4.4

  4.5

  4.6

  4.7

  Sweden

  7.2

  7.0

  7.0

  6.9

  6.5

  5.4

  5.6

  6.5

  7.7

  7.7

  United Kingdom

  5.2

  4.9

  4.9

  4.8

  4.8

  4.8

  4.9

  5.3

  5.2

  5.1

  Other OECD countries

  Czech Republic

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4.2

  n/a

  n/a

  6.0

  Norway

  5.8

  5.6

  5.5

  5.6

  5.7

  7.0

  n/a

  6.8

  n/a

  9.0

  Switzerland

  5.2

  5.1

  5.2

  5.2

  5.0

  n/a

  5.2

  5.4

  5.7

  5.8

  Notes:

  Vertical bars indicate a break in the series.

  n/a = Data not available.

  Source:

  Data supplied to OECD by individual countries for the publication "Education at a Glance", OECD December 1996.

  Employment Schemes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people after attending (1) employment rehabilitation service, (2) Employment Service services, (3) employment training, (4) the employment transfer scheme, (5) the free forward fares scheme, (6) industrial training boards, (7) job clubs, (8) the job creation programme, (9) the jobfinder's grant, (10) the job interview guarantee, (11) the jobrnatch

  European Social Fund Bid
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will submit a programme under objective 4 of the European social fund for 1997 to 1999. [8552]

  Mr. Paice
  Yes.

  Education Spending
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the proportion of gross domestic product spent on education in each Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country in the last 10 years. [8557]

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested for those OECD countries for which data are available is shown in the table. The figures given are based on information provided by each country to OECD for its latest edition of "Education at a Glance", published on 9 December. Copies of "Education at a Glance" will shortly be available in the Library.

  scheme, (12) the jobplan workshop, (13) the job review, (14) the job release scheme, (15) job review workshops, (16) the job start scheme, (17) the jobseeker's allowance, (18) the job share programme, (19) the job splitting scheme, (20) the job training programme, (21) learning for work, (22) job seminars, (23) local enterprise agencies, (24) Manpower Services Commission, (25) non-advanced and work-related further education, (26) new job training scheme, (27) the national policy skills scheme and (28) national record of achievement (a) went into employment

  315
  and (b) went on to further schemes, including those who left before completion of the scheme, in each year of each scheme's operation; and what type and level of qualification each leaver obtained for each year to the latest available year for which data are available. [8738]

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested can be provided only at a disproportionate costs.

  Liverpool Blue Coat School
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects to announce confirmation of the schedule 5 enactment in respect of the grant-maintained status of the Liverpool Blue Coat school; and if she will make a statement. [8871]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Liverpool local education authority has requested that the Secretary of State declares void the ballot for grant-maintained status in respect of the Blue Coat school. No decision on grant-maintained status can be made until the investigation into the ballot complaint has been completed. That investigation will be completed shortly.

  Project Work
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress she has made on extending the project work pilots; and if she will make a statement. [9272]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In November I announced my plans to extend the project work approach to 28 new pilot areas across the country, covering up to 100,000 people, and to test a number of variations on the basic model. A list of the locations and start dates of the new pilots is contained in the following table.

  We will be piloting variations to the approach used in Hull and Medway and Maidstone to see whether we can improve its effectiveness. There will be an emphasis on literacy and numeracy in all the new pilots. Up to 10,000 people will have access to intensive help with literacy and numeracy. A further 9,000 people will be covered by pilots where we will be seeking increased involvement of the private sector. In pilots covering around 14,000 people, workstart will be replaced by jobmatch as an additional programme available to people in the pilot. Jobmatch offers grants to people who take part-time jobs as a stepping stone into full-time work. The results from the jobmatch pilots currently running have been encouraging, and we want to see whether jobmatch is a more cost-effective addition to the help available to project work participants than workstart. We will also test the added value of workstart by removing it altogether in some pilots. In other pilots we will be varying the length of the initial period of jobsearch help for around 13,000 people.

  Through these pilots, we will provide a package of specialist help and advice for people who have been out of work for a long time and face significant disadvantages. I believe that these pilots are an innovative and useful addition to the help that we already provide for unemployed people.
  316

  Type of pilot

  Starting date

  locations piloting this type

  Basic model

  February 1997

  Dudley and Sandwell Nottingham Bristol Bath Weston-super-Mare North East London Derby Hull Medway and Maidstone

  Intensive literacy and numeracy help

  April 1997

  Bradford Huddersfield Norwich Dundee Stoke

  Increased private sector involvement

  April 1997

  Hertford and Harlow Peterborough Edinburgh Portsmouth

  Differences in length and content of the intensive help prior to mandatory work experience

  February 1997 (full range of ES help excluding Workstart)

  Bolton and Bury Swansea Neath and Port Talbot Merthyr and Rhymney Preston Lanarkshire

  Variation including Jobmatch

  February 1997 (full range of ES help including Jobmatch)

  East London Wigan and St. Helens

  Variation with period A shortened to 8 weeks

  April 1997 (8 week period of intensive help)

  Brighton South Tyneside

  Variation with period A shortened to 4 weeks

  April 1997 (4 week period of intensive help)

  Leicester Grimsby Dunfermline

  Contract for Work
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress she has made on the contract for work pilot; and if she will make a statement. [9271]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In November I announced that the Department would be introducing pilots to explore ways in which the talent for innovation of the private sector might be used to help unemployed people back to work. The Chancellor announced in his Budget speech that these pilots would be called contract for work.

  The aim of the pilots will be to test the cost effectiveness of the private sector in getting long-term unemployed people back to work and to test specific approaches to that task. The pilots will have an incentive-based funding structure which rewards success.

  There will be two private sector contract for work pilots, each covering around 3,000 people. Another 6,000 people will be placed on programmes run by the Employment Service, to provide an additional measure against which the performance of the private sector can be judged. The pilots will last for 12 months and participants will be referred to them for a maximum of six months. The pilots will start in the spring and invitations to tender should be issued by mid-February.
  317
  On locations for the pilots, I have decided that the private sector interest should be explored across four major cities, including Manchester, London, Glasgow and Birmingham. A final decision will be made according to the quality of bids received. Before invitations to tender are issued, my officials will initiate a series of discussions with a range of organisations to draw on their expertise and experience in considering detailed design issues.

  Through these pilots we will provide an opportunity for the long-term unemployed to work directly with the private sector, an approach which I hope will be mutually beneficial. I believe that these pilots will be a welcome and necessary addition to the help that already exists for unemployed people.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the Government funding for the training and enterprise councils was represented by the salaries of their chief executives in the last year for which figures are available. [8424]

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is not available. However, in line with other private companies, training and enterprise councils are required to provide information about their funding and about the remuneration of directors in their annual accounts. Copies of individual TEC accounts and of an amalgamated income and expenditure account for TECs in England are held in the Library.

HEALTH

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the onset times of the cases of the new variant of CJD by month; and if he will make a statement. [7948]

  Mr. Horam
  The month and year of onset for the 14 cases of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease confirmed by the national CJD surveillance unit up to the end of November 1996, listed in order of onset, are:

  1. January 1994

  2. February 1994

  3. March 1994

  4. June 1994

  5. July 1994

  6. August 1994

  7. December 1994

  8. January 1995

  9. January 1995

  10. January 1995

  11. March 1995

  12. July 1995

  13. August 1995

  14. January 1996

  Cases can be confirmed only by examination of brain pathology. Normally this is done post mortem, and in the rare cases where a positive brain biopsy is obtained this is not possible until fairly late in the course of the disease.
  318
  Therefore there is a long delay between the date of onset—the date of the first clinical symptoms related to CJD—and the date of confirmation. The median duration of illness in these cases is 14 months.

  In-patient Treatment
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued on the necessary period of in-patient treatment for a proper risk assessment to be carried out before a patient's discharge. [8262]

  Mr. Burns
  Guidance issued by the national health service executive in 1994 on the discharge of mentally disordered people requires a full risk assessment to be carried out before discharge of any patient who may present special risks. There is no set time limit for this task.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the assessments by NHS executive regional offices of individual area health authorities' performance in the provision of child and adolescent mental health services; and if he will make a statement. [8521]

  Mr. Burns
  At this stage there are no plans to publish information relating to the performance by health authorities on child and adolescent mental health services.

  Child Prostitution
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to encourage health authorities to address the health risks arising from child prostitution. [8429]

  Mr. Burns
  Local authority social services have a duty to make inquiries where they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, and this would include information suggesting that a child may need protection from child prostitution. Following the introduction of mandatory children's services plans, the Department of Health is taking forward work to strengthen co-operation between social services and health and education and to encourage user participation in the planning process.

  "The Patient's Charter: Services for Children and Young People" details children's rights and expectations of the standards of service the national health service is aiming to achieve. Multidisciplinary teams in young offenders institutions provide a range of preventive health services relating to sexual health, HIV, hepatitis and safe sex. These teams, together where necessary with NHS specialists and outside agencies, also provide a range of counselling relevant to those most vulnerable to commercial sexual exploitation on release.

  Sheffield Health Authority (Funding)
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the total funding available for Sheffield health authority and (b) the increase in funding that has been allocated to Sheffield health authority for 1997–98; if he will express this in percentage terms above inflation; if this funding can be used for the city's hospital trusts; and if he will make a statement. [8298]
  319
  Mr. Horam
  In 1997–98 Sheffield health authority will receive an integrated allocation of £270.5 million, a cash increase of £9 million—3.45 per cent.—which represents a real terms growth of £3.7 million—1.42 per cent.

  In 1997–98 Sheffield health authority will receive a general allocation of £257.2 million, a cash increase of £8.4 million—3.38 per cent.—which represents a real terms growth of £3.4 million—1.35 per cent.

  This is indeed funding which can be used for Sheffield's hospital trusts. It is for individual health authorities to decide the level and type of services purchased, in partnership with general practitioners locally.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that there is no conflict of interest between the duties of the new head of the private finance initiative and his responsibilities as a senior executive of Tarmac plc. [8431]

  Mr. Horam
  There is no possibility of a conflict of interest arising from the appointment of Mr. Robert Osborne as head of the private finance unit of the national health service executive. Approval of business cases for private finance initiative schemes is not part of Mr. Osborne's responsibilities. Nor will he have any advisory role in schemes in which Tarmac has an interest.

  NHS Executives
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what terms he approved the provision of a vehicle to Mr. John Greetham in his role as chair of the Yorkshire and North regional NHS executive; and how many other regional executive chairs receive a similar benefit. [8607]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) on 24 June at column 22.

  Overseas Adoption Helpline
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what Government funding has been made available to the overseas adoption helpline in each year since 1992; what Government funding is planned for 1998 to 2000; and if he will make a statement. [8520]

  Mr. Burns
  Financial support for the overseas adoption helpline since 1992 is as follows:

  1992–93: £80,834

  1993–94: £96,000

  1994–95: £96,000

  1995–96: £96,000

  1996–97: £50,000

  There are currently no plans to provide further funding after 31 March 1997.

  Computer Software
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the contract to supply computer software to the Chelsea and Westminster hospital was put out to tender. [8432]
  320
  Mr. Horam
  The Riverside acute unit, now known as the Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS trust, issued the invitation to tender in December 1993 in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

  Renal Dialysis Machines
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many renal dialysis machines there are per health authority; and how many renal patients on dialysis there are in each health authority. [8500]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is not available centrally in the form requested. However, the number of haemodialysis stations in hospitals in each national health service region for 1993 is contained in the "National Review of Renal Services Part 11; Evidence for the Review". The number of renal patients on dialysis in each NHS region in 1993, by renal unit, is shown in the same document. Copies of the report are available in the Library.

  Ambulance Services
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the size of the ambulance fleet by ambulance service in each of the last five years. [8504]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, the second report of the Health Committee in Session 1994–95, copies of which are in the Library, contains some information on numbers of emergency ambulances.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on new ambulances by ambulance trust in each of the last five years. [8487]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Intensive Care Provision
  Mr. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) intensive care units, (b) intensive care beds, (c) paediatric intensive units and (d) paediatric intensive care beds there are by district health authority area. [8499]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the provision of adult intensive care provision is not collected in the form requested. Information on the average daily number of available beds by broad ward classification for each national health service trust is published annually in "Bed Availability for England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Information on the number of paediatric intensive care units and beds is not routinely collected at present. However a survey of paediatric intensive care provision was undertaken earlier this year and the results published in a report on 29 May. This report by the chief executive of the national health service executive is entitled, "Paediatric Intensive Care" and is available in the Library.

  Pay Beds
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pay beds there were by NHS executive region in each of the last five years. [8503]
  321
  Mr. Horam
  Pay beds have not been centrally authorised since 31 March 1991 and the Department has not collected information on pay bed numbers since then.

  General Practitioners
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner practices there are in each district health authority area. [8497]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Trusts (Wartime Huts)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts are using wartime huts for patient accommodation. [8501]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Speech Therapists
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many speech therapists per 100,000 population are currently provided for children in(a) Southwark, (b) Birmingham, (c) Manchester, (d) Kingston, (e) Lewisham and (f) England. [8473]

  Mr. Burns
  The information is not available centrally in the form requested.

  The number of speech therapists employed by the national health service hospital and community health services by health authority areas is available from the Department of Health's statistical tables, "NHS Hospital and Community Health Services staff by health authority areas, England 1995"—the latest year available—which are available in the Library. Information on the estimated 1995 population in health authorities is available from the Library in "Office for National Statistic Monitor for Population and Health: Mid-1995 population estimates for re-organised local and health authority areas in England and Wales".

  The number of speech therapists per head of population within health authorities should be interpreted with caution because in some cases the population served by the organisations in each authority may be greater than the population of the health authority itself.

  Nurses
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the shortfall of hospital nursing staff by NHS executive regional office in each year since 1990. [8474]

  Mr. Malone
  The national pay review body has considered all the evidence each year since 1990 and has concluded that there have been no general shortfalls of hospital nursing staff.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses(a) entered the profession and (b) ceased to practise in each year since 1990. [8475]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Departmental Staff (Travel Costs)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on staff travel costs between Richmond house, Whitehall and Quarry house, Leeds in each year since 1992. [8481]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Estimated costs of payments for travel between Leeds and London derived from special exercises for the first two periods are:

  £

  December 1993–November 1994

  860,000

  October 1994–September 1995

  560,000

  April 1995–March 1996

  680,000

  April 1996–November 1996

  280,000

  We cannot differentiate costs between Richmond house, Quarry house and other Department of Health buildings in London and Leeds.

  National Blood Authority
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much was spent by the National Blood Authority in each of the last three years on(a) conference registration fees, (b) lease cars for senior management, (c) air travel, (d) hospitality and (e) business travel within the United Kingdom; [8483]

  (2) how much was spent by the bio products laboratory in each of the last three years on (a) conference registration fees, (b) lease cars for senior management, (c) air travel, (d) hospitality and (e) business travel within the United kingdom. [8484]

  Mr. Horam
  These are matters for the National Blood Authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Colin Walker OBE, chairman of the National Blood Authority.

  Neo-natal Cots
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many neo-natal cots there were in each hospital trust in each of the last five years. [8489]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the average daily number of available beds by broad ward classification for each national health service trust is published annually in "Bed Availability for England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Consultants
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many consultants who practise in the NHS also undertake private work; and what proportion of their time is spent in that private work. [8493]

  (2) how many consultant sessions used for treating NHS patients are currently funded by academic institutions. [8480]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is not available centrally.
  323
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent, by NHS regional office, on consultancy fees relating to the private finance initiative. [8506]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 26 November, at column 119.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants there were in(a) general medicine, (b) general surgery, (c) orthopaedics and (d) obstetrics and gynaecology in the last year. [8479]

  Mr. Malone
  The number of hospital consultants in general medicine, general surgery, traumatic and orthopaedic surgery and obstetrics and gynaecology last year is as follows:

  Hospital medical consultants in selected specialties in England at 30 September 1995 (whole-time equivalent)

  Number

  Obstetrics and gynaecology

  880

  General surgical group

  3,540

  of which

  General surgery

  1,030

  Traumatic and orthopaedic surgery

  910

  General medicine group

  3,720

  of which

  General medicine

  240

  Acute and Community Hospitals
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the secretary of State for Health (1) how many acute hospitals there are in each district health authority area; [8495]

  (2) how many community hospitals there are in each district health authority area. [8496]

  Mr. Horam
  Information is not available centrally in the form requested. The "Health and Social Services Yearbook", copies of which are available in the Library, details the addresses of all hospitals in each NHS trust and sets out the main trusts in contract with each health authority.

  Accident and Emergency Units
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accident and emergency units there are in England. [8498]

  Mr. Horam
  There are 211 national health service trusts with large accident and emergency departments on 1995–96 figures.

  This is different from the figures given in "Bed availability for England 1995–96" due to inconsistencies in data collection following the abolition of the regional health authorities earlier this year. This is being corrected.

  Creche Facilities
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital trusts have crèche facilities for(a) staff, (b) relatives, (c) visitors and (d) patients. [8502]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Porters
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many porters were employed by acute hospital trusts in each of the last five years. [8476]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Patient Trolleys
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patient trolleys were owned by the NHS in each district health authority area in each of the last five years. [8477]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  NHS Hospitality
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total amount spent on hospitality in the NHS in the last three years. [8507]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Care Programme
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many social services departments had implemented the Government's care programme approach on 1 April. [8508]

  Mr. Burns
  There is no requirement for social services departments to implement the care programme approach as it is the responsibility of national health service trusts.

  NHS Staff Conference Fees
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State of Health how much was spent on NHS staff conference registration fees in each of the last three years. [8482]

  Mr. Horam
  No central data are available which identify spending on national health service staff conference registration fees.

  Air Travel Costs
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by the NHS on air travel to international conferences, seminars and business meetings in each of the last five years. [8486]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Life-support Machines
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many life-support machines there were in each hospital trust in each of the last five years. [8488]

  Mr. Horam
  An extremely wide range of equipment is used throughout national health service hospitals for the purpose of life support. The information requested is not, therefore, available centrally.

  Annual Reports (NHS Trusts)
  Mr. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by each NHS trust on the preparation and production of their annual report in each of the last four years. [8490]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on spending on the preparation and production of annual reports by national health service trusts is not available centrally.

  Hospital Beds
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals beds are currently available per 24-hour period by district health authority area. [8492]

  Mr. Horam
  Information is not collected in the form requested. Information on the average daily number of available beds for each NHS trust is published annually in "Bed Availability for England" copies of which are available in the Library.

  Hospital Closures
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) acute hospitals, (b) community hospitals and (c) accident and emergency units have closed in each of the last five years; and how many are planned to close in the coming financial year. [8494]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally. A list of those substantial changes in service provision which have been contested by community health councils is available in the Library.

  Working Children
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his proposals to ensure that local authority byelaws are updated to protect working children against health and safety hazards in industrial and commercial premises. [8873]

  Mr. Burns
  Children are not permitted to be employed in industrial undertakings. Health and safety legislation, which is not contained in local authority byelaws, applies to all workers regardless of their age.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the maximum number of hours a child(a) under the age of 15 years and (b) aged 15 years will be legally permitted to work during school term time, following the implementation of the recommendation arising from his Department's recent consultation exercise. [8874]

  Mr. Burns
  The maximum permitted number of working hours for children will remain exactly as they are at present, that is 17 hours a week for those under the age of 15, and 20 hours a week for those aged 15 or over.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department last carried out a study to examine the effectiveness of local authority byelaws governing the employment of children, with particular reference to their implementation and enforcement; and if he will conduct a further study. [8794]

  Mr. Burns
  The last study in this area was reported in 1972. I have no plans at present to commission a further study.
  326
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's policy in respect of implementing proposals to protect the health, safety and education of working children. [8796]

  Mr. Burns
  Officials have recently issued a paper outlining our plans to implement our proposals. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will liaise with the Department of the Environment to ensure that local authorities have adequate resources to enforce byelaws governing the employment of children. [8795]

  Mr. Burns
  It is for local authorities to determine their expenditure priorities.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many respondents to his Department's recent consultation exercise on the employment of children favoured(a) parliamentary legislation and (b) revision of local authority byelaws. [8797]

  Mr. Burns
  We did not seek views on the type of legislation to be used. Of the views expressed, the majority were in favour of the revision of byelaws.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many outbreaks of E. coli 0157 food poisoning have occurred in the Carlisle city council area in the last five years; and how many people were affected in each of the outbreaks; [7923]

  (2) how many cases of E. coli 0157 food poisoning have occurred; and how many people have died from the infection in the Carlisle city council area in the last five years. [7924]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 9 December 1996]: For information on the number of cases of E. coli 0157 in the United Kingdom, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on 2 December at column 551.

  There were no outbreaks of E. coli 0157 in the city of Carlisle between 1991 to date. Information about single E. coli 0157 cases in the city of Carlisle is given in the table:

  E. coli 0157 cases from the city of Carlisle

  Year

  Cases

  Deaths1

  19912

  0

  0

  1992

  5

  0

  1993

  4

  0

  1994

  3

  0

  1995

  10

  0

  1996

  3

  0

  Source:

  Public Health Laboratory Service Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre.

  Notes:

  1 Confirmed with Office for National Statistics.

  2 PHLS (Carlisle) did not routinely test specimens for E. coli 0157 until October 1991.

  The higher number of E. coli 0157 cases in 1995 were investigated by North Cumbria health authority and found to be associated with the consumption of wild field mushrooms, picked from fields where cattle had been

  327
  grazing. The cases were dispersed over a wide area and no link was established with any particular field.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what insurance arrangements cover the clean-up, restoration and personal compensation payments that may arise from an accident at, or involving(a) a commercially operated nuclear power plant, (b) a nuclear fuel cycle manufacturing or processing installation and (c) nuclear materials in transit resulting in the release of radiation; and how the levels of liability have been calculated. [5729]

  Mr. Page
  Under United Kingdom law, where third party damage or injury is caused as a result of a nuclear incident at a nuclear site or involving nuclear materials in transit, the UK operator is liable to pay compensation up to a liability limit of £140 million. The limit, which is kept under review, is in line with the recommendation of the nuclear energy agency of the OECD and takes account of the level of commercial insurance cover available.

  As a result of the UK's membership of the Paris and Brussels conventions, further public funds and international funds are available, up to a maximum of 300 special drawing rights of the International Monetary Fund—approximately £280 million. If claims exceed this latter figure, additional compensation may be provided by Parliament to the extent that it shall determine.

  In line with the Paris convention, compensation is available for damage to persons and property. This would include the costs of environmental restoration and clean up, where there is damage to property, in accordance with normal UK civil law principles as to the assessment of damage.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received(a) by letter and (b) otherwise from opponents of arms sales, since 2 December. [8251]

  Mr. Nelson
  I regularly receive representations from opponents of arms sales. Those concerning aspects of policy for which my Department is not responsible are directed to the appropriate Department.

  World Trade Organisation Meeting (Singapore)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how he will report back from the World Trade Organisation review in Singapore in December. [7895]

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will report to the House in due course on the outcome of the World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting, which is taking place in Singapore from 9 to 13 December.

  Defence Companies (Corporate Governance)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received on the export provisions of the corporate governance material issued by British defence companies. [8612]

  Mr. Nelson
  No such representations have been received.

  Digital Broadcasting
  Mr. Renton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress he has made in finalising regulations to require BSkyB to license its decoder box and other associated digital technology to other broadcasters. [8319]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 11 December 1996]: The final consultation on the regulations which will apply when conditional access services for digital television start, late next year, was completed on 11 December. The draft regulations ensure that whoever establishes a population of set-top boxes, all broadcasters will be able to gain access on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. We will now make the final regulations available to Parliament for consideration before the recess. Subject to parliamentary approval, they will come into force within 21 calendar days.

  Regulations covering the licensing of industrial property for conditional access technology came into force on 23 August this year. These oblige companies who license one manufacturer to build set-up boxes to consider applications from other manufacturers for similar licensing of the same industrial property. Any decision not to permit such licensing would have to be based on fair and transparent grounds, and could be challenged directly in the courts. To go beyond this, to require compulsory licensing of intellectual property rights, would be an extreme step, which the United Kingdom would contemplate only if no other action to tackle anti-competitive behaviour was available. Given that the digital television market is still at a very early stage, with no services being offered before next year, it would be premature to reach such a conclusion.

SCOTLAND

  Gourock Ropeworks
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed the matters relating to the demolition of the Gourock ropeworks, Port Glasgow with representatives of(a) Historic Scotland and (b) Inverclyde council; and if he will make a statement. [7929]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Historic Scotland is an executive agency within the Scottish Office and reports to my right hon. Friend on built heritage matters. My right hon. Friend has not been in direct discussion with Inverclyde council about the Gourock ropeworks.

  An application for listed building consent to demolish the ropeworks was passed by Inverclyde district council to Historic Scotland in March of this year. Following careful consideration, my right hon. Friend decided not to call in the application for his own determination. Inverclyde council was informed on 30 August that it was thus free

  329
  to determine the application itself. I understand that listed building consent for demolition, subject to conditions, has now been issued by the council.

  Mental Illness Specific Grant
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 26 November,Official Report, column 162, who is carrying out the evaluation of the effectiveness of the mental illness specific grant and the advisability of alternative funding arrangements; when he expects to receive the report of this assessment; and if he will make a statement. [7941]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Nuffield centre for community care studies at Glasgow university was commissioned to undertake an evaluation of the grant. The draft final report has been sent to the Scottish Office.330
  It is expected that the final report will be submitted early in 1997. Future arrangements will be considered in light of the findings of that study, the social work services inspectorate report on day services for people with mental illness, the views of the Scottish Affairs Committee on the closure of psychiatric hospitals in Scotland and analysis of monitoring returns from all projects.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many drivers have been prosecuted for allowing a child under 14 years to travel in a vehicle without wearing a seat belt or legal restraint in Scotland in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [8230]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him yesterday regarding the prosecution of seat belt offences.

WALES

  NHS Administration
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the NHS budget was spent on administration in(a) 1988 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [8108]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The proportion of the NHS budget in Wales spent on administration in 1988–89 and 1995–96 was about 6 per cent. and 7 per cent. respectively.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total grant made by the Welsh Office to the Welsh Development Agency; and how much of this grant was spent in advertising in England to encourage companies to relocate in Wales, in the last year for which information is available. [8106]

  Mr. Hague
  Total central Government provision to the Welsh Development Agency in 1995–96 was £29.515 million.

  The guidelines covering the agency's inward investment function and marketing activity specifically state that it should not actively encourage relocations to Wales from any part of the United Kingdom. Where, however, companies approach the agency for help with relocation projects, the agency should seek to establish that such projects have the potential to provide net additional benefits for the United Kingdom economy and not just for Wales.

  Staff in post (whole-time equivalent numbers)1

  Administrative and clerical staff3

  Managers

  Region/Organisation2

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  North Wales

  Clwydian Community Care NHS Trust

  336

  330

  335

  343

  53

  54

  52

  56

  Glan Clwyd Hospital NHS Trust

  298

  297

  315

  347

  27

  29

  28

  31

  Gwynedd Community Health NHS Trust

  —

  256

  265

  281

  —

  23

  25

  30

  Gwynedd Hospitals NHS Trust

  —

  296

  293

  284

  —

  14

  9

  8

  North Wales Ambulance NHS Trust

  —

  34

  51

  55

  —

  6

  11

  13

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital NHS Trust

  260

  267

  275

  301

  27

  30

  32

  32

  Clwyd DHA/FHSA

  188

  159

  147

  —

  40

  35

  37

  —

  Gwynedd DHA/FHSA

  705

  87

  89

  —

  74

  28

  27

  —

  North Wales Health Authority

  —

  —

  —

  168

  —

  —

  —

  56

  Total

  1,787

  1,727

  1,770

  1,779

  221

  218

  221

  225

  Mid and West Wales

  Carmarthen and District NHS Trust

  216

  221

  225

  244

  21

  22

  24

  24

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS Trust

  123

  129

  134

  139

  16

  20

  21

  26

  Derwen NHS Trust

  —

  131

  132

  125

  —

  19

  20

  14

  Llanelli Dinefwr NHS Trust

  149

  142

  146

  146

  17

  19

  22

  21

  Pembrokeshire NHS Trust

  275

  255

  256

  268

  21

  17

  17

  17

  Powys Healthcare NHS Trust

  233

  221

  195

  205

  37

  37

  31

  22

  332
  Expenditure on advertising is an operational matter for the agency under its acting chief executive. I have therefore asked the acting chief executive to write to the hon. Member with details of the agency's advertising expenditure in 1995–96. I shall arrange for a copy of the reply to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Health Service Staff
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) general practitioners, (b) nurses and (c) auxiliary staff there are currently in Wales. [8173]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest available information is as follows:

  At 29 March 1996 there were 1,850 general practitioners in Wales, of which 1,726 were unrestricted principals.

  At 30 June 1996 there were 24,848 whole-time equivalent nursing and midwifery staff directly employed by health authorities and NHS trusts in Wales. In addition there were 622 whole-time equivalent nurses employed by general medical practitioners at 1 October 1995.

  At 30 June 1996 there were 5,832 whole-time equivalent ancillary staff directly employed by health authorities and NHS trusts in Wales.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the overall number of(a) administrative staff, (b) managerial staff, (c) nurses, (d) junior doctors and (e) other medical staff employed in each region in Wales for each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [7486]

  Mr. Hague
  As the information is not available on a consistent geographical basis for the years requested, figures are provided for each organisation in Wales. For convenience these organisations have been grouped into three broad areas as shown in the following table. Information for nurses is not available separately from midwifery staff.
  333

  Staff in post (whole-time equivalent numbers)1

  Administrative and clerical staff3

  Managers

  Region/Organisation2

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Dyfed DHA/FHSA

  303

  149

  136

  —

  48

  39

  36

  —

  Powys DHA/FHSA

  62

  58

  57

  —

  15

  16

  16

  —

  Dyfed Powys Health Authority

  —

  —

  —

  139

  —

  —

  —

  48

  Total

  1,360

  1,307

  1,280

  1,268

  175

  189

  187

  172

  South Wales

  Bridgend and District NHS Trust

  336

  349

  362

  396

  32

  39

  40

  45

  Cardiff Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  429

  323

  343

  361

  36

  31

  45

  44

  East Glamorgan NHS Trust

  213

  240

  262

  286

  17

  20

  23

  26

  Glan Hafren NHS Trust

  586

  600

  614

  662

  56

  67

  61

  80

  Glan-y-Mor NHS Trust

  —

  —

  410

  411

  —

  —

  30

  33

  Gwent Community Health NHS Trust

  309

  309

  323

  301

  49

  58

  69

  58

  Llandough Hospital and Community NHS Trust

  338

  340

  357

  384

  72

  72

  78

  80

  Mid Glamorgan Ambulance NHS Trust

  —

  49

  51

  55

  —

  32

  36

  36

  Morriston Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  282

  361

  365

  —

  22

  38

  32

  Nevill Hall and District NHS Trust

  202

  194

  196

  204

  18

  18

  20

  20

  North Glamorgan NHS Trust

  265

  273

  272

  327

  13

  20

  24

  36

  Rhondda Healthcare NHS Trust

  154

  166

  181

  200

  17

  20

  29

  31

  S and E Wales Ambulance NHS Trust7

  56

  52

  64

  58

  27

  25

  25

  38

  Swansea NHS Trust

  247

  249

  263

  275

  15

  17

  17

  22

  University Dental Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  44

  54

  53

  —

  4

  4

  2

  UHW Healthcare NHS Trust

  318

  910

  931

  947

  72

  93

  108

  98

  Velindre NHS Trust8

  —

  62

  67

  108

  —

  11

  12

  18

  West Wales Ambulance NHS Trust9

  —

  —

  57

  99

  —

  —

  6

  16

  Gwent DHA/FHSA

  165

  143

  123

  —

  30

  30

  30

  —

  Mid Glamorgan DHA/FHSA

  327

  255

  201

  —

  53

  43

  40

  —

  South Glamorgan DHA/FHSA

  317

  261

  202

  —

  52

  51

  43

  —

  West Glamorgan DHA/FHSA

  920

  609

  137

  —

  78

  59

  24

  —

  Bro Taf Health Authority

  —

  —

  —

  248

  —

  —

  —

  88

  Gwent Health Authority

  —

  —

  —

  126

  —

  —

  —

  32

  lechyd Morgannwg Health Authority

  —

  —

  —

  123

  —

  —

  —

  33

  Total

  5,683

  5,710

  5,831

  5,989

  636

  732

  802

  866

  Other Health Authorities10

  1,252

  1,161

  991

  734

  128

  153

  141

  116

  See notes in col. 337.

  Nursing and midwifery staff4

  Junior doctors5

  Region/Organisation2

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  North Wales

  Clwydian Community Care NHS Trust

  1,537

  1,523

  1,415

  1,443

  16

  17

  18

  —

  Glan Clwyd Hospital NHS Trust

  870

  881

  893

  928

  81

  87

  83

  —

  Gwynedd Community Health NHS Trust

  —

  1,111

  1,109

  1,140

  —

  9

  8

  —

  Gwynedd Hospitals NHS Trust

  —

  857

  859

  856

  —

  90

  102

  —

  North Wales Ambulance NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital NHS Trust

  837

  861

  887

  927

  83

  82

  81

  —

  Clwyd DHA/FHSA

  83

  84

  65

  —

  2

  2

  1

  —

  Gwynedd DHA/FHSA

  2,049

  36

  26

  —

  104

  —

  1

  —

  North Wales Health Authority

  —

  —

  —

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  5,377

  5,353

  5,255

  5,304

  286

  286

  294

  —

  Mid and West Wales

  Carmarthen and District NHS Trust

  581

  585

  582

  608

  47

  49

  46

  —

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS Trust

  419

  415

  398

  389

  22

  22

  21

  —

  Derwen NHS Trust

  —

  483

  457

  465

  —

  15

  14

  —

  Llanelli Dinefwr NHS Trust

  523

  533

  530

  530

  28

  26

  25

  —

  Pembrokeshire NHS Trust

  760

  725

  701

  704

  44

  44

  47

  —

  Powys Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,009

  995

  914

  917

  5

  4

  2

  —

  Dyfed DHA/FHSA

  538

  7

  5

  —

  18

  2

  1

  —

  Powys DHA/FHSA

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Dyfed Powys Health Authority

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  3,831

  3,743

  3,587

  3,614

  164

  163

  157

  —

  334 335

  Nursing and midwifery staff4

  Junior doctors5

  Region/Organisation2

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  South Wales

  Bridgend and District NHS Trust

  1,678

  1,726

  1,767

  1,751

  64

  72

  74

  —

  Cardiff Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,305

  1,160

  1,179

  1,182

  39

  36

  41

  —

  East Glamorgan NHS Trust

  716

  733

  747

  717

  72

  82

  74

  —

  Glan Hafren NHS Trust

  2,079

  1,875

  1,835

  1,907

  166

  156

  168

  —

  Glan-y-Mor NHS Trust

  —

  —

  1,496

  1,433

  —

  —

  63

  —

  Gwent Community Health NHS Trust

  1,273

  1,250

  1,216

  1,178

  19

  21

  21

  —

  Llandough Hospital and Community NHS Trust

  764

  781

  890

  928

  77

  82

  84

  —

  Mid Glamorgan Ambulance NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Morriston Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  1,006

  1,118

  1,180

  —

  99

  110

  —

  Nevill Hall and District NHS Trust

  743

  728

  735

  726

  52

  54

  59

  —

  North Glamorgan NHS Trust

  1,052

  1,045

  1,030

  1,082

  75

  71

  65

  —

  Rhondda Healthcare NHS Trust

  723

  713

  685

  727

  4

  6

  4

  —

  S and E Wales Ambulance NHS Trust7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Swansea NHS Trust

  809

  778

  815

  864

  68

  78

  89

  —

  University Dental Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  9

  8

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UHW Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,154

  2,282

  2,076

  2,059

  331

  330

  342

  —

  Velindre NHS Trust8

  —

  86

  97

  103

  —

  10

  13

  —

  West Wales Ambulance NHS Trust9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent DHA/FHSA

  70

  66

  14

  —

  2

  3

  1

  —

  Mid Glamorgan DHA/FHSA

  220

  162

  19

  —

  17

  4

  2

  —

  South Glamorgan DHA/FHSA

  136

  99

  19

  —

  6

  3

  3

  —

  West Glamorgan DHA/FHSA

  2,413

  1,551

  64

  —

  138

  68

  2

  —

  Bro Taf Health Authority

  —

  —

  —

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent Health Authority

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lyechyd Morgannwg Health Authority

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  16,136

  16,050

  15,808

  15,864

  1,129

  1,175

  1,214

  —

  Other Health Authorities10

  77

  73

  79

  67

  —

  —

  —

  —

  See notes in col. 337.

  Other medical staff6

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Region/Organisation2

  North Wales

  Clwydian Community Care NHS Trust

  41

  43

  41

  —

  Glan Clwyd Hospital NHS Trust

  69

  73

  87

  —

  Gwynedd Community Health NHS Trust

  —

  32

  31

  —

  Gwynedd Hospitals NHS Trust

  —

  75

  81

  —

  North Wales Ambulance NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital NHS Trust

  57

  59

  65

  —

  Clwyd DHA/FHSA

  4

  6

  6

  —

  Gwynedd DHA/FHSA

  107

  4

  6

  —

  North Wales Health Authority

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  278

  292

  317

  —

  Mid and West Wales

  Carmarthen and District NHS Trust

  46

  49

  55

  —

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS Trust

  29

  28

  32

  —

  Derwen NHS Trust

  —

  14

  11

  —

  Llanelli Dinefwr NHS Trust

  37

  38

  42

  —

  Pembrokeshire NHS Trust

  49

  49

  48

  —

  Powys Healthcare NHS Trust

  35

  36

  36

  —

  Dyfed DHA/FHSA

  19

  5

  5

  —

  Powys DHA/FHSA

  3

  3

  3

  —

  Dyfed Powys Health Authority

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  217

  223

  234

  —

  336

  Other medical staff6

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  South Wales

  Bridgend and District NHS Trust

  71

  73

  79

  —

  Cardiff Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  45

  34

  33

  —

  East Glamorgan NHS Trust

  51

  60

  61

  —

  Glan Hafren NHS Trust

  110

  124

  132

  —

  Glan-y-Mor NHS Trust

  —

  —

  62

  —

  Gwent Community Health NHS Trust

  42

  46

  45

  —

  Llandough Hospital and Community NHS Trust

  39

  39

  46

  —

  Mid Glamorgan Ambulance NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Morriston Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  69

  69

  —

  Nevill Hall and District NHS Trust

  42

  45

  48

  —

  North Glamorgan NHS Trust

  52

  51

  53

  —

  Rhondda Healthcare NHS Trust

  26

  29

  33

  —

  S and E Wales Ambulance NHS Trust7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Swansea NHS Trust

  56

  58

  67

  —

  University Dental Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  1

  1

  —

  UHW Healthcare NHS Trust

  157

  164

  160

  —

  Velindre NHS Trust8

  —

  9

  8

  —

  West Wales Ambulance NHS Trust9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent DHA/FHSA

  4

  4

  5

  —

  Mid Glamorgan DHA/FHSA

  4

  4

  5

  —

  South Glamorgan DHA/FHSA

  9

  7

  9

  —

  West Glamorgan DHA/FHSA

  136

  77

  5

  —

  Bro Taf Health Authority

  —

  —

  —

  —

  337

  Other medical staff6

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Gwent Health Authority

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Iechyd Morgannwg Health Authority

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  843

  894

  920

  —

  Other Health Authorities

  14

  10

  10

  —

  1 At 30 September for 1993 to 1995 and 30 June 1996.

  2 Organisations are listed under the name they had at 30 June 1996. Organisational changes mean that figures for some individual organisations are not comparable over all the years given.

  3 Including managers (staff paid on manager payscales).

  4 Excludes pre-registration learners.

  5 Senior registrars, registrars, senior house officers and house officers working in the community or public health service.

  6 Consultants, staff grades, associate specialists, hospital practitioners and clinical assistants working in the community or public health service but excluding general medical practitioners.

  7 Includes staff formerly employed in the Powys ambulance service.

  8 Data for 1996 include staff employed by Breast Test Wales which was previously included with Welsh Health Common Services staff.

  9 Includes staff formerly employed in the East Dyfed ambulance service.

  10 Staff employed in Welsh Health Common Services Authority and Health Promotion Wales.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many young people have started accelerated modern apprenticeships in Wales, by local authority. [8525]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the number of young people who have started on accelerated modern apprenticeships in each of the training and enterprise council areas of Wales are detailed in the following table:

  Cumulative starts on accelerated modern apprenticeships by TEC area as at 10 November 1996

  Name of training and enterprise council

  Starts on accelerated modern apprenticeships

  Gwent

  192

  Mid Glamorgan

  135

  North-east Wales

  308

  North-west Wales

  94

  Powys

  37

  South Glamorgan

  161

  West Wales

  337

  Wales total

  1,264

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was his Department's initial forecast of the number of places available on accelerated modern apprenticeships in Wales. [8526]

  Mr. Evans
  The departmental report published in March 1995 estimated that 1,000 young people would enter accelerated modern apprenticeships in 1995–96, the first year of the programme. In the event, 850 places were contracted with the Welsh TECs for that year and 843 young people commenced training. Planning assumptions for 1996–7 and 1997–8 are for around 1,100 new starts in each year, but as indicated in the departmental report,338
  published in March 1996, in practice the balance between accelerated modern apprenticeships and modern apprenticeships will vary according to local demands.

  Cwmcarn Grant-maintained School
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many objections he received to proposals to establish a sixth form at Cwmcarn grant-maintained school; how many of those objectives were from(a) individuals and (b) organisations; and if he will list those organisations; [8347]

  (2) how many pupils are required at a school for it to be granted sixth form status; and what guidance on this his Department has issued; [8529]

  (3) what consultations he undertook before granting Cwmcarn grant-maintained school sixth form status. [8354]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Eight objections were received to the published proposal of 15 January 1996, all of which were from organisations. They were:

  The former Gwent local education authority

  Risca comprehensive school

  Blackwood comprehensive school

  Pontllanfraith comprehensive school

  Oakdale comprehensive school

  Newbridge comprehensive school

  Gwent tertiary college

  Further Education Funding Council for Wales.

  Each proposal is considered on its merits and in the light of guidance in Welsh Office circular 13/95, "The Supply of School Places", a copy of which is in the Library. No particular number of pupils is required for sixth form status. My. right hon. Friend is not required to undertake consultations on statutory proposals.

  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to publish the audited accounts of Cwmcarn grant-maintained school. [8348]

  Mr. Evans
  My right hon. Friend does not publish the audited accounts of grant-maintained schools. It is for the schools' governing bodies to ensure that the accounts are available at the school for inspection by any member of the public.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of meningitis among Cardiff students have been reported since 28 September; and if he will list the location at which each sufferer was first diagnosed, indicating the date. [8727]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There have been seven cases of meningococcal infection, including both meningitis and septicaemia forms of the disease, reported amongst
  339
  Cardiff students since 28 September 1996. Details are given in the following table.

  Cases of meningococcal infection among Cardiff students

  Case number

  Hospital

  Date admitted

  Date diagnosed1

  1

  Royal Gwent, Newport

  16 October 1996

  16 October 1996

  2

  University Hospital of Wales

  16 November 1996

  16 November 1996

  3

  University Hospital of Wales

  26 November 1996

  28 December 1996

  4

  University Hospital of Wales

  28 November 1996

  28 December 1996

  5

  University Hospital of Wales

  27 November 1996

  29 November 1996

  6

  University Hospital of Wales

  29 November 1996

  29 November 1996

  7

  University Hospital of Wales

  2 December 1996

  25 December 1996

  1 Refers to the date of clinical diagnosis as cases may not be microbiologically confirmed until several days later.

  2 Admitted for observation and commenced on treatment as a precautionary measure from 2 December 1996.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of meningitis that have occurred in Wales since 20 September his Department assessed to have been(a) part of a cluster and (b) isolated instances. [8798]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There have been 44 notified cases of meningococcal infection, including both meningitis and septicaemia, reported to the communicable disease surveillance centre, Wales since 20 September 1996. There has been one reported cluster. This centred around the university halls, Penylan, Cardiff. A cluster is usually understood as more than one case reported, in a single setting, in a short period of time.

  Sea Empress
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent research his Department has evaluated into the effects in the(a) short, (b) medium and (c) long-term on the health and welfare of flora and fauna arising from the accident involving the discharge of oil from the Sea Empress tanker in February. [8800]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My right hon. Friend has established the Sea Empress environmental evaluation committee to assess the environmental consequences of the oil spill. A research programme is being taken forward and a final report is expected in 1997.

  Village Hall Repairs
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he has made to existing grant schemes to enable local groups to obtain funding for substantial repairs to village halls. [9282]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  In order to fulfil the commitment given in the White Paper, "A Working Countryside for Wales", I have reconsidered the future of 340
  the £472,000 budget for the voluntary youth services, village halls and community centres scheme and have decided to pass the management of it to the Wales Council for Voluntary Action—WCVA. Most of the money will be used towards the match funding of a £5.6 million grant the WCVA has secured from the Millennium Commission for its project, 21st century halls for Wales. The project will fund improvements to or the rebuilding of around 50 community halls which will then stand as beacons of good practice. A small proportion will be reserved to provide an advice service for all village and community hall committees.

DEFENCE

  Hawk Aircraft
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's role in the licensing for export by United Kingdom manufacturers of Hawk(a) attack and (b) trainer aircraft; and what different provisions apply to the two types of Hawk. [8613]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department advises the Department of Trade and Industry on various aspects of export licensing. These include the legitimate defence requirements of the recipient, the effect on regional stability and the risk of use against United Kingdom forces. These provisions apply to all export licence applications referred to the MOD.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what aircraft types are permitted to carry out air-to-air refuelling at the lowest notified altitudes in areas 10 and 12. [8602]

  Mr. Soames
  RAF tankers Tristar, VC10K and VC10 C Mk1K and receiver aircraft VC10, Hercules, Tornado, Harrier, Sea Harrier, Jaguar, Nimrod and Sentry are permitted to carry out air-to-air refuelling exercises at the lowest notified altitudes in areas 10 and 12.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations of breaches of low flying regulations in each year since 1992; and in each case what disciplinary action was taken against the aircrew responsible. [8522]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of breaches in 1992 are not recorded centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Details of breaches and disciplinary action taken for 1993 are given in the seventh report of the Defence Committee, HC 314, "Low Flying; Follow-up to the Fifth Report of Session 1989–90", Session 1993–94, on low flying, pages 35 to 36, and in the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 5 December 1994,Official Report, column 112. I refer the hon. Member to the answers that I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 22 November 1995, Official Report, column 1042 and to the hon. Member for Meirionydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on 18 April 1996, Official Report, column 578, for 1994 and 1995. The following additional breaches of low flying regulations in 1995 have

  341
  been confirmed by RAF police investigations since the latter date and, unless stated otherwise, a lateral breach of the avoidance area listed occurred in each case.

  Date

  Location

  Numbers and types of A/C

  Nationality

  Nature of breach

  22 May

  Billinge, Lancs.

  1 × Tornado

  TTTE

  Unauthorised flight within LFA8 of the UKLFS

  21 September

  Full Sutton E. York.

  3 × Hercules

  Belgian Air Force

  Full Sutton Airfield avoidance area

  21 September

  Full Sutton

  3 × Hercules

  Belgian Air Force

  Unauthorised flight within LFA11 of the UKLFS

  21 November

  Bicester, Oxon

  1 × F15

  USAF

  Overflew Bicester, a town listed for avoidance

  20 December

  Caerlaverock, Dumfries and Galloway

  1 × Tornado

  RAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  In the case where the nationality is shown as 711"1'E, the aircraft came from the tai-national Tornado training establishment at RAF Cottesmore which trains aircrew of the Royal Air Force, German air force and Italian air force using aircraft provided by all three nations.

  Formal disciplinary action under the service discipline Acts has been taken in one of the cases listed above. The pilot of the Tornado responsible for the breach at Billinge, Lancashire on 22 May was dealt with under summary procedures and pleaded guilty to one charge, contrary to section 69 of the Air Force Act 1955, of conduct to the prejudice of good order and Air Force discipline for which he was reprimanded and fined.

  In cases involving UK aircrew where formal disciplinary action is not appropriate, individuals may be interviewed by their station commander or other appropriate senior officer. Such action could be recorded on individual's career records and affect flying status and promotion prospects, but it is not our policy to release details of such action. It is also the responsibility of senior officers to ascertain what lessons can be learnt from such incidents. Central records are not maintained.

  Reports on breaches by foreign aircrew are passed to the relevant national authorities, with whom responsibility for any further action rests.

  Details of confirmed breaches for 1996 have yet to be collated.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the maximum manoeuvres permitted by a military aircraft which is subjected to(a) a pre-briefed and (b) an unbriefed interception by a fighter aircraft in the United Kingdom airspace while flying (i) in the military low flying system (ii) between 2,000 and 5,000 ft and (iii) above 5,000 ft. [8603]

  Mr. Soames
  The maximum manoeuvres permitted vary according to the type of military aircraft being flown.
  342
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have been made since August 1995 to flow control in the low flying system in the area between Northampton and Sywell airfield; and what were the reasons for those changes. [8588]

  Mr. Soames
  Due to the urban expansion of Northampton north-eastwards towards Northampton/Sywell airfield, the area between these locations is no longer available for military low flying and the unidirectional flow has therefore been removed.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have been made since August 1995 to flow control in the low flying system in the area between Doncaster and Sandtoft airfield; and what were the reasons for those changes. [8601]

  Mr. Soames
  Following the closure of the military air traffic zone around RAF Finningley on 1 October 1995, a north-north-westerly unidirectional flow was introduced in the gap between the Sheffield transit area and Sandtoft airfield to improve flight safety at low level.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions are contained in the "UK Military Low Flying Handbook" concerning the use by aircrew transiting the gap between Newcastle and Spadeadam of an air traffic radar service from RAF Spadeadam. [8589]

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have been made since August 1995 to flow control in the low flying system in the Bedford area; and what was the reasons for those changes. [8591]

  Mr. Soames
  Due to a reduction in the amount of controlled airspace around Bedford airfield, airspace to the north of Bedford town became available for military low flying. To improve flight safety at low level, a westerly unidirectional flow was introduced between these two locations.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to publish the results of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency study of the probability of mid-air collisions in the low-level airspace; and when. [8599]

  Mr. Soames
  We will respond to the air accidents investigation branch—AAIB—once we have received DERA's report and have had the opportunity to consider it fully. Our response to the AAIB will be a matter of public record.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates of those accidents to Jaguar, Harrier and Tornado aircraft since 1990 which the subsequent inquiry concluded would have been prevented if ground proximity warning systems had been fitted to the aircraft. [8586]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not possible to report which accidents might have been avoided by installation of a ground proximity warning system as such hypothetical assessments fall outside the terms of reference of RAF boards of inquiry.
  343
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have been made since August 1995 to the structure of the low flying system in the Salisbury plain area; and what were the reasons for those changes. [8592]

  Mr. Soames
  The previous boundaries of low flying areas 1A, 1B and IC used a mixture of geographic features and lines of latitude and longitude to delineate the areas. Changes were made in April and August 1996 so that significant line features such as the M4, A34, A41 (T) and other roads were adopted as boundaries to facilitate the management and conduct of low-level helicopter operations.

  Sea Harrier Collision
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the mid-air collision 19 September between a Royal Navy Sea Harrier and a Dutch F-16; and what plans he has to issue a summary of the inquiry report on this accident. [8598]

  Mr. Soames
  On 19 September 1996, a Royal Navy Sea Harrier and a Dutch F-16 touched in mid-air while conducting air combat training manoeuvres off Portland Bill. This resulted in damage to the nose of the Sea Harrier and to the tail of the F-16. Neither pilot sustained injuries, and both aircraft recovered safely to RNAS Yeovilton.

  A board of inquiry was convened to investigate the incident in conjunction with the Dutch authorities. Once this process is complete, a summary of the findings of the board of inquiry will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much his Department will spend on Christmas trees and decorations this year; how many Christmas trees will be bought for his Department's headquarters; and what are the type and country of origin of the trees; [7569]

  (2) how much his Department plans to spend on celebrating Christmas and the new year. [7584]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 6 December 1996]: About £1,300 is to be spent on official Christmas cards. There will also be some associated postage costs. There are otherwise no plans for official expenditure on Christmas and the new year.

  Overseas Police Training
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, for each year since 1980, those overseas countries in which police forces have received support for training from his budget. [8026]

  Mr. Soames
  Records of training provided in the UK were not held centrally before September 1993 and information before that date is incomplete. There is no record of UK training of civilian police forces being funded by my Department since that date, although training has been carried out, funded either by other Government Departments or the countries themselves.
  344
  Detailed records of training provided overseas are not maintained centrally. However, from the early 1980s until 30 June 1996, my Department did part-fund loan service personnel in the Caribbean who, among other duties, provided training for police special service units in Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Caribbean Dependent Territories. Since June the training, though still conducted by members of the armed forces, has been wholly funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Convicted Service Men (Cyprus)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome of the case of the three British service men convicted of manslaughter of the Danish tour guide in Cyprus. [8516]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 26 November 1996,Official Report, columns 199–200.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was his Department's total contribution to the defence costs of three British troops based in Cyprus who were convicted of the manslaughter of a Danish tour guide; and if he will make a statement; [8698]

  (2) if he will list what payments his Department is making to each of the three British service men who are at present serving a life sentence for the manslaughter of the Danish tour guide in Cyprus. [8724]

  Mr. Soames
  There has been no change in the position outlined in my answers of 20 May 1996,Official Report, column 52, and 4 June 1996, Official Report, column 334.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the terms of the discharge from the British Army that were given to the three British service men convicted of the manslaughter of the Danish tour guide in Cyprus. [8640]

  Mr. Soames
  The three individuals were discharged in April this year under paragraph 9.404 of Queen's Regulations for the Army for misconduct having been sentenced by a civil court to imprisonment.

  RAF Spadeadam
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if military aircraft inbound to the RAF Spadeadam range at low level from the east are permitted to cross the area of directional flow control west of Newcastle in a westerly direction(a) while receiving a radar advisory service from RAF Spadeadam and (b) when not in receipt of any air traffic service. [8587]

  Mr. Soames
  No. Compliance with flow arrows is mandatory for all low military aircraft, except helicopters flying below 250 feet above ground level, irrespective of whether they are receiving a radar advisory service.

  Canadian Forces Base, Goose Bay
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates of deployment and units involved for each deployment of non-flying units to Canadian forces base, Goose bay in 1995 and 1996; and what plans he has for further non-flying unit training deployments to Goose bay. [8595]
  345
  Mr. Soames
  Dates of deployment and units involved for each deployment of non-flying units to Goose bay in 1995 and 1996 are as follows:26 January to 26 February 1995: Composite deployment from various RAF regiment units.
  14 January to 13 February 1996: Composite deployment from various RAF regiment units.

  Plans for further non-flying unit deployments to Goose bay are:
  4 January to 9 January 1997: Composite deployment from elements of 5 Airborne Brigade.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sorties were flown by each Royal Air Force aircraft type at Canadian forces base, Goose bay in 1996. [8593]

  Mr. Soames
  Royal Air Force aircraft have flown 800 training sorties at Goose bay in 1996; 782 of these were by Tornado GR I aircraft and 18 by Hercules aircraft.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the squadrons which carried out training at Canadian forces base, Goose bay in 1996; and what were the deployment dates for each squadron. [8594]

  Mr. Soames
  The information on flying squadron deployments is as follows:

  Number 47 Squadron: 14 January to 20 January 1996

  Number IX Squadron: 12 April to 3 May 1996

  Number 617 Squadron: 3 May to 24 May 1996

  Number 17 Squadron: 24 May to 14 June 1996

  Number 11 (AC) Squadron: 24 August to 13 September 1996

  Number 14 Squadron: 13 September to 4 October 1996

  Number 13 Squadron: 4 October to 18 October 1996.

  Nimrod Aircrew
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the changes to training, procedures and regulations for Nimrod aircrew following the findings of the board of inquiry into the accident in September 1995. [8597]

  Mr. Soames
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Jaguar Aircraft (Accident)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the accident to Jaguar No. XZ396 in 1995; what was the damage category of the aircraft; at what location repairs were undertaken; and on what date the aircraft re-entered service. [8605]

  Mr. Soames
  As a result of an incident in 1995, Jaguar XZ396 received category 3 damage which was repaired at RAF Coltishall. The aircraft was returned to service on 23 April 1996.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the circumstances of the accident involving a Royal Air Force Jaguar in Alaska on 24 July. [8604]

  Mr. Soames
  The aircraft was participating in Cope Thunder, a major United States air force exercise designed to provide aircrew with the opportunity to develop 346
  advanced tactics and procedures in joint air operations, when it crashed some 40 miles north of Anchorage, Alaska. The pilot ejected safely. An RAF board of inquiry has been convened to determine the cause of this accident and consider what action may be necessary to minimise the risk of recurrence.

  Joint Rapid Deployment Force
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the ability of the JRDF to utilise current British Army communications systems. [8349]

  Mr. Soames
  Units drawn from all three services are assigned to ate joint rapid deployment force and are equipped and trained to use their own communications systems.

  RAF Boulmer
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the capability of RAF Boulmer to provide an air traffic radar service to military aircraft operating at low level over Northumberland. [8590]

  Mr. Soames
  As an air defence unit, RAF Boulmer is neither manned nor equipped to offer an air traffic radar service to military aircraft operating at low level over Northumberland.

  Tornado Aircraft
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of the deployment of Tornados from the 38 fighter-bomber wing, German air force, to RAF Coningsby during January 1996; how many sorties were flown; how many of these were at low level; and how many practice attacks were made on UK ranges. [8606]

  Mr. Soames
  The purpose of the deployment was to conduct a flight trial to test the compatibility of an electronic countermeasures system with the aircraft. A total of seven sorties were flown, none of which was at low level. No practice attacks were made on UK ranges.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement on which United Kingdom airfield is to be the base for Royal Air Force Tornado squadrons relocating from Germany; and what is the planned date for relocation. [8600]

  Mr. Soames
  I hope to make an announcement in the new year about the redeployment of the Tornado squadrons from RAF Bruggen following its closure in 2002.

  Gulf War (Injections)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many injections classified as secret were given to each individual Gulf war service man; [8450]

  (2) how many service men in the Gulf war received injections which were classified as secret and were not listed on the medical documents of each service man; [8452]
  347
  (3) what medical conditions were to be met by the injections given to Gulf war service men and classified as secret. [8451]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 10 December 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the memorandum that I placed in the Library of the House on Tuesday 10 December, which gives details of the Government's vaccination policy during the Gulf conflict.

  Correspondence
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to answer the letter from the hon. Member for Walsall, South of 9 September regarding Mr. M. M. Doyle. [8699]

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State will write to the hon. Member about his constituent's case.

  Land Access Booklet
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning his Department's booklet on access to Ministry of Defence land; how many copies of this booklet were produced; what was the total cost of production; for what reasons it was withdrawn; and if he will make a statement on his future plans for the booklet. [8790]

  Mr. Soames
  A booklet which encourages public access to the defence estate and highlights several walks was issued by my Department earlier this year; 250,000 copies were produced at a total cost of £66,000. It has since been discovered that the third map in the Longmoor section of the booklet incorrectly indicates that two footpaths are available to the public at all times. This is not the case, and in view of the potential implications for public safety the booklet has been withdrawn temporarily. Arrangements are in hand to amend all remaining stocks and to advise members of the public of this, providing amended copies of the booklet where appropriate. Action has also been taken to place additional warning signs at the site to advise members of the public of the correct position.

  Radiation Experiments
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment his Department has recently made of experiments in respect of the effects on human health of exposure to(a) strontium 85, (b) isotopes of radioactive iodine, (c) palladium 103, (d) chromium 51, (e) niobium 92M, (f) barium 133 and (g) plutonium, conducted by (i) his Department, (ii) the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and (iii) the United States Government in conjunction with the United Kingdom Government, since 1956; and if he will make a statement on his Department's current evaluation of research on the effects of radiation exposure on human health; [8614]

  (2) what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the radiotoxicity of (i) methyliodide, (ii) polonium and (iii) calcium 45 and their effects on human health; and if he will set out the conclusions of such experimental research conducted to assess the risks of these radioactive materials. [8611]

  Mr. Soames
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Operation Purple Star
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many British merchant vessels were chartered by Her Majesty's Government for Operation Purple Star; and if he will make a statement. [4333]

  Mr. Soames
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 November 1996, c. 194]: I regret that due to a typographical error the word "No" was omitted from the start of my answer. Despite the rest of the answer it was not absolutely clear, therefore, that no British registered merchant vessels were chartered by my Department to take part in Operation Purple Star.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Peace Process
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Irish Government to discuss the peace process in Northern Ireland. [7325]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I accompanied my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for part of his meeting with Mr. Bruton and Mr. Spring on 9 December.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on recent progress in the all-party talks. [7327]

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest position in the peace process. [7331]

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the latest situation relating to the peace process. [7343]

  Mr. Ancram
  Having agreed the rules of procedure and agenda for the opening plenary the talks are now addressing the issue of decommissioning. We recognise the sensitivities of the issue for participants, but believe early agreement on this and the start of substantive discussions, are now urgent.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the use of referendums in the peace process. [7336]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The Government have given an undertaking to put the final outcome of the current negotiations to the people of Northern Ireland for approval in a referendum. The Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act 1996 includes provision for such a referendum.

  Farming Job Losses
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the number of jobs lost in the farming industry in Northern Ireland as a consequence of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis. [7326]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The industry provides the equivalent of 15,900 full-time jobs in beef cattle enterprises. There are a further 2,850 in beef and sheepmeat processing, and 2,000 to 3,000 in ancillary industries.
  349
  The export ban has had a greater effect on the Northern Ireland industry than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, because 55 per cent. by volume of Northern Ireland beef used to be exported outside the UK. It is not, however, as yet possible to estimate the jobs lost by this cause.

  Beef Production
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the value of beef production in Northern Ireland in 1995–96; and what percentage of this total was sold outside the United Kingdom. [7328]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  In 1995, the last full year for which figures are currently available, the farm-gate value, including subsidies, of beef cattle sold in Northern Ireland was £414.4 million. It is estimated that 56 per cent. of this total was sold outside the United Kingdom.

  Interrogation Procedures
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with(a) the Royal Ulster Constabulary and (b) the Lord Chief Justice on reforming interrogation procedures at Castlereagh; and if he will make a statement. [7330]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Officials in the Northern Ireland Office have been working with the RUC on producing a draft code of practice in connection with the silent video recording of interviews held with terrorist suspects, and we expect to go out to public consultation shortly.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken since 14 November to secure the removal of the ban on Northern Ireland beef exports. [7332]

  Mr. Ancram
  All Agriculture Departments have been working on the details of a certified herds scheme along with European Commission officials.

  BSE-free Herds
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce BSE-free certified herds in Northern Ireland. [7333]

  Mr. Ancram
  Certified herds are specifically referred to by the Florence agreement as a stage in the removal of the export ban. The Agriculture Departments are actively exploring possibilities for a UK-wide certified herds scheme with the Commission so that we can submit formal proposals shortly. We will be pressing for these to be discussed at the earliest opportunity.

  Time on waiting list for surgical specialties

  6 months

  6 to 11 months

  12 to 17 months

  18 to 23 months

  24 months+

  All durations

  General surgery

  2,603

  992

  415

  130

  22

  4,162

  Urology

  1,557

  480

  192

  73

  64

  2,366

  Trauma

  2,301

  1,583

  196

  33

  15

  4,128

  ENT

  2,085

  760

  82

  9

  10

  2,946

  Ophthalmology

  2,284

  1,057

  156

  9

  0

  3,506

  Security Situation
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation. [7334]

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the current security situation in the Province. [7341]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) earlier today.

  Fish (Lough Neagh)
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the redd count of migrating fish in the Lough Neagh catchment area for(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96. [7335]

  Mr. Ancram
  The redd count for salmon in the Lough Neagh catchment area in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 was 42, 73 and 55 respectively. It is not possible to provide migratory trout (dollaghan) redd counts as these are indistinguishable from resident brown trout redds.

  Irish Language
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for improving the educational materials for use in teaching the Irish language. [7337]

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 14 November 1996,Official Report, column 345.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about inward investment in Northern Ireland. [7338]

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 14 November,Official Report, columns 342–43. There has been no significant change in the position and I remain confident about increasing interest shown in Northern Ireland as an investment location.

  Elective Surgery
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the current waiting times for elective surgery for patients in the Eastern health board area. [7340]

  Mr. Moss
  The following table records the number of those waiting for elective admission at 30 September 1996 in surgical specialties with trusts located in the Eastern health and social services board area together with the time spent on the waiting list at that date.
  351

  Time on waiting list for surgical specialties

  6 months

  6 to 11 months

  12 to 17 months

  18 to 23 months

  24 months+

  All durations

  Oral surgery

  337

  144

  49

  22

  12

  564

  Paediatric dentistry

  60

  8

  1

  2

  0

  71

  Neurosurgery

  123

  95

  47

  32

  50

  347

  Plastic surgery

  845

  769

  513

  289

  136

  2,552

  Cardiac surgery

  333

  157

  25

  6

  0

  521

  Paediatric surgery

  490

  334

  244

  132

  141

  1,341

  Thoracic surgery

  102

  46

  22

  13

  0

  183

  Anaesthetics

  301

  153

  57

  1

  3

  515

  Total waiters1

  13,421

  6,578

  1,999

  751

  453

  23,202

  Percentage of total waiters

  57.84

  28.35

  8.62

  3.24

  1.95

  100.00

  1 Includes a total of 351 cases who were awaiting elective admission to surgical specialties having previously self deferred.

  Water Leakages
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated current loss of water in the water supply system in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [7342]

  Mr. Moss
  Total losses of water in the water supply system in Northern Ireland are currently estimated to be 10.95 cu m per kilometre of main per day.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the capability of the Provisional IRA to mount a terrorist campaign. [7344]

  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the current level of IRA terrorist risk. [7329]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Our assessment is that the Provisional IRA is capable of mounting a sustained terrorist campaign both in Northern Ireland and elsewhere and that there is currently a high risk of attack from PIRA. The security forces remain vigilant to prevent such attacks, and have achieved a number of important recent successes.

  Sectarian Killings
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on sectarian killings which have taken place in the last 12 months. [7339]

  Sir John Wheeler
  There have been 17 murders in Northern Ireland between 10 December 1995 and 10 December 1996 arising from the security situation, of which two are believed to have had a purely sectarian motive. These, like all murders, are cruel crimes without any justification, and the Government condemn them unreservedly.

  Every effort will be made to bring those responsible for these and all other crimes to justice. To date, one person has been charged in connection with one of the sectarian murders.

  Traffic (Comber)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the last traffic census was 352
  conducted on roads leading to Comber, County Down; and what is the volume of traffic on each road at Comber. [8336]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Roads Service under its chief executive, Mr. W. J. McCoubrey. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from G. P. Fraser to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 11 December 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked the Chief Executive of Roads Service to reply to your question about volumes of traffic on roads leading to Comber. In the Chief Executive's absence I am responding on his behalf.
  Roads Service has automatic traffic counters which constantly record traffic volumes on three roads leading to Comber. Traffic information from these counters for 1995 was as follows:-

  Location

  Average daily traffic flow

  A21 Newtownards Road

  14,550

  A22 Killyleagh Road

  6,640

  A22 Comber Road, Dundonald

  8,840

  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Manse Road, Castlereagh
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the arrangements for salting Manse road, Castlereagh; what account is taken of whether the road is used by school buses in making such arrangements; what was the cost of salting Manse road(a) in 1995–96 and (b) in 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [8337]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Roads Service under its chief executive, Mr. W. J. McCoubrey. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from G. P. Fraser to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 11 December 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked the Chief Executive of Roads Service to reply to your question about arrangements for salting Manse Road, Castlereagh. In the Chief Executive's absence I am responding on his behalf.
  There are 2 Manse Roads in Castlereagh—the C369 which runs from the Four Winds roundabout to the Ballygowan Road, and the U193 which runs from the Clontonacally Road to the Saintfield Road. During periods of ice and snow the C369 is salted along its

  353
  entire length together with the section of the U 193 from Cadger Road to Saintfield Road. The recent review of the gritted network had no effect on either of these roads.
  While school bus routes are not automatically salted Roads Service applies a weighting factor for buses when assessing the traffic flow on each route. By way of illustration, a 40 seater bus is considered equivalent to 20 cars.
  The estimated cost of salting these roads was as follows:

  Financial year

  C369 £

  U193£

  1995–96

  1,000

  680

  1996–97 (to date)

  380

  260

  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Motor Cyclists
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on changes to driver licensing for motor cyclists in Northern Ireland. [8686]

  Mr. Moss
  Revised licensing arrangements for motor cyclists are being introduced under the second EC directive on the driving licence. The directive, which applies in Northern Ireland on the same basis as in the rest of the United Kingdom, except where required by existing differences in the two licensing systems, requires member states to have two motor cycle driving licence categories and associated tests. These will come into effect on 1 January 1997 by virtue of regulations made by the Department on 21 November 1996.

  The category A test will require a rider to take the driving test on a motor cycle over 120cc but not more than 125cc and capable of a speed of 100 km per hour. On passing the test, a rider will be restricted for two years to motor cycles with a power output of up to 25kW or a power to weight ratio not exceeding 0.16 kW-kg. Thereafter the rider will have access to any size of machine. The existing category A test, which allows a person to take a test on a motor cycle up to 250cc, will continue until 30 June 1997. A rider passing his test on such a machine in this period will have immediate access to any size of machine.

  The sub-category Al test will permit a driving test to be taken on a motorcycle of at least 75cc but not more than 120cc and passing this test will confer entitlement to drive a motorcycle of up to 125cc with a power output not exceeding 11kW.

  A motor cyclist who passes the driving test on an automatic or semi-automatic machine will be restricted to similar machines. The minimum age for driving motorcycles will remain 17.

  Waiting Lists (Royal Victoria Hospital)
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients are on the waiting lists for elective surgery at the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast. [7322]

  Mr. Moss
  At 30 September 1996, which is the latest date for which information is available, 7,036 patients were waiting for elective surgery at the Royal Victoria hospital. Of this number, only 226 or 3.2 per cent. had been waiting more than 18 months.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Publicity
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department has spent on promotional or public information campaigns in each of the last five years; and how much he estimates will be spent on these campaigns during the (i) current and (ii) next financial year. [7533]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table

  Year

  Total spent £

  1991–92

  17,546,566

  1992–93

  19,510,968

  1993–94

  18,333,603

  1994–95

  20,054,914

  1995–96

  20,085,672

  1996–97

  20,209,043

  1 Estimate.

  Child Support Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost to public funds of his Department's nationwide radio advertisement about the Child Support Agency. [7645]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The only nationwide radio advertisements about the Child Support Agency took place around the time of the agency's launch in April 1993. The cost was £107,746 in 1992–93 and £197,268 in 1993–94.

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received on the subject of the reduced earnings allowance; how many of these were in support of the allowance; and if he will make a statement. [7904]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  As at 30 November, the Department had received 263 letters from 155 hon. Members and approximately 300 from individual members of the public and organisations.

  The letters generally have expressed concern or sought clarification.

  National Insurance
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the yield of an additional(a) 0.5 per cent. and (b) 1 per cent. on the top rates of national insurance contributions paid by (i) employees, (ii) employers and (iii) the self-employed, at 1995–96 prices and contribution rates, in the years (1) 2000–01, (2) 2010–11, (3) 2020–21 and (4) 2030–31. [8250]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table:

  Great Britain accruals £ billions in 1995–96 prices

  2000–01

  2010–11

  2010–21

  2030–31

  (a) 0.5 per cent NIC increase

  Employees

  1.20

  1.40

  1.50

  1.55

  Employers1

  1.55

  1.95

  2.35

  2.65

  355

  Great Britain accruals £ billions in 1995–96 prices

  2000–01

  2010–11

  2010–21

  2030–31

  Self-employed2

  0.10

  0.10

  0.10

  0.10

  (b) 1 per cent. NIC increase

  Employees

  2.45

  2.80

  3.05

  3.10

  Employers1

  3.15

  3.95

  4.70

  5.30

  Self-employed2

  0.15

  0.20

  0.20

  0.20

  Notes:

  1 Includes class 1A contributions paid by employers on cars and car fuel.

  2 Increase applies to self-employed class 4 national insurance contributions.

  Class 1 earnings limits and class 4 profits limits assumed to rise in line with prices.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of additional national insurance contribution revenue from employees and employers by 1995–96 if both the lower and upper earnings limits for contribution had been increased annually in relation to earnings since 1979–80. [7897]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Great Britain (accruals)

  £ billions

  Loss in revenue

  1990–91

  -0.85

  1991–92

  -1.15

  1992–93

  -1.45

  1993–94

  -1.55

  1994–95

  -1.90

  1995–96

  -2.35

  Notes:

  1. Assumes that contracted-out rebates in respect of occupational pension schemes apply between the revised lower and upper earnings limits.

  2. Assumes that the three brackets for employers contributions increase in line with the rise in the revised lower earnings limits.

  3. The overall effect would have been a loss of revenue.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans his Department has to monitor the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in relation to indirect discrimination in the provision of goods and services. [7891]

  Mr. Burt
  The Disability Discrimination Act addresses indirect discrimination in two ways. First, the Act states that discrimination occurs when a service provider, for a reason which relates to a disabled person's disability, treats him less favourably than he treats or would treat others to whom that reason does not or would not apply, and that treatment cannot justified.

  Secondly, the Act requires service providers to make reasonable adjustments to make their services more accessible to disabled customers.
  356
  The Government will monitor the Disability Discrimination Act in order to assess its effectiveness in combating discrimination. The National Disability Council will also advise the Government on matters relevant to the elimination of discrimination and the operation of the Act.

  War Widows
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make a statement on his future plans for rent allowances for war widows; [8660]

  (2) how many war widows currently receive rent allowances. [8661]

  Mr. Heald
  The abolition of war widow's rent allowance for future claims has been proposed in a package of simplification measures. On 26 November 1996 a letter giving full details of the proposals was sent to all members of the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions who have until 17 January 1997 to respond. No decision will be taken on this proposal, or any other, until the views of the committee have been fully considered. Existing recipients of rent allowance will be unaffected by the proposal. At the end of September 1996, 1,060 war widows were receiving the allowance.

  War Pensioners
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many war pensioners have been affected by the changes in war pension entitlement to pensioners with less than 20 per cent. hearing impairment since 1993. [8664]

  Mr. Heald
  From April 1993, the date from which figures are first available, to the end of September 1996, a total of 57,176 claims have been received in which the assessment of disablement due to noise induced sensorineural hearing loss was assessed at less than 20 per cent.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of reports from the War Pensions Agency on the success rate of the Royal British Legion in its dealings with war pensioners; and what action he has taken on the basis of his assessment. [8731]

  Mr Heald
  The War Pensions Agency does not maintain records on the success rate of the Royal British Legion in its dealings with war pensioners.

  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will now publish in full the revised medical opinion that determined the Government's proposals to alter in future the rules governing hearing loss deterioration in respect of war pension entitlement. [8732]

  Mr. Heald
  A copy of the texts of the medical advisor's address to the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions and the medical references on which the change in medical opinion is based have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the changes he announced on 5 December to war disability pensions will be implemented. [8848]
  357
  Mr. Heald
  There are two entirely separate and unconnected war pensions changes. The first is a package of measures to simplify the administration of war pensions which, subject to consultation with the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions, will be introduced from 1 April 1997. The second is a change in medical opinion on the effect that noise induced sensorineural hearing loss has on a subsequent hearing loss due to other causes such as aging.

  Assessments made from 16 December 1996 will be based on the new medical opinion. Awards made prior to that date on the basis of the old medical advice will continue. The Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary have decided to use the powers in the dispensing instruments to make awards on the old basis, where claims had been made before 1 March 1996, the date by which the departmental medical adviser considers medical opinion had conclusively changed.

  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what medical peer review procedures were applied to proposed changes to the rules for war disablement claims for deafness. [8729]

  Mr. Heald
  The previous war pensions approach to noise induced sensorineural hearing loss was exceptional in recognising the possibility of an increase in service-related hearing loss after removal from the service noise. To confirm or refute that approach, the scientific and medical basis of noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss was investigated first by studying the scientific literature and then by consultation and discussion with some of the UK's leading clinicians and audiological scientists.

  Experts included departmental regional consultants appointed by the Department's chief medical adviser on the basis of their authority, and senior academics of the Medical Research Council Institutes of Hearing at Nottingham and Glasgow, and audiological scientists at the Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, Southampton.

  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy not to introduce the new rules for war disablement claims until the peer review of the new medical opinion for deafness has been published. [3730]

  Mr. Heald
  Where medical matters need to be determined on a claim for, or application for review of, an award of a war disablement pension, the law requires that part of the claim to be determined by a medical officer appointed by the Secretary of State. The medical officer certifies whether the disablement is due to or aggravated by service in the armed forces, and the degree of disablement due to service. The Secretary of State is required to make payments of war disablement pension in accordance with the certified level of disablement.

  It was previously thought that a service-related noise-induced hearing loss could increase the effect of a subsequent hearing loss due to other causes such as aging. Authoritative medical opinion is now that such interaction does not occur and that the maximum effect of service-related hearing loss is at release from service. Medical officers must apply current medical opinion. For them to do otherwise would be unlawful.
  358
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of the medical evidence on which he has based his decision no longer to grant higher rates of the disability pension in respect of deafness to those already in receipt of war benefit. [8875]

  Mr. Heald
  A copy of the texts of the medical advisor's address to the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions and the medical references on which the change in medical opinion is based have been placed in the Library.

  Housebuilding
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact on employment levels in the housebuilding sector of changes in the national insurance status of operatives; and if he will withdraw the booklet, "Are Your Workers Employed or Self-Employed?" [8325]

  Mr. Heald
  A wide range of representatives bodies from the construction industry, including from the housebuilding industry, were involved in joint consultations with officials from the Department and the Inland Revenue prior to publication of the booklet, which was at the request of the industry. We have continued to consult across the industry and, in response to the issues they raised, published on 19 November a joint Inland Revenue and Contributions Agency press release, copies of which are available in the Library. This detailed the further steps that were being taken to help the construction industry to review the employment status of their workers in line with the same general rules that apply to other industries. We have no plans to withdraw the booklet.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when next he intends to meet housebuilders to discuss the implications of the change in the status from self-employed to employed for national insurance purposes of operatives in the housebuilding industry; and what assessment he has made of the costs which this change will impose on the sector. [8324]

  Mr. Heald
  My hon. Friends the Members for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) and I met representatives of the construction industry on 21 November. The housebuilders were invited to be present or to ensure that their views were represented. The further steps the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency are taking to help the construction industry review the employment status of their workers were discussed and welcomed. Departmental officials will continue to liaise with the industry and keep me advised.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the average pensioner's income for each year since 1979 by decile group. [8802]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.
  359

  Median average net income before housing costs for each decile of the all pensioner units income distribution

  £ per week/July 1994 prices

  Year

  Decile 1

  Decile 2

  Decile 3

  Decile 4

  Decile 5

  Decile 6

  Decile 7

  Decile 8

  Decile 9

  Decile 10

  1979

  51.60

  57.60

  62.30

  65.70

  69.20

  73.20

  79.70

  92.40

  122.70

  209.30

  1981

  54.30

  62.10

  66.20

  69.00

  72.50

  77.20

  83.40

  97.40

  126.50

  229.60

  1987

  56.20

  65.50

  73.00

  77.30

  82.90

  88.80

  98.20

  119.60

  161.20

  294.90

  1988

  54.40

  64.50

  73.10

  76.90

  82.00

  88.20

  100.00

  124.40

  173.40

  323.50

  1989

  52.20

  63.30

  71.50

  76.60

  81.20

  87.00

  100.80

  126.70

  164.60

  304.50

  1990

  55.30

  64.50

  72.00

  76.80

  82.70

  89.40

  106.30

  130.80

  179.30

  329.10

  1990–91

  55.80

  65.50

  73.20

  78.70

  84.50

  93.80

  112.00

  138.90

  187.10

  346.10

  1992

  59.50

  70.40

  79.20

  84.30

  90.60

  101.30

  119.40

  144.80

  248.00

  365.20

  1993

  62.30

  72.20

  82.60

  88.70

  95.30

  104.50

  121.70

  149.70

  188.90

  358.30

  1994–95

  66.20

  75.60

  84.20

  92.50

  99.90

  110.40

  128.30

  150.00

  197.70

  373.10

  Notes:

  1. The estimates refer to all pensioner units. A pensioner unit is defined to be either a single person over state pension age, or a couple where the head, assumed to be the man, is aged over state pension age.

  2. The deciles used are the 10 deciles of the before housing costs equivalised net income distribution for all pensioner units. The estimates of average income for each decile are estimates of the median before housing costs unequivalised net income of that decile. This methodology is that used to create table 5 of the Pensioners' Incomes Series publication. This methodology may create an anomaly as some pensioner units will be in a different equivalised decile from their unequivalised decile, thus making it possible, although unlikely, for a higher equivalised decile to have a lower median unequivalised income.

  3. Due to the use of estimates of unequivalised income, variations in the median income of deciles may reflect changes in the relative numbers of single pensioners and pensioner couples in that decile. As an example, the median income level of a decile may rise due to an increase in the relative numbers of pensioner couples in the decile rather than a general rise in income levels.

  4. Estimates for 1979, 1981, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992 and 1993 refer to that particular calendar year. The estimate for 1990–91 is an estimate based on data from both 1990 and 1991, as part of the 1991 data had to be omitted due to an error arising from the delayed issue of community charge bills. The estimate for 1994–95 refers to the financial year.

  5. Estimates from the pensioners' incomes series are subject to wide margins of error. In particular comparisons of estimates from different years may not give reliable results. It is therefore recommended that estimates are used to indicate trends over time and that year on year comparisons should be avoided.

  Source:

  The Pensioners' Incomes Series 1994–95, which is based mainly on family expenditure survey data. All estimates are pounds per week in July 1994 prices, rounded to the nearest £0.10.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the real increase in pensioner income since 1979 broken down for each decile group. [8801]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Decile of the before housing costs equivalised net income distribution for all pensioner units

  Real growth in median unequivalised income 1979 to 1994–95 (per cent.)

  1

  26

  2

  31

  3

  35

  4

  41

  5

  44

  6

  51

  7

  61

  8

  62

  9

  61

  10

  78

  Notes:

  1. The estimates refer to all pensioner units. A pensioner unit is defined to be either a single person over state pension age, or a couple where the head, assumed to be the man, is aged over state pension age.

  2. The deciles used are the 10 deciles of the before housing costs equivalised net income distribution for all pensioner units. The growth rates for each decile are based on estimates in July 1994 prices for the calendar year 1979 and the financial year 1994–95 of the median before housing costs unequivalised net income of that decile. This methodology is that used to create table 5 of the
  360
  Pensioners' Incomes Series 1994–95 publication. This methodology mar create an anomaly as some pensioner units will be in a different equivalised decile from their unequivalised decile, thus making it possible, although unlikely, for a higher equivalised decile to have a lower median unequivalised income.

  3. Due to the use of estimates of unequivalised income, variations in the median income of deciles may reflect changes in the relative numbers of single pensioners and pensioner couples in that decile. As an example, the median income level of a decile may rise due to an increase in the relative numbers of pensioner couples in the decile rather than a general rise in income levels.

  Source:

  The Pensioners' Incomes Series 1994–95, which is based mainly on family expenditure survey data. All estimates are rounded to the nearest whole percentage point.

  Benefits Agency (Doctors)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to change the criteria currently used for the recruitment of doctors employed by the Benefits Agency. [9137]

  Mr. Burt
  I have today approved proposals for the Benefits Agency to trial new arrangements for the recruitment of full-time medical advisers involved in dealing with claims for incapacity benefit. Operational experience so far has indicated that experience in particular areas of medicine is as important as more general clinical experience of the assessment of capacity for work. The initiative will provide the agency with the opportunity to test out the possibilities of operating some flexibility to ensure a continuing capability to recruit appropriate medical support.
  361
  The trial will take place in Newcastle and in the Manchester and Merseyside area, and involve the recruitment of up to 20 doctors. Applicants will be required to have three years post-registration experience, including at least one year in general practice and at least six months experience of psychiatry or rehabilitation-
  362
  occupational health medicine rather than the current five years general practice experience currently required. All doctors recruited under the trials will undergo the current rigorous training and approval process and receive additional monitoring as part of the evaluation of the trials.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Killearn—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his half brother.

Great Lakes Region, Africa
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their latest evaluation of the humanitarian needs of the Great Lakes region of Africa and what action they are now taking both bilaterally and multi-laterally in the light of it.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, on 18th November the UN Secretary General issued an appeal for £155 million for food aid and for other urgent needs for the next six months. On 21st November the Government of Rwanda circulated a further appeal to meet internal rehabilitation and reconstruction needs. Reported pledges amount to nearly £200 million, including substantial new pledges from the European Union. On 20th November I announced a further British commitment of £10 million.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, will the noble Baroness accept that she has nothing but good will from this side of the House as she endeavours to play her part in grappling with this immense human tragedy, with more than 2 million people across the region still as refugees and displaced persons? Will the Minister also accept that our concern centres on whether emergency supplies are now reaching all those in need and whether additional support is being provided to the Governments of Tanzania and Uganda to help them cope with the burden of refugees and to Rwanda to help with reintegration and reconstruction? Can the noble Baroness tell the House what is being done to curb the killing, especially in Burundi, and whether there are sufficient human rights monitors in place? Above all, can the Minister say what support she and the Government are able to provide to the OAU and to President Nyerere in their efforts to work for a regional solution which must, presumably, encompass both Francophone and Anglophone countries in the region?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that, where we know the location of refugees or displaced persons, emergency supplies are getting through. However, if the estimates are as high as the United Nations Secretary General has suggested—that is, between 300,000 and
1180
700,000 refugees—it is still quite clear that they have not yet all been discovered. Until they have been discovered they cannot be assisted.
The noble Lord also asked about help to Tanzania and other countries which are hosting refugees. That is a well-made point. We are already helping in Tanzania, both for the voluntary return of refugees and, indeed, in Rwanda, where they are mainly returning, to help them settle down. That is why of the £10 million that I announced on 20th November there is £3 million for the human rights operation, not only in Rwanda but also in Burundi. Britain is the largest contributor to that particular and important aspect of need.
As regards the OAU, I have indeed looked with the organisation, on a recent visit to Addis, at how we can help further. We have of course partly funded the office supporting past President Nyerere in all his efforts. There will be a meeting next Monday in Nairobi of the regional heads of government, which I hope will take the voluntary repatriation of refugees still further and ensure that the pipeline of supplies to those who need our help is a sure pipeline which will reach them.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, considering the Tanzanian Government's decision, in their declaration, to make all Rwandan refugees go home by the end of this year, is the Minister doing anything to assist that government to help Rwandan refugees integrate? I ask that question because if the number of refugees—over 700,000—were all to leave within the next three weeks it would cause a humanitarian crisis.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not believe it is feasible that anything like that number of refugees could return to their home countries before the end of December. We have committed over £3 million to help the Tanzanian Government cope with the return of refugees. The most important thing is that there are already reports that Rwandans themselves in Tanzania are making preparations to return. Indeed, 4,000 of them have already returned of their own volition, while others have fled the camps to avoid repatriation. That makes me believe that there will be nothing like the number of refugees that has been announced. The UNHCR is in close consultation with the Government of Tanzania and with the aid agencies in preparing for that return.
It is most important that both the Government of Rwanda and that of Tanzania should work for a staged and orderly return. It is all very well to have target dates; but it is much more important that those people should get back safely and securely and that they are actually able to resettle. That is what we are working for.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether there is any prospect of the countries in the OAU getting together to work out an economic scheme for the development of the Great Lakes region and its economic resources?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think that there is a very firm wish on the part of the OAU

1181
to do just as my noble friend has suggested. However, the difficulty in the OAU at present is that many of its member countries feel that to concentrate just on the Great Lakes region would detract from other areas which need assistance. I can assure my noble friend that the matter is one which is conscientiously being considered both by the senior officers in the OAU and, indeed, by the leaders of the East African countries who are meeting next Monday.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what particular action is being taken in support of British nationals working for the humanitarian agencies assisting not only refugees but also displaced persons in the area?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right to ask that question. The non-governmental organisations and the UN agencies which have many British people working for them are doing a first-class job. One of the difficulties that we will always have is that of ensuring that those who are displaced can return to their original homes. One of the ways in which that is being done by the Government of Rwanda, with the help of human rights monitors from this country and others, is to set up temporary refuges for those who have to leave the places that they have occupied for the past few years so that the returning refugees can go back to their own homes. They are also providing refuges for those who return from other countries until such time as they can be settled. We are putting resources to that through the NGO movement.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, is it not the case that the multinational force could be reinstated for the protection of the non-governmental organisations which would like to locate the refugees in Zaire and discover what condition they are in? Is the Minister aware that in the period up to Christmas many people in this country will be concerned about those hundreds of thousands of refugees? Is she also aware that an Anglo-Norwegian plane sent by the Churches has been sent back and was under fire? That surely proves that the NGOs need better protection.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, while I believe it is absolutely clear that NGOs must register their interests and where they are going before they make flights or any other forays into eastern Zaire, I do not believe that they are in need of troops to be deployed in their defence. The situation has changed greatly over the past four weeks. The situation regarding the Anglo-Norwegian plane is not entirely clear at the present time. We are looking into it. If there is a need for forces on the ground we shall be prepared to give what help is needed. At the present time none of the information from the British Canberra bombers which are flying overhead leads me to believe that we should be deploying troops in this situation.

Trident Nuclear Submarines: Costs
3.11 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the total cost of the Trident nuclear submarine fleet, and how it is likely to be spread over the probable lifetime of the vessels.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, the current estimated cost of procuring the Trident system is £12.2 billion. This represents a real cost saving of £3.4 billion over the original 1982 estimate. It is too early in the programme accurately to assess Trident's running costs but our expectation is that they will average around £200 million per annum over the lifetime of the system; some £6 billion in all.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I did not always catch when he was referring to millions or when he was referring to billions? However, I think I got it right. In any case we can read it in Hansard, can we not? Is the noble Earl aware, as I am sure he is, that the Washington Group, which is a group of high level, professional people in the military area, met recently in Washington in support of the Canberra recommendations for the elimination of nuclear weapons? The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, was also present. Is the noble Earl aware that the group pointed particularly to the high cost of maintaining nuclear weapons and the lack of any necessity of maintaining nuclear weapons on alert? Can the noble Earl give us an assurance that none of our nuclear weapons is maintained on full alert?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe it puts this question into context if I tell the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that over its entire procurement period Trident will have absorbed fewer than 2.5 per cent. of the defence budget. I believe that is a modest percentage in relation to the value of the system. With regard to the Canberra Commission, it is perfectly correct that the report contains a good many ideas with which we agree; for example, the importance of non-proliferation measures in parallel with nuclear arms reductions. We also support some of its objectives; for example a comprehensive test ban, which we have already signed. However, nuclear disarmament cannot realistically be pursued independently of the broader security context. I have made that point on previous occasions.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that in 1982 the then Secretary of State, Sir John Nott, forecast that Trident would cost £8 billion at 1980 prices? Will my noble friend reconfirm, as it were, that the final cost of Trident was less than the £8 billion forecast by Sir John Nott and therefore was really rather a good buy?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend is perfectly right. As I said in my original Answer, the

1183
procurement cost of Trident of £12.2 billion represents a real cost saving of £3.4 billion over the original 1982 estimate.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether the Franco-British defence dialogue, which we know has touched on nuclear matters, has identified significant savings over the term to be found by sharing patrols and perhaps reducing the number of boats on target? Has that in any sense been under discussion, and does the Minister think there are savings to be found through closer co-operation?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the short answer is no. So far our discussions with our French colleagues have not embraced those matters. However, we are in discussion with them over nuclear safety matters.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend think it worth pointing out once again to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that the possession of nuclear weapons by the great powers has kept the peace among them for the past 50 years and we hope that it will continue to do so for the next 50 years?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes an extremely important point. Nuclear deterrence has played a major role in preventing conflict in Europe over the past half century and I believe it continues to play an essential role in maintaining stability in Europe in the post Cold War era.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the Minister answer the specific question and give the House an assurance that our nuclear Trident fleet is not kept on full alert?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Trident vessel out on patrol is of course on alert in the sense that it is there to perform a task if it is needed. However, the missiles on board the vessel are not targeted in any way.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, bearing in mind the text of the excessive deficit protocol of the Maastricht Treaty, will the noble Earl give the House an estimate of the amount by which the country's public sector borrowing requirement will be increased during the period of payment, or indeed liability of this country for the construction and fitting of these vessels?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the period of construction and fitting goes well beyond the period of three years over which the Government plan their finances so I cannot, unfortunately, give the noble Lord the answer that he seeks.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the House will have been intrigued by the Minister's reference to the fact that when Trident is out on patrol the missiles are not targeted on anything. Can we therefore take it that
1184
should any problems emerge and the nuclear missiles need to be used they will just go up in the air and land anywhere?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the missiles can be targeted at short notice if they need to be.

Training and Enterprise Councils: Finance
3.17 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received recent representations on their training programmes for the unemployed from the Training and Enterprise Councils' (TEC) National Council.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government have regular contacts with the Training and Enterprise National Council. The most recent was on Budget day when the Secretary of State for Education and Employment met with the council to discuss the implications of the public expenditure settlement.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the most recent paper—I am not sure whether he has just referred to it—prepared by the Training and Enterprise National Council is reported as being highly critical of the Government's training programmes? However, the paper referred to government appointed TECs. Will the Government publish that report? Surely it is essential that everyone involved with the training programmes should be aware of the contents and try to do something to put the matter right. If the findings of the paper are justified, will the position be critical because the TEC budget has now been reduced by no less than £34 million?
Lord Henley: My Lords, publication is obviously a matter for the Training and Enterprise National Council. I must say, however, that following what was a very tight public expenditure round, expenditure on the programmes from the department delivered by the TECs is set to fall—as the noble Lord put it—by £34 million, that is 2.3 per cent., when compared with the expected spend in the current year. I must also tell the noble Lord that there has been a welcome fall in unemployment over the past year and the previous three or four years, including the number unemployed for six months or more where the fall was some 11 per cent. The opportunities provided by training for work and other programmes delivered by the TECs will be reduced by a mere 9 per cent. That should be seen in the context of an 11 per cent. fall in unemployment.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that over the past three years the unemployment figure has fallen month after month? Is that due not only to the help that the TECs give but also to the competent management of the economy of this

1185
country which has in particular increased the number of small businesses by one million over the period of office of this Government? Does he further agree that to put that in jeopardy by introducing the social chapter or minimum wage would be disastrous?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I agree absolutely with my noble friend. Perhaps I may remind him that unemployment has fallen virtually every single month for the past 36 months. I believe that there was one month when it did not fall; and for that one month we received a lot of publicity. Sadly, we do not receive publicity for the falls that we had in the 35 other months. Unemployment has fallen and fallen again.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether, for the first time since 1988, the public expenditure round was able to make provision for uprating the youth training allowance and the youth training bridging allowance?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is another question. I wrote to the noble Earl on this matter only yesterday; the letter may not have reached him. I can assure him that we were able to uprate one part of the youth training bridging allowance. The noble Earl will receive my letter shortly. He will be able to study it in due course.
Baroness David: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Government lost £118 million of European training aid money in the period 1994-96 because they did not put forward a training programme? Can the Minister tell me whether the Government will respond to the warning of the TECs that they could lose £280 million in 1997-99 if they do not put forward a programme in good time? I believe that that comes from the same report of the Training and Enterprise National Council.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not aware of the allegations that the noble Baroness makes. I shall look at them. The important point, as I stressed in my response to my noble friend, is that we have seen unemployment falling very quickly for a number of years at a time when it has been rising throughout the remainder of Europe. That seems to imply that the sort of training programmes we have are the right training programmes and that the economic management policies that we pursue are right. That is why unemployment is falling.
Baroness David: My Lords, if the Government have had to cut the programme by £34 million, it seems foolish to cast aside this European money which would be extremely helpful.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I said that I would look at the allegations made by the noble Baroness. I also said in answer to an earlier question that we have cut the TEC programme by some 2.3 per cent. in the light of a very difficult public expenditure round. It is right that the Government should retain control over public finances. That is why we do so. I also stressed that unemployment
1186
has been falling and is falling faster than the amount by which we have cut the training provision being made available to the TECs.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, despite what the Minister says about falling unemployment figures, is he aware that there is still grave cause for concern about the level of male unemployment in particular in areas which were once heavily industrialised? In view of the social problems involved, should not special attempts be made to deal with that issue?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to draw attention to particular aspects of unemployment. I think that she is right to draw attention to male unemployment. It is right to draw attention to youth unemployment. That is why we have the TECs. That is why we give them the flexibility to design their programmes so that they can concentrate on those who are particularly in need of help.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister be more specific about training and the report produced by the Training and Enterprise National Council? Has he read the report? If so, will he confirm that it is a critical report? What will the Government do about it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, how the report is defined is a matter for the individual reader. We shall pay appropriate attention to that report. However, as I made clear to the noble Lord, publication of the report is a matter for the Training and Enterprise National Council.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, since the objective of the training exercise is to get people out of unemployment and back to work, is it not important that the trainee should have the will to succeed? Does the Minister consider that the situation is helped by the fact that the trainee who does not take the course offered will lose his benefit? Surely it would be more constructive to have a willing trainee.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that it is also right to have a benefits system which encourages people either to take up opportunities to work or to train.

Public Examination Standards
3.24 p.m.
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they deem may be necessary following the report by Ofsted and SCAA (Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority) on Standards in Public Examinations 1975-1995.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the report makes a number of important recommendations, all of which the Secretary of State has already endorsed for urgent action by SCAA and Ofsted, working with the examination boards. My right honourable friend has also indicated that she intends to

1187
consult in January on proposals to rationalise the number of examining and awarding bodies in England in the interests of assuring consistent national standards.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. While we can surely congratulate ourselves on the two well-led bodies that produced this report, and congratulate ourselves too, on the massive increase in the number of candidates taking public examinations over the past 20 years, would the Minister agree that it might be premature to congratulate ourselves also on the almost equally dramatic increase in the percentage of candidates coming out with very good grades, in view of the misgivings that the report makes about, for example, excessive reliance on pocket calculators, the lack of rigour in testing basic mathematical and logical skills, the degree of dependence on course work, the increased use of open-text examinations, the shift from canonical literature to the more ephemeral writings of the present time, the declining emphasis on accurate usage and vocabulary—it is quite a list—and the fact that examination boards have not been keeping enough samples of scripts from the past to make such reports more authoritative? May the Government please respond?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall try to respond briefly. The noble Lord put forward quite a list. I join him in congratulating both SCAA and Ofsted on their work. I believe that it is also welcome that we have seen an increase in the number of candidates. But we should be wary of starting to knock the improved results of candidates which I believe reflect well on the schools, the teachers, the pupils and their parents.
The report does not say that standards have fallen. It has not found evidence for that. But the noble Lord gave quite a list, as he put it, of recommendations that the report makes. I shall not go into the response made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. However, she had quite a list of recommendations that she felt ought to be pursued. The list included the use of calculators in examinations, the use of canonical literature, and so on. No doubt those matters can be pursued, as I made clear in my earlier Answer.
Baroness David: My Lords, in the light of the report, will the Minister tell the House why, after 17; years, the Government have failed to reform A-levels? What progress has been made on that in the light of the proposals by Sir Ron Dearing, which he asked should be implemented some time ago?
Lord Henley: My Lords, Sir Ron Dearing made his report in the earlier part of this year. As I dare to say I believe the noble Baroness will welcome, we agreed to consult on that report. We have consulted throughout the remaining part of the year. Having done so, we are now agreed that a number of recommendations should be brought forward which will bring new rigour and various changes in A-levels.
1188
The noble Baroness will accept that we cannot change A-levels overnight. Any lead-in period will take time. For that reason the noble Baroness will not see the changes to A-levels tomorrow or even next year. They will come in in due course.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it does not denigrate the efforts made by current students at A-level to say that there are these failings which have been identified? If professors of mathematics find that people coming to university cannot count, and professors in the humanities find people coming to universities who cannot write, there is clearly something wrong. Is not the correct answer to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that we are still suffering from the damnosa hereditas of Tony Crosland and Shirley Williams?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I echo some of what my noble friend says. However, I must remind him that the report is quite clear. It does not say that standards have fallen. For that reason I believe that it is wrong to start to denigrate the efforts of individual students. From my experience of going round schools, many people are working very hard indeed. They are certainly working much harder—dare I say it?—than I and many noble Lords did when we were at school many years ago.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, speak to the House in Latin because he finds himself unable to speak in English?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not answer for my noble friend, much as I should like to.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that decline in literacy and numeracy is even more conspicuous in the United States than in this country? That cannot be explained as the legacy of any British Minister, however distinguished.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept that there is necessarily a decline in literacy and numeracy. I think it is very wrong of us in this House to look back to some mythical golden age, which usually happens to be roughly when we were at school, and imply that education has declined since then. I believe that what is taking place in the vast majority of schools is very good indeed.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, do the Government see any dangers in there being four separate examination boards, each producing a multiplicity of optional examination schemes?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as my right honourable friend made clear, there are a number of different examination boards and that is something that she would like to look at. However, we are not in favour of denying schools and colleges choice and innovation in looking at different possible syllabuses, particularly at A-level; nor are we necessarily in favour of nationalising all the examination boards to form one single body, which we think would be

1189
the wrong approach. As my right honourable friend made clear, there is scope for looking at the multiplicity of different examination and awards bodies.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, with regard to consultation on the Dearing Report, can the Minister give some indication of which way the Government currently lean between toughening up A-levels, with a smaller number of them, and a broader syllabus between the ages of 16 and 18?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, that is a matter for consultation. We have looked very carefully at what Sir Ron Dearing has said and I would not want to comment any further at this stage.

Business of the House: Consolidated Fund Bill
3.32 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 17th December to enable the Consolidated Fund Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (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 National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 11, Schedule 1,

Clause 12,

Clause 21,

Clauses 13 to 16, Clause 22,

Clauses 17 to 20, Clauses 23 to 34,

Schedules 2 and 3.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Land Registration [H.L.]
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Land
1190
Registration Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest, as far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
Read a third time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Inglewood.)
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, as your Lordships will know, I have been interested in this Bill since it first came before us. During the earlier stages of the Bill the Minister was kind to me, in that he recognised some of the concerns which I raised. I hope that I can be kind to him today.
I rise to speak this afternoon because I received a letter from him yesterday afternoon which I wish to reply to on the record. He takes up the points which we had been disputing during the earlier stages of the Bill, particularly my feeling that buildings and structures are separated in paragraph 1 of the schedule but not in new Section 3 as it appears in Clause 1(1) of the Bill, where I thought that they should be separated. In his reply to me, the Minister said that paragraph I of the schedule enabled the trustees—of the heritage fund, I suppose—to take action themselves rather than providing financial assistance to others to act. He points out that that part of the Bill will not be used very often.
What I find curious is that the trustees are specifically asked to deal with buildings or structures when they take action themselves but buildings are not separated from structures when they give financial assistance to others. I thought at first that the Government would be using the locution which has been used once or twice in the past to define "buildings" as including "structures" but that turns out not to be the case.
The Minister drew my attention to the Interpretation Act 1978, which apparently includes "structures" within the definition of "land". When I read that in his letter, I thought that the Minister had torpedoed me below the water line, and I daresay he thought so as well. However, driven by curiosity, I obtained a copy of the Interpretation Act 1978, of which I had not previously heard, and I notice that what he says is true: "land" does include "structures". However, it also includes "buildings". I note that he uses the argument that "structures" are included in "land" in order to leave "structures" out of the Bill, while he uses the fact that the definition of "land" includes "buildings" in order to leave "buildings" in the Bill. This is a case of the goose and the gander which I do not fully understand. I merely wish to draw that point to his attention.

1191
I turned also to the housing grants Act which we passed earlier this year. In that Act buildings and structures are separated. Land is mentioned as well, but only in the sense of buildings or structures forming, or to form, part of the land. This is an area of considerable confusion. If my earlier amendments had been accepted, that confusion might have been cleared up. I dare say they might care to look at that matter in another place.
I referred to that part of the schedule to the Bill which refers to "objects". I wondered what those objects were. The Minister said in his letter that objects which relate to our engineering heritage are also objects of historic interest. That is very often true, and I do not object to that. However, I noticed that, when he listed my house last week—and we discussed this across the Floor—it was listed because of historic and architectural interest. There is no difficulty about combining the two interests. As a matter of fact, it is not very historic and it is not very distinguished architecturally, but that is another matter. If historic and architectural interest can go together, historic and engineering interest can go together too.
But what are these objects? I had drawn attention to the fact that there were many objects of engineering interest which were not structures or buildings. I mentioned at Report stage the kinds of things that I had in mind: machine tools, pumping engines or perhaps the lock gates on a canal. Those are objects of engineering interest. The Minister should perhaps encourage his colleagues in another place to look at the matter once again.
I am very grateful to the Minister for the attention which he has given to my arguments in the course of the past few weeks. I would merely suggest to him that he should encourage his colleagues to look at those arguments.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in rising to support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon, I think it is useful to point out to the House that he does not speak for himself alone. This is not a matter which he alone is interested in. We need to put on record that the noble Lord speaks not only for an enormous number of engineers, both of the present day and the past, who have contributed and still contribute to the basic fundamental strengths of this country. He speaks for the nation, in the sense that the elements for which he speaks—the structures, the engineering elements and so on—are so important to the fabric of our society that we are disturbed when civil servants and Ministers sometimes need a lot of persuasion to accept the validity of the argument.
I hope that the eloquent way in which the noble Lord, Lord Howie, spoke this afternoon, in particular in asking the Government, as the Bill progresses through another place, perhaps to see fit to reconsider the slight resistance (if I may so call it) which they seem to have aroused to including within these important definitions structures, including engineering. They might think again and reflect on the very great importance not of the words themselves but of what those words mean to the fabric of our society and our history.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I should like briefly to congratulate the Government on bringing forward this Bill, which rights a wrong and a serious flaw
1192
the original Bill. As past president of the Historic Houses Association, I also thank the Government. The Bill will eliminate a great sense of injustice felt by a majority of owners of historic structures in this country.
It cannot be stated too often that it is the building and not the owner that benefits from grants. Since 1953 there has been the accepted quid pro quo of public access, which has now become accepted by all and become, indeed, traditional.
My only worry is that, now that so many more people have the opportunity to have a slice of the cake and the cake is no bigger, there will be a serious problem of funding. Otherwise, this is an excellent Bill and I thank the Government for bringing it forward.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, from this side of the House I join in the earlier comments. We believe that this is an excellent and practical Bill. It contributes to the welfare of the heritage of the nation. Not all Bills are like that and we were rather relieved to have this one.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships for their contributions to this debate and for their comments on the Bill. I was most reassured by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. On his own admission, the difference between us is one not of substance but of style. He agreed with me and corroborated my view that what we have done in the Bill meets the case that he would like to see addressed. Where we disagree is on the style in which we have done it. We drafted the Bill in this way in order to give the greatest degree of assurance and clarity, bearing in mind that it is a legal document and not a layman's draft. So, while we shall consider most carefully the noble Lord's remarks and those of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, I think we can rest assured that there is no difference in substance between us as to what the Bill achieves.
I also listened with great care to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, in respect of the listing of his own house. It occurred to me that it may have been the historic aspect of his house, to wit the fact that he himself had lived there, which led to the listing. But then I thought no, that is not possible because he did not live in the other 400 or so houses in Hampstead Garden Suburb that were listed on the same occasion.
My noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu went to the heart of the purpose of the Bill; namely, to put right an anomaly which meant that certain aspects of the heritage—those which are privately owned—fall outside the eligibility criteria of the National Heritage Memorial Fund acting as the distributor for the lottery.
The change that we have effected has been supported by all the Front Benches in this House, for which I am most grateful. I am also grateful to my officials for their help and to my Whip, my noble friend Lady Trumpington. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1997
3.45 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 20th November be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to this order, with your Lordships' permission, I shall speak also to the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1997.
The purpose of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order is to update the criminal law in Northern Ireland in several important areas. It will implement proposals flowing from the 1993 discussion paper Crime and the Community, and will also introduce a series of other provisions which will bring Northern Ireland broadly into line with more recent changes in England and Wales. For ease of reference by practitioners and courts, the order will also restate some existing legislation on the treatment of offenders.
The introduction of a new statutory sentencing framework for financial, community and custodial punishments is of central importance. While the Criminal Justice Act 1991 established such a framework in England and Wales, sentencers in Northern Ireland continue to rely on guidance from the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal.
The enhanced range of community penalties will offer the courts a more varied but no less challenging range of options for dealing with offenders within the community. Before imposing a community or custodial sentence, the court must be of the opinion that the seriousness of the offence, or the combination of the offence and one or more associated offences, justifies it. In addition, before deciding whether to impose a custodial sentence for a violent or sexual offence, a court must also consider the need to protect the public from serious harm from the offender. The new framework will make a considerable contribution towards ensuring fairness, consistency and clarity in sentencing decisions in the Northern Ireland courts.
Unlike England and Wales, Northern Ireland has no general system of post-release supervision of offenders. The order will make two changes in this area. First, a new sentence will be introduced for offences which are serious enough to merit imprisonment for one year or more. In these circumstances, the "custody probation order" will, with the consent of the offender, involve a period of custody followed by a period of supervision under probation of between one and three years. Second, the courts will be given the option of being able to require those convicted of sexual offences to be supervised on licence from the date of their release from prison until the expiry of the pronounced sentence.
As a result of the consultation process, a small number of changes have been made to the published draft, and I feel it appropriate to draw these to the attention of the House.
There are three new provisions which will bring Northern Ireland further into line with Great Britain in matters relating to knives and other dangerous weapons.
These will: prohibit the sale of knives to children under the age of 16; ban the manufacture and sale of flick and gravity knives; and make arrestable the offence of carrying an article with a blade or point on school premises.
In order to ensure that pre-sentence reports are sought and obtained when necessary, a court must now give reasons why it is of the opinion that a pre-sentence report is not required.
The provision which extended the normal 60-day limit in relation to activities and attendance at a day centre where an offender was convicted of a sexual offence has been removed from the list of additional requirements in Schedule 1 to the order. The other additional requirements will provide the courts with an adequate range of options.
In cases of breach of the probation element of a custody probation order, the court will now be able to take into account the extent to which the sentence has already been satisfied by the time spent in custody.
In relation to the release of sex offenders on licence, concern was expressed about the extent of the powers given to the Secretary of State to revoke licences and recall offenders without recourse to any judicial process. Failure to comply with the conditions of a licence will therefore now be dealt with by the courts which may impose a fine of £1,000 or suspend the licence and return the offender to prison for up to six months. Should the offender be convicted of a further offence during the licence period, the court will be able to return him to prison for all or part of that period. Finally, the provisions on fines and financial circumstances now include those aged under 17.
A number of consequential amendments to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 extend to the whole of the United Kingdom and it is therefore necessary, by virtue of Section 38(2) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, to include them in the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1997 which was laid along with the main order.
In conclusion, I believe that these important orders will enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th November be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, for her detailed explanation of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order and the consequential order. In many respects the provisions are similar to those already operating in Great Britain. I welcome both orders on the authority of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn who regrets that he cannot be with us this afternoon.
I do not want to take up the time of the House except briefly to make one point. When the order was introduced to the second standing committee on delegated legislation in the House of Commons on Tuesday, the general point was made that Northern Ireland should not have had to wait so long for these provisions. In response the Minister

1195
in another place rightly emphasised the importance of retaining the integrity of the Northern Ireland statute book and that of course is part of the picture.
Nevertheless, there seems to have been a problem of delay in introducing new legislation to meet the need in Northern Ireland. Mr. Ross, an experienced Member of the House of Commons from Northern Ireland, said in Tuesday's debate that we should be moving faster than we are. I could not have put it better. I trust that the Minister will not say that this is undue simplicity on our part.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for her customary clarity in introducing the order. We on these Benches welcome the order and particularly the process of consultation that has taken place leading up to its introduction. We accept the consequential amendments order that goes naturally with it.
It is particularly welcome that Northern Ireland is now to benefit from the same legislation over the sale of knives to under 16 year-olds as the rest of the United Kingdom. Like the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I ask whether the Government can say why it has taken so long to reach here. But if that is a complaint, perhaps I can say how agreeable it is to be able to discuss Northern Ireland business before tea rather than after dinner, which is the normal experience of those who deal with these matters. With those remarks, let me say that I support the order.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, these orders are a welcome contribution to the refinement of our criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. This humane refinement stands in stark contrast to the brutal assaults on young people in Northern Ireland. They are trussed up like chickens and beaten mercilessly until their bones are broken. I find it objectionable that the press frequently describe those attacks as "punishment beatings" as though they were some form of rough justice. They are no justice at all. They are a cruel attempt to impose a cruel reign of terror in parts of Northern Ireland. Euphemisms such as "punishment beatings" should not be used. They suggest that the motivation and effect are in some distant way related with the sort of responsible and humane criminal justice which is the substance of these orders.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their support of the orders. The delay causes concern to everyone. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, drew attention to the fact that we are fortunate today to be able to bring the Northern Ireland business to the House not only at an early hour, but also with rather more people in the Chamber than is often the case, although it is obvious that they are here for the future business of the afternoon.
We consulted heavily and brought forward the amendment to the 1994 order. There is a fine balance between coming forward with another piece of legislation for every change and coming forward with a substantive order which allows practitioners and courts to operate effectively. That is what we have tried to do.
I express total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. What we see day on day in Northern Ireland unfortunately represents no sense of fairness and no sense
1196
of law and order. It is pure criminality and to disguise it as having a right by the term "punishment beating" is wrong. I make the commitment that I shall try never to use that term and also take the message to my colleagues. We must recognise that it is pure brutality of the highest order. No one in Northern Ireland is outside the reach of law and order and we must concentrate on ensuring that that is how justice is dealt with. Having said that, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1997
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th November be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Regulations 1997
3.57 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd December be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, for the convenience of your Lordships, in moving this Motion I should like at the same time to speak to the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1997. These apply to England and Wales and were laid before the House on the same day.
Both sets of regulations introduce new levels of fees and, if approved by your Lordships and by another place, will come into effect in late January or early February of next year. The Scottish regulations, in addition, consolidate the 1990 regulations for Scotland.
The Government announced in 1990 the objective that fee levels should be increased over time until they reach a level where they fully cover the costs which local authorities incur in processing and in determining planning applications. The proposal in the regulations is that there should be an increase of approximately 10 per cent. in fees as soon as the regulations are implemented, and a further increase of 5 per cent. on 1st October 1997. Fees are only a very small part of developers' overall costs—considerably less than 1 per cent. in fact. Few householders pay any fees at all, as most minor domestic developments do not require a planning application.
Under the proposals the minimum fee for a factory or office development would rise from £160 to £180 on implementation, and to £190 from October next year. The maximum fee for the biggest of buildings, like a

1197
supermarket of some 3,750 square metres or more, would rise from £8,000 now to £9,000 in early 1997 and to £9,500 from next October. An application to build a new house would attract a fee of £180 in early 1997 and £190 in October. Substantial alterations to houses would be charged at £90 and £95 respectively.
The Government are of the view that those who apply for planning permission should meet the costs that are incurred in determining their applications, otherwise these costs would fall, as they once were, to be met by council tax and business rate payers. Even after taking into account the increase in fees proposed in these regulations, the fees for planning applications continue to be modest and they represent only a small proportion of the developers' overall costs.
I commend both sets of regulations to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd December be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Earl for introducing these two Motions. They are uncontroversial, in our view, and we are happy to accept them.
However, there is one small point. On paragraph 4 of the Town and Country Planning Order for England and Wales there is an amendment to the definition of "disabled person". It refers to certain matters which have been described in legislation previously. Could the noble Earl, when he replies, set out in clear terms for the House exactly what these amendments concern, and in what sense they will affect disabled persons of whatever category?
I am not an expert on Scottish legislation, but I am a little concerned about the question of "deemed application", which is indeed defined in the Scottish order. I wonder whether the concept of a "deemed application" is suitable for England and Wales as well as for Scotland. In so far as it is convenient, I am in favour of aligning the legislation in the two countries, if I may put it that way. Can the noble Earl say a little more about what a "deemed application" means?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, because he has always done his homework. He likes to look at these matters in great detail and find some curious question to ask. That is highly commendable. In this case, of course, he asks a perfectly reasonable question; in fact, two questions. He wishes to know why the definition of disability is being amended in the regulations. The reason is that the fee regulations provide a fee exemption for various works which are aimed at providing access, and other facilities, for disabled people. Disabled people are defined in the fees regulations by reference to Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948, but this section was amended by the 1989 Children Act to exclude those who are under 18. The proposed change in Regulation 4 ensures that the fee exemption applies both to disabled adults and to children.
1198
The noble Lord was also concerned about the expression "deemed application". A "deemed application" is one where an application for planning permission is deemed to have been made in consequence of an appeal against an enforcement notice; in other words, action taken by an authority against an individual or company that has not sought planning permission for a development which is undertaken or which is completed.
I hope that explanation satisfies the noble Lord. He is a difficult person to satisfy, but I see him smiling in agreement this time, and that is a great pleasure. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will accept these regulations. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1997
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd December be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1996
4.6 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 25th November be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order is being introduced to extend the coverage of the Financial Services Act to bring custody services and certain activities in relation to open-ended investment companies within the definition of investment business within Schedule 1.
Let me start by explaining the provisions in paragraph 2 of the order. This deals with investment companies with variable capital, or open-ended investment companies to give them their more familiar name. Your Lordships will recall that I introduced the nickname of OEICs to the House some weeks ago. As a result of the creation of the corporate code for OEICs there are two new activities which will require authorisation under the FSA. Every OIEC must have a depositary and the ECA regulations require the depositary to be an authorised person. The depositary, normally a large institution such as a bank, will have a role similar to that of a trustee of a unit trust. The definition of investment business requiring authorisation in Schedule 1 of the FSA, includes acting as a trustee of an authorised unit trust. This order will add a similar provision in respect of the depositary of an OEIC.
The ECA regulations allow the board of an OEIC to consist of a sole director, but if there is only one director, that director must be a corporate body which is an authorised person. The order, therefore, adds acting

1199
as sole director to the coverage of paragraph 16 of Schedule 1. The effect of adding these activities to paragraph 16 of Schedule 1 means that those involved in two key areas of the corporate governance of an OEIC must be authorised and, as a result, their activities can be regulated. This is an important element of the protection for investors which is built into the OEIC structure.
Let me now turn to the bulk of the order which deals with custody. Custody is often an international and very competitive business. Indeed, your Lordships may have noticed within recent months a number of announcements of withdrawals from this market. It is carried out by a range of professional firms. The Treasury's decision to regulate custody services has not been taken lightly, or indeed in haste. There have been widespread consultations, both by the Securities and Investments Board and by the Treasury.
In December last year the Securities and Investments Board formally recommended to the Treasury that custody should be made an authorisable activity. Their arguments were based on the fact that custodians are institutions to which other people's investments are entrusted. It was not that their activities were regarded as inherently hazardous—custodians in general have sound management and control their operations well—but the value of the assets held in custody is such that the loss involved in a disaster could be vast.
The SIB was also concerned to remove an anomaly. Where custody is provided in connection with a regulated firm's investment business, a regulator recognised under the FSA can make rules governing that business. The gap arises, at least potentially, where a firm provides a stand-alone or third party operation, and holds investments other than in connection with its own investment business.
The SIB has concluded that there would be no significant costs associated with making custody authorisable. The standards proposed would codify existing good practice and provide reassurance to users of those services.
At the beginning of this year the Treasury consulted a number of custodians informally. The purpose was to gain an insight into the operation of the custody business and form a view about the SIB's recommendation and the form an order might take. The Treasury is most grateful to those who provided their views. As a result, the Treasury advised that the economic secretary should accept the SIB's recommendation, and on 9th May that decision was announced in another place.
The Treasury issued a consultation document in June setting out the way in which we proposed to put this onto the statute book. The document was circulated widely and there were just over 60 responses.
Custodians come in a range of shapes and sizes. At one extreme is the global custodian. Typically, this is a multinational bank, not necessarily based in the UK, offering services to major businesses across the world. Then there is the fund manager operating a discretionary portfolio; and the stockbroker who may arrange to hold
1200
assets in a nominee company, either its own or that of a client. The custody operation in either case may be conducted in-house or be bought in.
There is also the trustee of a fund holding assets safely on behalf of a child. The management of the assets in such a case could be placed with an investment manager but the trustee himself could be involved in providing custody services.
It is important to bear in mind that a pure custodian has no discretion as to the way in which he deals with the assets. Custodians simply act on the instructions of clients. They do not give advice or take any decisions about the sale or purchase of investments themselves. So the term "custodian" can apply to firms from the multinational bank through fund managers and stockbrokers to trustees. But it can also cover the small country solicitor holding share certificates for an investor in his safe for safekeeping.
The business which this order will bring under regulation is somewhat less than all this. We do not want to regulate our country solicitor who only safeguards assets. So the definition requires that both safekeeping and administrative services are being provided before it will bite. It is also crafted to cover firms which arrange, or offer to arrange, for such services to be provided.
We are determined that this extension of scope should not impose additional major burdens on companies. The standards which the SIB published in the summer set out the safeguards which it will expect the self-regulating organisations to maintain in regulating their members. The SROs will consult about the way in which these standards will be translated into rules in the spring. At that time, the SIB will undertake a cost benefit analysis of the anticipated effects.
The extension of the regulatory regime in this way will improve the protection provided for investors. It will ensure a level regulatory playing field, enhanced standards and boost confidence in the industry. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 25th November be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister. I know I am speaking on behalf of all your Lordships, but especially the OEICs, in welcoming the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Welfare of Broiler Chickens Bill [H.L.]
4.12 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Protection of broiler chickens]:
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("seven birds") and insert ("21 kilogrammes").
The noble Lord said: Since the Second Reading of the Bill I have met the British Poultry Meat Federation which represents the industry. It continues to be opposed to the Bill on the basis that what the Bill provides is already covered by legislation and that the federation's members administer the industry with the utmost kindness. The fact that the industry is covered by a code of practice which is unenforceable does not mean that it is covered by legislation. Admittedly, there is the general animal cruelty legislation, but the trouble there is that it is largely unenforceable since the rearing of broiler fowls happens very much in private—in sheds to which the public do not, on the whole, have access. I continue to maintain that, of all the factory farming practices, broiler rearing is the only one that is not governed by specific legislation.
I pay tribute to the improvement in the industry and I have no doubt that it will continue. But if all is sweetness and light in this field, there can be no objection to a failsafe Bill which will no doubt ensure that it does continue. Nothing reinforces virtue more than a certain amount of legislation. Where there is money to be made there is always the risk of reversion. Here the legislation can serve a very useful purpose.
There are those who say that the animals would not get fat and make money for their owners if they were ill-treated, but I refer them to a former farming correspondent of The Times who countered that argument with the reminiscence that the time in his life when he put on most weight was when he was in the trenches in the First World War. The two do not necessarily go together.
I am most grateful to the Minister for his letter to me and for the information he gave about the present position and the position that he hopes will come about. I received the letter earlier this afternoon just before I came into the Chamber and so I have not been able to incorporate it, so to speak, into what I have to say in moving the first amendment. I know the Minister will realise that I am saving him time and trouble if I quote from it to a certain extent. The letter states:
"Reports have been published on the Handling and Transport of Poultry (1990) and on the Welfare of Broiler Chickens (1992). This latter report was concerned only with the rearing of birds for meat. A further report on the welfare of breeding birds is expected to he published next year.
The Council's reports on rearing and breeding birds will be used to inform our preparation of a new welfare code. At present the codes of welfare recommendations adopted under Section 3 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 deal jointly with all domestic fowl. Our intention is to develop that code into separate measures for broiler chickens and laying hens. As is always the case the revised draft code on broilers will be subject to full consultation and approval by both Houses of Parliament before it comes into force.
The new Code will also take into account—as appropriate—the recommendation on the welfare of domestic fowl adopted last year by the Council of Europe. This recommendation has been endorsed
1202
by all the EU member states and so will provide a basis for us to work for EU standards in due course. However, the EU already has a significant amount of important animal welfare work to complete (on transit, veal calves and—very shortly—laying hens). You will appreciate therefore that I am not in a position to predict when there will be space in this schedule to achieve progress on broiler chickens.
As I indicated in the course of the debate there is much action that can be taken to promote the welfare of broilers without the need for further legislation. In addition to proceeding with the new broiler code, we are funding research and advisory programmes aimed at identifying and encouraging management techniques which promote good welfare. The industry has also responded to the FAWC's 1992 report and is carrying out a survey to measure the locomotory ability of broiler chickens at or near slaughter weight. The results of this survey—which is still ongoing—will indicate whether the steps taken by the industry to ameliorate the leg problems commented on by FAWC are having the desired effect".
That is all very satisfactory as far as it goes. I congratulate the Government and I thank the Minister for writing to me and assuring me of that. However, for the reasons I have already given, I do not see any reason not to pursue the Bill with its rather modest objective, bearing in mind the limited time remaining for this Parliament and of trying to get a fully considered Bill through your Lordships' House in a form in which it can be picked up, if necessary, in a future Parliament by either the Government, of whatever complexion, or by a Member of another place.
The object of these amendments is to get the Bill into that kind of shape. In the first version of Amendment No. 1, which is before the Committee at the moment. I tabled an amendment to move the density of stocking from seven to 10 birds. It has been pointed out to me that at different stages of the bird's life different densities are better defined by weight because the number of birds per metre will differ depending on whether they are small or large. Defining by weight follows a practice in various European welfare codes. The one recommended here is equivalent to 10 birds per square metre at full growth. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: With this amendment and the later ones that we shall be considering, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is trying to meet some of the points made at Second Reading and in consultations outside the House. I would like to add to the point that he made about the fact that we now have 700 million broiler chickens unprotected by specific regulation and protected only by a voluntary code. I still cannot see why we have to rely on codes and not regulations as for other species of livestock. In the Minister's letter he said,
"As is always the case the revised draft code on broilers will be subject to full consultation and approval by both Houses of Parliament before it comes into force".
It has to be approved as a code, so what is the argument for not doing this by regulation, which would take the same amount of parliamentary time and which would give the matter the full force of law in place of the voluntary code that we have at the moment?
If one reads back through speeches on the Second Reading, and particularly as regards this and the other amendments, it appears that the problem for the broiler industry is that the margins are slim so through-put is all-important. Indeed, the broiler industry is a sort of

1203
agricultural version of the saying by Jack Cohen of Tesco, "stack'em high and sell'em cheap". I remember many years ago discussing this with a leading broiler keeper when I remarked on the very slim margins that were earned per bird. He said, "Yes, but we find the volume quite fascinating".
That is the problem. There are very low margins on broilers. We have seen how the industry has developed to achieve fast through-put, with all the problems that have occurred in the past and which still occur in certain areas of the industry. One result of the stocking rate and the health of the birds generally is the effect on human health. There are the problems of salmonella and campylobacter mentioned at Second Reading. I do not believe that those were answered by the Minister at Second Reading.
The change that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is suggesting to 21 kilogrammes is equivalent to about 10 birds per square metre, when they are slaughtered. That means that as the birds grow they will have slightly more room. We know that it is only a period of six weeks before the birds reach slaughter weight, when there will be pressure for room.
Instead of having to deal with the point in relation to all the other amendments, perhaps I may say that besides the voluntary code there are welfare standards for chickens introduced by Freedom Food and the RSPCA. I received information on these this morning. When the Government come to consider the revision of the voluntary code—if that is the route that they intend to use, which clearly seems to be the case—will they take a look at the welfare standards which Freedom Food have produced? I shall not read out all of them. There are five standards relating to feeding and six to buildings. These are all individual recommendations, and I believe that they are out for consultation at the moment. There are also four standards as regards health and veterinary care. The standards deal with inspection, transportation, handling and slaughter. I wonder whether the Minister has seen these. Perhaps he can say whether the Government intend to take them into account when they come to redraft the voluntary code.
The amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is suggesting—I am not sure that he is going to press it to a Division—brings home the important point about the stocking rate. I hope that the Government will be able to give us a constructive answer and, particularly, deal with the point as to why we have to rely on a voluntary code for this important industry and not on regulation.
Baroness Nicol: I apologise for being 30 seconds late. It means that I must ask whether or not we are speaking to all three amendments at once.
Lord Carter: No, we are speaking just to Amendment No. 1.
Baroness Nicol: I would like to say in general that I am rather disappointed to see these amendments being tabled. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has retreated before he was even seriously attacked. His original Bill was very good as it
1204
stood and I do not wish to see him retreat from it. However, it is his Bill and I do not propose to war with him over it.
As regards Amendment No. 1, it seems that seven birds per square metre, or the equivalent in weight, would have been a much more humane and better target to aim for. But this is not the amendment on which I wish to say most. I simply record the fact that I am disappointed that the noble Lord has seen fit to retreat from his original figure. Perhaps I may endorse what my noble friend Lord Carter has just said about a code as against regulations. I believe that regulations would be much more appropriate, given the wide range of people who are involved in this kind of production and the need to keep them in line.
Lord Forbes: If stocking density is to be determined, surely it is very much easier to count the birds rather than to weigh them.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: Perhaps I may make a quick intervention here. The noble Lord's amendments are intended to reduce intensive farming. If I appear to be going slightly into a Second Reading speech I hope that the Committee will forgive me. The object of this Bill is to reduce intensive farming. We know that it is damaging to the health and wealth of the nation and we are all trying to reduce it. In fact, the whole tenor of the reduction in the effects of the CAP is to that end.
The other side of that coin is that if we reduce the level of intensive farming we shall increase the level of employment. If that is done, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, pointed out, the industry will destroy itself. It is a very important industry and it should not be allowed to do so. The industry is bound by the price war among the supermarkets. They drive prices down, demand cheap food and invite poor quality. It is they who are at fault here. We do not want to see the industry decimated by the introduction of an enormous level of imports because of increased costs. This Bill is unlikely to work.
Lord Lucas: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may reply to the Second Reading questions first, as it were. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is seeking to rephrase his amendment in terms of kilogrammes rather than numbers. That certainly addresses one practical problem. It is easier to count numbers, but when the birds are small the chicks are confined to a small area so that they can keep warm. Therefore, one would not want such a low density specified in the Bill. So it is a question of rearing practices. I agree that measuring that in practice would be more difficult. But generally we do know on any given day roughly the weight of the birds.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the letter I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and others on the contamination of chicken meat by bacteria, which was raised at Second Reading. All raw meat tends to have its surface contaminated by bacteria. Different animals harbour different bacteria. Cattle tend to be contaminated with E. coli; chicken with salmonella and campylobacter. That has been known for a long time. For many generations governments have advised people

1205
on handling raw meat and cooking it properly to take that into account. There is nothing new about this. Given people's common sense there is nothing to be too concerned about.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and others were concerned that we should be providing these measures by way of regulations rather than by a code. Perhaps I may first defend a code. It is not something that I would understand as a totally voluntary measure because it is allowable in evidence. In other words, if someone has committed an offence and transgressed the code, that transgression is evidence of the fact that they have committed an offence. But we are reluctant to put the matter in formal, specific regulations as we have the power to do until that is taken up by Europe as a whole. We do not want to put our producers in a position where they are unable to compete with Europe. We want to take forward European standards as a whole.
We do not believe that the position at the moment is that unsatisfactory. Broilers are covered by legislation specific to the welfare of livestock on a farm. Schedule 4 to the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 made under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 contains detailed provisions. Therefore, all intensively farmed livestock, other than battery hens, cows and pigs which have their own separate schedules, is covered by those regulations.
To deal with the particular amendment, we recognise that stocking density is critical to the health, welfare and production of broilers. If it is too high, the birds will not have sufficient space for movement and rest. Access to feed and drink becomes limited, and there is a high risk of poor quality litter and other consequences that are of no benefit either to bird or producer. If it is too low, good environmental conditions, especially warmth, are very difficult to maintain. Litter quality becomes poor and low ventilation rates can lead to a build-up of pathogenic micro-organisms. All of these factors are recognised in the welfare code recommendations for broilers either explicitly or implicitly, and the dangers of overcrowding are emphasised.
At the current recommended stocking density of 34 kilogrammes per square metre, birds generally still have enough space to meet their physiological and behavioural needs. They can exercise, dust bathe and move to different parts of the broiler house, for example to feed. It is axiomatic that satisfactory management and stockmanship are important to maintain good welfare, but this is the case in any system of animal production. The figure of 34 kilogrammes per square metre has been arrived at on the basis of inspection of birds in the practical situation of real broiler houses. It is not based upon an exact science, but nor is the suggestion of the noble Lord that it should be lower. Based on the collective experience of the industry in looking at broiler houses, there is great doubt whether the reduction in stocking density proposed by the noble Lord will bring much benefit to chickens. But it will certainly result in a substantial disbenefit to humans. We estimate that the cost of the noble Lord's amendment will still be of the order of 23 pence per bird. That may not sound much, but when viewed in terms of supermarket mark-ups it
1206
may represent up to £150 million a year to the consumer. We do not view that as necessarily a good thing to do. We disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that to achieve a mild and possibly negligible benefit to chickens is worth that disbenefit to humans.
Therefore, while we shall not oppose the amendment of the noble Lord, we do not believe that it makes the Bill any more satisfactory.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: Before noble Lords decide what to do with this amendment, I should like to raise a question about Freedom Foods. In the redrafting of the voluntary code will the Government take account of the recommendations of the RSPCA?
Lord Lucas: Over the past year or so I have become accustomed to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, being ahead of me in knowing what is going on in the world of agriculture. I am aware that the Freedom Food initiative exists but I have not seen it. We will take into account all information, including what emerges from that initiative, in drafting the new code. The RSPCA and other interested parties will have an opportunity to comment before the code is finalised. However, without seeing the particular document to which the noble Lord refers, I do not believe that I can go any further today.
Baroness Nicol: Perhaps I am being very naive. The Minister quoted the figure of 23 pence per bird as the possible cost. Even if 100 per cent. of that cost is passed on to the consumer, how can it be more than 23 pence in the supermarket? I do not understand the economics of it. If it is to remain at an increase of 23 pence, there are very few consumers who would be unwilling to pay that. Most of them would not notice it.
Lord Lucas: It is a matter of common experience that supermarkets tend to make mark-ups in relation to prices rather than absolute amounts. If one raises the value of an item they increase their mark-up in proportion. One would expect that 23 pence per bird at the producer level would be magnified down the chain. One cannot be specific about it. If we thought that that amount was necessary to pay for a major improvement in the welfare of chickens and that it was required because chickens were in a state of distress, we might consider it worthwhile. However, we do not see that it offers any worthwhile benefit to chickens. We agree that we have no research to show that it does not, but the noble Lord does not have any research to show that it does. From our practical experience we believe that chickens are well off as they are.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this amendment. In particular, I am grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, which was very helpful. I am extremely sorry that I have disappointed the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. I usually find myself on exactly the same side as the noble Baroness in almost all subjects in this area. I look forward with some trepidation to the amendments about which she says she

1207
will have more to say and criticise. Nevertheless, in trying to achieve a balanced and workable Bill I believe that this amendment is a good thing. I agree entirely with the noble Lord who said that it was much easier to count birds than to measure their weight. However, if one has a pocket calculator and picks up one bird each day one can discover the weight of that individual bird and probably work out the stocking density pretty quickly.
I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, has been persuaded that the Bill may mean the destruction of the industry. I do not believe that that is so. The Bill is part of a proceeding that applies pressure to the industry to provide better welfare. It also puts pressure on the Government to achieve something through the European network. I do not believe that we should give up hope of achieving agreement on this matter throughout Europe. It may take some time, but this is only the first stage.
Mention has been made of supermarket prices. I accept what the Government have said about the usual practice. But supermarkets are getting better in this area, and some are better than others. There is a definite tendency to try to meet the wishes of the thinking and caring consumer. More and more consumers are thinking and caring. I do not doubt that eventually we will manage to achieve a result whereby supermarkets in Europe and the UK can find agreement on something that benefits the welfare of these birds. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("3,000") and insert ("5,000").
The noble Lord said: Here I am on much more dicey ground. The amendment is concerned with flock size. I confess that I do not entirely understand how a flock should be defined for the purposes of legislation. It has been put to me that it can be better done by sub-dividing enormous flocks in large areas into smaller areas. But the purpose of the exercise is to have a flock the size of which can be inspected by eye once or twice a day. Those of your Lordships who have had experience of counting animals, whether they be sheep in a field, hounds going through a gate or whatever it may be, know how extremely difficult it is. The objective is not for the person who is inspecting to pick up every bird and examine it. That would be ridiculous and bad for the birds. The objective is that the inspector's eye should pass over every bird every time. There must be a limit on the size of flock in order to ensure that that happens and we believe that 5,000 is manageable. The 3,000 in the Bill might be too ambitious an objective. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I am sure that the amendment is desirable but I believe that the Minister will say that it would be expensive. If he has the figures, it would be interesting if he could give an indication of the cost of such a restriction on flock size. I do not have the statistics and I am not sure whether they are collected. On the whole major broiler producers keep birds in much larger flocks than the amendment proposes. This relates to the previous
1208
amendment on which we mentioned Europe. Our producers could be placed at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis other producers, both inside and outside Europe, if, as the Minister said in his letter, we had to wait for Europe. It would be a long drawn out process before we could bring in such a restriction on flock size throughout Europe. That is an important consideration.
Reference has been made to the role of the major supermarkets and retailers. From memory, I believe that the five major supermarket chains buy 60 per cent. of the fresh produce. In the case of broiler meat, they must be by far the largest buyers. They are big and are powerful agents for improvement and change. A voluntary code for producers, the major supermarkets and retailers could be the way to achieve an improvement in the operation of the broiler industry that was at least as effective as regulations.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: I was advised by a good Irishman that the best way to count a flock of sheep was to count the legs and divide by four. However, in this case, it might not work. On the previous amendment I said that I did not approve of Amendment No. 2. Even 3,000 birds could be considered too high a figure. If a person wishes to raise an organic flock, the Soil Association will require him to keep no more than 500 birds in a house. Thus we can see the wide difference in standards applied to them. It seems a good argument for looking hard at the figures.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is interested in keeping to European standards and will be aware that the absolute maximum under those standards for birds labelled free range is 4,800 during the time they are in the broiler house. The poor unfortunate birds in the Bill are in the broiler house 24 hours a day; free range birds, for a good part of the day, are outside. The difference implies a degree of cruelty. If the maximum for part-time prisoners is 4,800, then 5,000 must surely be far too high a figure for full-time prisoners. I do not wish to prolong the debate more than necessary, but I hope that the noble Lord will not wish to go ahead with the amendment.
Lord Lucas: I appreciate what the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Beaumont, said about the power of the supermarkets. They certainly have power which they used to exercise. When the price went up as a result, they would buy products from elsewhere. However, they are now developing a more co-operative, one might say Japanese-model, relationship with suppliers. That should enable progress to be made so that what the consumer wants can be translated into what is happening on the farm without the need for heavy-handed regulation.
Turning to the amendment, I now understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, what is being aimed at. I have always had a problem in understanding how small flock size with essentially juvenile birds within the first six weeks of life is a relevant factor. The difference between 5,000 birds and the industry standard which may be five times as great is merely that the shed is bigger. The

1209
environment for the individual bird is made up of its immediate neighbours. It does not matter whether 20 yards away there is another group of chickens; it is more a question of the economics of the industry. If the sheds are too large the producer is taking too much of a risk with infection or some other problem, perhaps with the feeding mechanism, which may knock the shed out. The producer does not want all his eggs in one basket, but if the numbers are too small, costs are increased. It seems that 25,000 is the figure on which the industry settled.
I do not know the organic regulation to which the noble Baroness referred, I imagine it refers to older birds, particularly those outside, which may have developed a social structure. My experience with chickens is that they develop quite complex social structures and if they are in too large groups they will become stressed and find life difficult.
Baroness Nicol: No, I referred to organically reared broilers which would not have a life much longer than the birds we are talking about.
Lord Lucas: As usual, it is a case of my ignorance in not knowing the basis for the regulation. I am not aware of any problems which arise in practice from commercial flock sizes. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is aiming more at the way in which the flock is supervised and individual birds looked after. The method used is that someone will walk through the houses; as they do so, the chickens will move away from them. Those birds which are not so good at moving away will become noticeable. Again, I do not feel that the flock size makes any difference to that. It is more a question of the frequency of inspection and how good the method is of detecting the chickens in need of attention.
I think that the method used at the moment, with a sensible rate of inspection of perhaps up to half a dozen times a day, would be reasonable. If a disease problem develops in a house, it develops fast and therefore it is in the interests of good management to inspect the birds frequently. The method of walking through a house will enable the birds in trouble to be picked up at an early stage and dealt with appropriately. I do not believe that any concept of flock size would help. We shall not oppose the noble Lord's amendment if he wishes to press it, but we do not feel that it makes a difference to the Bill or a useful difference in practice.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Once again I thank Members of the Committee for their contributions. It seems to me that the amendment is on slightly dicey ground because of the definition of a flock on which no Member has commented. I put the amendment forward rather tentatively and as no one seems to be much in favour of it and at least one Member is against it I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("one year") and insert ("three years").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is obvious. It is right that we should give an industry the time that it needs to adjust to various changes. I have already said that I hope that there will be a coming together of how other countries in Europe and the shops react to these changes, to the threat of these changes, and, eventually, to the changes when they happen. If there is that coming together, one should give the maximum of leeway to putting the Bill into practice. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: The only point I wish to make is that because of the structure of the broiler industry three years may not be long enough for the adjustments required.
Baroness Nicol: Perhaps I may ask a question on this amendment. When a farmer is given notice to leave his farm, for whatever reason, I believe he is given two years in which he can reap any crops that he has to reap, and so forth. In the case of broiler chickens, the harvest, if one cares to put it that way, is every two months. What, therefore, is the reason for wishing to extend the period beyond what is said in the original Bill. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, or my noble friend Lord Carter explained why the period should be three years.
Lord Lucas: There are obviously some changes proposed in the Bill which would not require much time at all to put into effect, if one chose to do so. However, there are others—particularly those which relate to the amount of space which would be required—which might, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, intimated, take considerably longer. If one is moving to something where one requires a 50 per cent. expansion in broiler capacity because of lower stocking densities, or whatever, there may be a problem in obtaining the sites and planning permission. Planning permission is extremely difficult to obtain for these enterprises now. That might well take more than the three years.
Three years would be a tight timetable to which to keep, if we take all the provisions in the Bill together. Indeed, looking at the details, it might well not be possible to do it. It is not a proposal that we are against, because I believe that it improves the Bill. It does not address the problems which lie at an earlier stage in the Bill which to our mind make the whole enterprise too impractical to wish to take forward.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I endeavour to be a reasonable man. It seems to me that the amendment makes the Bill more reasonable for all those who have something to do with it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill [H.L.]
4.54 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill offers us the opportunity to ensure that we do our duty to a small number of people in Hong Kong—probably no more than 4,000 to 5,000 people (non-Chinese British nationals)—who will otherwise be seriously disadvantaged. This is not a subject which is new to anyone who has participated in debates on Hong Kong in your Lordships' House. I am merely carrying on where the late Lord Bonham-Carter left off, because, in common with other noble Lords who have spoken in those debates, I recognise that Britain has a sovereign responsibility to that group of people, which it has not yet properly discharged.
Since 1993, when the late Lord Bonham-Carter moved his nationality Bill, things have moved on. We have a much clearer idea of the numbers involved and the difficulties that those people face are much more widely recognised as the date for the hand over approaches. Perhaps I may remind my noble friend the Minister that only a month ago the principle behind the Bill was widely supported in another place.
I should like to cover two key points this evening: the predicament faced by those people and the inadequacies of the Government's current policy. First, the great majority (the few thousand people about whom we are talking) were born in Hong Kong and in some cases are second or even third generation Hong Kong citizens. They and their parents had full—I repeat, full—British nationality with the right to enter and live in this country. That right was stripped from them by amendments made to the 1962 and subsequent immigration Acts. They will in a few months' time be left in the unenviable position of having no more than a British National (Overseas) passport.
That document does not give the holder right of abode anywhere, and although the Government maintain that a BNO passport will give the holder a proper nationality, the truth is that a BNO passport is only a travel document. I am supported in that belief by no less an authority than Fransmann's British Nationality Law, which on page 436 states:
"A person who is a BNO, like one who is a BOC, possesses not so much a nationality as a qualification for UK travel facilities".
So those British nationals will not have a proper nationality with full citizenship in July 1997. Nor, on that date, when Hong Kong becomes part of China will they have the right to Chinese citizenship which is based on ethnicity. Non-Chinese need not apply, and the Chinese government have invited Britain to sort that out by giving full passports to that group.
In Hong Kong, the status of those individuals is widely recognised to be ambiguous, and there are already documented cases of discrimination at work. I can provide details for my noble friend the Minister if she would like me to do so. Their ethnic status also
1212
restricts their career prospects at the higher levels of the Civil Service to which they may legitimately aspire. Again, documentary evidence is available.
As to present government policy, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister stated in Hong Kong on 4th March this year:
"Her Majesty's Government will guarantee admission and settlement should they come under pressure to leave Hong Kong".
That statement implicitly recognises that that group is a special case, but I fear that the guarantee is seen in Hong Kong as having little value. For what is that pressure? Who is to decide it? Will that be decided in Hong Kong or in the remote comfort of a Whitehall office? This looks like an administrative and moral swamp, employing objective criteria that the Government refuses to define, leaving 5,000 individuals uncertain of their eligibility. But, what is most important, that policy will result in the need for each person to put his or her case individually, exposing himself or herself to further discrimination if their specific circumstances do not fall into the, as yet, undetermined definition of "under pressure".
In addition, that policy completely misses the point. That community does not want to rush into the UK. All it is asking for is a full British passport so that its status in Hong Kong will not be an anomaly that exposes it to discrimination and a subjective interpretation of their status. Ministerial assurances, however well-intentioned, are in this case just not good enough.
I should like also to address some of the Government's arguments against making that important commitment to a loyal group of subjects. The Government are concerned that international precedents will be set by making a special case of that community. Then why have they themselves made a special case for that community by developing a specific policy related to that group? Why does that policy not address the real concerns and needs of a unique situation? Of course the Bill sets no precedents, as it deals with the unprecedented: all our former colonies were granted independence, while Hong Kong is to be transferred to China. The Government state that those people do not want to live in this country and therefore why give them passports. Passports will give them security in Hong Kong, a status that is transparent to them and to the authorities there; a status that offers them choices and, which as a result, will diminish the opportunity for discrimination.
Furthermore, a perhaps unexpected consequence of the Government's ambiguous policy is that those people will be able to exercise their rights under that policy only by coming to live in the United Kingdom. The Government are concerned that this Bill weakens, rather than strengthens, the position of ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. I have examined that carefully with legal experts in Hong Kong, with members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council and the Hong Kong Government, none of whom believe that this Bill will do anything but strengthen their position. More important, the Government should ask the ethnic minorities why they have never at any point given up their relentless

1213
campaign to gain passports. They obviously do not believe that their position will be weaker with a British passport.
I shall briefly go through the Bill which is before the House. The first part of Clause 1 outlines the purposes of the Bill and ensures that it is bound geographically by Hong Kong. That clause also establishes the uniqueness of the legislation and excludes all those who may hold other passports. It essentially sets out the qualifying criteria which restrict the Bill to genuine stateless members of the ethnic minority community.
The second part of the clause defines who may become a British dependent territory citizen by virtue only of a connection with Hong Kong after commencement but before 1st July 1997. The third part clarifies the issue of people who are British dependent territory citizens also holding British National (Overseas) passports.
The second clause explains the two types of British citizenship. The more favourable category is described as "otherwise than by descent". The lesser category is described as "by descent". British citizenship is divided into those two categories on the basis of a respective ability to transfer citizenship to one's children born outside the United Kingdom. That clause is intended to secure the most favourable status for those who qualify under the Bill.
Clause 3 dictates that one must fulfil different requirements as described in Schedule 2 to successfully achieve British citizenship as provided by this Act. To gain British citizenship under this Act, one must fulfil the requirements described. The key paragraph of Schedule 2 is paragraph 4 which determines that an applicant must prove that he is entitled to British citizenship under the Bill.
Clause 4 states that once a person gains British citizenship through the Bill, he is no longer a British dependent territory citizen or a British national overseas citizen and can apply for neither of those. That is simply a measure of good housekeeping.
Finally, I draw your Lordships' attention to a small typographical error. Clause 5(2) states:
"This Act has the same extent as the provisions of the principal Act mentioned in section 3(3) above".
That should read Section 4(3).
Having had discussions with the Home Office and Hong Kong, I am aware that the Bill as it stands will need some further tightening. Therefore, I intend to bring forward the necessary amendments in Committee to ensure that any existing anomalies are resolved. I draw much comfort from the fact that this Bill is supported by noble Lords who have so much experience of Hong Kong and I am heartened by the presence of my noble friend Lady Thatcher whose abiding interest in Hong Kong is so important. I am heartened also by the concern for this particular group of people which was shown by the debate on Hong Kong in another place on 11th November, as well as by many independent commentators outside Westminster.
1214
This Government should take the credit for the smooth handover of Hong Kong. Therefore, if only for political reasons, let us resolve this issue which could blight our record and reputation in Hong Kong and tarnish our colonial legacy. As we all agree on the need for safeguards, why can we not take this short step further for a mere 5,000 passports?
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Willoughby de Broke.)
5.4 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, we owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for focusing our minds yet again on this issue.
Of course, we have been here before but that is no good reason for not being here again. Indeed, it is a very good reason for being here again. The fact is that despite the widespread support given in this House to the Bill introduced by the late Lord Bonham-Carter, the uncertain and unsatisfactory status of that small group of people—the non-Chinese ethnic minority in Hong Kong—still persists.
It is a small group, as the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, pointed out. It is perhaps 5,000 people and probably fewer than that. But many of those people have been in Hong Kong for generations and have served their Hong Kong community in government, in the disciplined services and in commerce. The present arrangements are surely unsatisfactory. That group is neither one thing nor the other. Those people fall through the mesh of all the other multiple arrangements made in relation to nationality in Hong Kong.
Technically they may not be stateless. They may well have British nationality in the form of British national overseas passports. Their children and grandchildren, if they have no other passports, can have British overseas citizen passports. But there is no right of abode to go with that British national status. There is no right of abode in the United Kingdom. They can have a right of abode in Hong Kong if that has been their place of permanent residence for many years up to July next year. But because they are not ethnic Chinese, they have no automatic right to Chinese nationality, as ethnic Chinese in Hong Kong do. It is a classic case of falling between two stools. It cannot be considered satisfactory and it quite clearly is not satisfactory.
It would be churlish not to recognise what the Government have done already to try to deal with that situation. As the noble Lord has just mentioned, the Prime Minister gave a guarantee when he was in Hong Kong in March of this year that if those people came under pressure to leave Hong Kong after July 1997 then they would be admitted to the UK and allowed to stay. No doubt he thought that that would deal with the issue, but it has not. As the noble Lord pointed out, people remain uncertain as regards exactly what would constitute pressure to leave and what a future government would do. In any event, do people want that assurance for the future if their situation becomes intolerable in Hong Kong? The answer is that they do

1215
not. They want an assurance now which enables them to remain in Hong Kong and to continue to contribute their talents and energy to the success of Hong Kong.
The Opposition foreign affairs spokesman, Mr. Robin Cook, has also recognised that there is a real issue here. He has gone a step further and said that a Labour government would ensure that all people in that group would be given an unconditional right to enter and settle in Britain. But, inevitably, that is the future conditional tense and what is needed is action now.
There are many factors about which we in Britain cannot determine precisely what will happen in Hong Kong. But here is something which affects a small but real problem—the lives of a small group of people and their futures—for which we should feel a sense of responsibility, and the power to deal with that lies entirely in our own hands. Furthermore, fulfilling our responsibility on that would be widely supported in Hong Kong. It would in no way create difficulties in our relationship with Beijing.
I believe that on this issue we can do what is needed, and surely we should do what is needed along the lines set out in this Bill.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Rees: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, on introducing this Bill. It covers well tilled ground and many noble Lords will recall the Bill that was introduced in 1993 and regret with me that it foundered in another place. However, I hope that, against that background, my intervention can be brief. I am neither qualified nor concerned to be drawn into the niceties of international law, but it could just be that this case is covered by the United Nations convention of 1961, which relates to cases where there is a transfer of territory, and that both the countries concerned should accept some responsibility to ensure that there are no stateless persons as a result. Against that, it may be argued that the British overseas nationals in Hong Kong designed to be covered by this Bill will not be technically stateless because they will have some kind of travel document. However, what is important is the fact that they will have no right of abode in this country.
Equally, the Chinese authorities—and I regret that they should have done this—have disclaimed any particular responsibility for this category who are former subjects of Hong Kong because they claim that their nationality laws cannot be altered to take account of people who are not of ethnic Chinese descent. I am the last person to want to take up that issue, but, against that background, there clearly is a risk that the people for whom we are showing concern this evening might be in a very difficult and dangerous position after the transfer of power. Therefore, if the Chinese in their discretion were not to offer any people falling into that category a right of abode, I do not believe that this country could stand aside. So much was indeed conceded by the Minister who took part in the debate in 1993. I believe that the Bill is only doing what is right and honourable; is doing, indeed, what has been recognised by this Government to be the right and honourable course to take.
1216
I have no doubt that my noble friend the Minister, who has the unenviable task of responding to today's debate, will tell us that dangerous precedents would be established and that questions of citizenship and immigration are of the utmost political sensitivity. Those of us who have had any experience of public life over the years will know that that is so, but we must get this particular case into perspective. It is rare for decisions of government—practically in any field, but certainly in this field—to be painless or without cost. However, I believe that this is such a case because, as my noble friend who introduced the Bill reminded us, probably no more than 5,000 people in Hong Kong at the maximum are likely to be affected.
We may be told that there are other residual dependencies, but I cannot believe that they involve as many as even 5,000 people. If people produced the case of St. Helena, my response would be that I had no awareness that this Government—or, indeed, any other government of this country—were contemplating the transfer of power there to another territory. Therefore, if we view the matter in its true perspective, I believe that it will be seen that this is a very small problem which should be handled with honour and charity.
I know that my noble friend the Minister has a warm heart and a fine sense of honour. We know that from her many appearances at the Dispatch Box. I hope that she will follow what I judge to be her instincts in this case and not the cautious departmental brief which has no doubt been pressed into her hands. I also hope that my noble friend will not attempt to block this small, very worthwhile Bill and that she may even go a little further and give it her support, however cautious.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sorry that the House has been deprived of a very much more eloquent speech than I can make. If I may say so, in this Chamber the repetition of points which have been made by previous speakers is frowned upon. So fond am I of your Lordships that I do not wish to earn any displeasure in that respect. Therefore, I shall try not to repeat points that have already been made so well, especially in the introductory speech to the Bill on its Second Reading.
The question of allowing this very small group of faithful citizens—and I call them "citizens" deliberately—has been debated quite often in another place, but on the 14th November there was a very telling exchange in regard to the workability of the conditional offer which has been made on behalf of the Government. Mr. Robin Cook, who is the shadow Foreign Secretary in the other place, said:
"The Prime Minister's statement was certainly an advance on the Government's previous position. However, the Foreign Secretary will be aware that there is considerable confusion among the ethnic minority in Hong Kong as to what those exceptional circumstances might be. The Government have offered no definition in that regard. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House in what circumstances the right of abode will he triggered?"—[official Report, Commons, 14/11/96; col. 518.]

1217
In reply (at col. 519 of Hansard) the Secretary of State said:
"We have said that if those people came under pressure—it is in their interests that we do not try to specify circumstances which must be hypothetical—if there was undue discrimination against such people"
and I emphasise the word "undue"
"if they could not carry on their normal lives without unacceptable pressure being placed on them"
and I stress the word "unacceptable"
"if there was activity which clearly demonstrated"
again, I emphasise the word "clearly"
"that they were being treated unreasonably and unacceptably, we would wish to honour the obligation that we announced. That is a source of additional security to the people concerned".
I wonder what kind of sense of security was given to the Asian minority in Hong Kong on hearing that response.
If one is making a gift—and this is a seasonal time at which to comment on that—for heaven's sake, make it absolutely and with a good heart. The Minister has been described much more graciously by the previous speaker than I could, but I echo his sentiment; indeed, she has the very high regard of this House. Will the noble Baroness accept that it would be a rather miserable way of giving a Christmas present if one said to the donee, "You don't get it unless you prove to me that you won't celebrate Christmas without it and on condition, too, that no one else is giving you a similar gift". That would not be the kind of generosity of which the Minister is capable. I ask her to consider that and to reflect, if she will, on the following deficiencies in the offer that has been made.
The case for making an offer has been made by others. That is why I need not repeat it. But, first, is it not really quite absurd and illogical to say to someone who is seeking security in Hong Kong in very tempestuous historical times (which all of us hope will prove not to be so but to be quiet and tolerant) with China there—and I speak with respect to that great country but with disrespect to its record of human rights—"Well, despite the fact that you are leaving relatives and friends behind who will be known to the authorities as being your friends and relatives, it will be perfectly easy for you to apply on the basis that you are undergoing such pressure in Hong Kong that you have got to leave"? Will they not think that the risk is being passed on to members of their families? Quite apart from that, will not the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues have to consider carefully the diplomatic effect of giving permission? It will be an admission by the British Government that there is discrimination and that life for these people in Hong Kong is so pressurised that they have to leave. They have to prove "undue" discrimination. Are the Government aware of the difficulty they would face in granting permission in those circumstances? This cannot be right. Apart from anything else, I thought we were trying to preach a little sermon to China. With all the diplomatic activity that has been going on, we are trying obviously to say to them, "Imitate our democratic ways if you can in Hong Kong because our democracy has virtues attached to it".
1218
If that is the lesson we are trying to prove, ought the Government, on the basis of the Bill being passed in your Lordships' House, as I am confident it will be, not to give it an easy wind—because the other place is the voice of democracy—to ensure that it becomes an Act before 30th June? In fact, that will mean it becoming an Act before 1st May. We shall lower the Union Jack on 30th June; please may it be done with honour.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I, too, make a point which I hope may be a new one in this much debated issue. The British nationality selection scheme, which was passed into law by Parliament in 1990, was intended—as noble Lords will remember—to give British citizenship to up to 50,000 heads of households and their dependants. It was estimated at that time that that would mean giving citizenship to a total of approximately 225,000 people in all. Up to the present time 49,000 heads of household have received British citizenship. The scheme ends on the date of the transfer of power but the total number of people who have received British citizenship is nowhere near 225,000; it is 135,000. There is therefore a shortfall of 90,000 people whom we expected to receive British citizenship but who will quite clearly not receive it, although a few more may receive it between now and 30th June.
The number affected by this Bill is 5,000—a trifling number compared with those whom only a few years ago we expected and accepted would receive British citizenship. My first question to the Minister is: does she accept the figures which I have mentioned, and does she agree that we shall have certainly many fewer British citizens granted citizenship in Hong Kong than we had expected? If my figures are correct, that seems to me to be a powerful argument in favour of this Bill.
Secondly, what sort of people are we talking about? They have been well described by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn. They and their forebears have played a distinguished role in the life of Hong Kong from the beginning, as there were Indian soldiers or military people in the garrison from the first day of British ownership. They have been civil servants, members of the disciplined services and some of them were members of the Hong Kong volunteers, the Hong Kong reserve defence force which fought the Japanese in 1941 when some of them were killed and some became prisoners of war of the Japanese. They have been prominent in business, industry and in the professions. Even if they were to come here, they would not be a burden on this country's resources. They have an established position in Hong Kong and they would not be a burden on the state if they came here. But, of course, they do not want to leave Hong Kong, any more than the 49,000 heads of household and their dependants whom I referred to a moment ago. It is evident that few of them have come to this country since they were granted British citizenship. What they want is an insurance policy. I believe it is unlikely they will be forced to leave anyway because of the useful role they will be able to play in Hong Kong in future.

1219
I believe that the Prime Minister's statement in March was a step forward. The Government have come under pressure to list the precise circumstances in which the guarantee would apply. I believe that the Government have been right to resist producing such a list because if it were produced it would tend to narrow the discretion which a future government would possess if the relevant circumstances arose. However, there are administrative difficulties. In what I thought was a powerful speech, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, explained some of the reasons why the ethnic minorities might lack confidence in the Prime Minister's statement, as elaborated by the Foreign Secretary on 14th November. After all, we are talking about Government statements which are not law. I believe that what we need is something firmer than that. In any case there would be administrative difficulties in putting the Prime Minister's policy into effect. For example, would it apply only to individuals who came under pressure, or would it apply to the whole class? Does a judgment have to be made to the whole class which has come under pressure—all 5,000—or is it enough that one or two come under pressure? That is not clear.
Are different degrees of pressure relevant? Clearly they are according to the Foreign Secretary's Statement. The present Government cannot guarantee the interpretation of a future government. Whatever confidence we may have that a future government would honour the guairantee, that is not how it appears in Hong Kong. Would an applicant who wished to take advantage of the guarantee be able to keep secret the fact that he had made an application to do so? If it were not secret, would he come under further discrimination? Supposing his application was not accepted and he had to remain in Hong Kong, would the discrimination against him be even stronger than before? I do not regard it as at all surprising that the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong lack confidence in what has been said by the Government, although I welcome what has been said. That is not strange given the obvious fact that it has been, and will be, the policy of successive governments to limit immigration into this country as strictly as possible.
My third question to my noble friend the Minister is: what are the objections to the passage of this Bill, or a Bill which embodies the main principle of the Bill? It is clear that it will not provoke China. It is supported by the Executive Council of Hong Kong and the Legislative Council of Hong Kong. It appears to be supported by the population of Hong Kong. I do not know of many objections from the average Chinese citizen of Hong Kong. It will not provoke other BNO passport holders. It is thought that the Government's reason for not accepting the Bill—if that is their position, I hope it will change—may be that it would set a difficult precedent. Can my noble friend the Minister give—if that is the case—examples of the kind of precedent that might be set? I find it difficult to see any difficult precedent.
The situation of the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong is unique. The situation of Hong Kong is unique. We shall not transfer other territories to the sovereignty of another power. There is no precedent this century for
1220
handing over a colonial territory to another power. When colonial territories have become independent, their citizens have had the option to obtain a passport of the newly independent state. The situation was entirely different. Can the Minister tell us what are the difficult precedents which might be established?
I welcome the Statement made by the Prime Minister in March. However, I hope that the Government will be able to go this step further.
5.30 p.m.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for bringing forward the Bill on which I know he has spent so much time and trouble.
The issues involved have been well covered already by previous speakers. Taking account of the words of advice of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I shall not go over the same ground again. I am also conscious of the fact that my noble friend Lady Dunn will speak later with far more authority than I can do in present circumstances. However, I wish to emphasise one issue.
It may appear to the Home Office that there have been many Bills about Hong Kong nationality. There may be an element of impatience in perceiving this further Bill. It might be asked, "Does the issue matter that much that we should have so much legislation about it?" However, of all the issues that came to my desk in the course of 12 years in Hong Kong, nationality was the most difficult and most emotive. No issue seemed to stir people in Hong Kong so greatly. That is because it has been played around with (if I may use that term) so much in the past 40 years and there is great impatience on the part of those people about anything to do with nationality.
It seems to me a great pity that we should leave the colony with the issue of British nationality for the ethnic minorities unsolved. In Hong Kong the ethnic minorities may be comparatively small in number but they deserve our consideration. They are well thought of in Hong Kong. They are highly articulate. It would be a great pity to have this blot of meanness towards the ethnic minorities—for "Britannia" to sail away with the Governor and the Prince of Wales, with the British flag down and the Chinese flag up, just when we wanted to leave behind a clean page. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will support the Bill and that it will be passed.
5.34 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I have never spoken in any of the debates on Hong Kong in your Lordships' House and probably would not have considered doing so today were I not conscious of the fact that this Bill seeks to address an issue of justice. The Bill proposes the removal of a blatant unfairness. The people affected are few in number but I believe that we have a responsibility towards them. I believe that we have a moral obligation to address the issue that has arisen, and speaking in this Chamber under the fresco depicting Justice, I feel compelled to involve myself in the debate.

1221
We are talking about non-ethnic Chinese living in Hong Kong whose ancestors, let us recall, were taken to Hong Kong by the British founding fathers of the colony in the 1840s. About 2,000 Indian troops were there when the British flag was first raised in Hong Kong. They did not choose to go there; they were taken there by us. Since that time many of them have suffered as a result of their "British" nationality. They are regarded by the ethnic Chinese as British. During the Second World War some were taken to Japanese prisoner of war camps because they were perceived to be British. This House has great knowledge of the deprivation and the sheer horrors that occurred in those prisoner of war camps. We should remember that. They suffered alongside British prisoners. Their loyalty to the Crown was never in question. More of them served in Britain in the Armed Forces. Again, their loyalty was never in question. And more of them gave sterling service to this country in the voluntary support services.
Loyalty does count. We are not loyal just because we want to gain something. Loyalty is an inherent characteristic which has been shown time and again by these people. Surely we in turn should show loyalty to them.
Because of their situation, the 5,000 people we are discussing can hold BNO passports but not full British passports. I suspect that few noble Lords have ever been deemed to be stateless. As my noble friend Lord Rees said, these people need not be technically stateless, but they are as good as stateless if they do not have the right of abode. We do not know about being stateless because it is not within our experience. We cannot truly imagine how appalling it can be. Our full British passports are among our most treasured possessions—or they would be if we stopped to think about the alternative; namely, to be without a passport.
In preparation for the debate, my attention was drawn to the case of a lady aged over 80. She will become stateless next year. Her immediate family has received two MBEs and one OBE. Her brothers were both on active service during the Second World War; one was imprisoned in a Japanese prisoner of war camp. Other members of her family have been leading figures in the Hong Kong Government. Her future is now uncertain. She is highly unlikely to expose herself by applying for residency in the UK under the Government's as yet undefined criteria. In any case, she does not want to reside in the UK but is aware that if she stays in Hong Kong she will have no status with the new regime.
There are many similar cases involving people who have shown loyalty to us and towards whose plight and concern about the insecurity of their future we appear to be indifferent.
However, this is not a Bill about the past, about treatment meted out to those who are approaching the end of their lives. It is more importantly a Bill addressing the problems of the younger generations who will be affected significantly next year. The future of those younger people is blighted by the fact that neither they nor their children will have full citizenship of any country. There will be no country in the world where
1222
they can exercise political rights or hold high office. There is a statutory ceiling in Hong Kong that precludes them from offering their full potential to any community.
We are condemning those people and their offspring to a world in which they will never be able to exercise their full human rights—a legacy that might well come back to haunt us. We can and must show our loyalty to them. I do not need to remind your Lordships that both Houses of Parliament over the past 35 years have dealt sensitively with the issues surrounding our colonies. Let us not fall at the last hurdle on Hong Kong. Let us provide security for those 5,000 people and grant them passports.
5.39 p.m.
Baroness Dunn: My Lords, British sovereignty over Hong Kong will revert to China in six months' time. One of the world's most successful capitalist economies will become a special administrative region of the world's largest socialist country. What is to take place simply has no precedent in history.
The Government have pledged that the rights which Hong Kong people currently enjoy will be protected. The Government have done much to carry out that pledge. Yet they have obstinately refused to ease the plight of a small group of non-ethnic Chinese Hong Kong citizens who effectively, although perhaps not technically, face being rendered stateless when the British flag comes down.
Your Lordships are familiar with the unique circumstances of this group. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for bringing forward this Bill. I shall not repeat the facts. Numerous groups from Hong Kong have made representations on behalf of this group to the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and Members of both Houses of Parliament. I have called on the Home Secretary twice, once in the company of the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Mr. David Howell, and once with the late Lord Bonham-Carter, who so tirelessly championed their cause. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee supports their case for full British citizenship, as does the present Governor of Hong Kong.
On 15th July 1993, by a vote of 60 to 48, this House called upon the Government to give them full British citizenship. Those who supported the Motion spoke from all sides of the House and included two previous Governors of Hong Kong and a former Minister responsible for Hong Kong.
None of this has moved the Home Secretary. He has argued against granting full British citizenship on three main grounds: first, that this is not a special case; secondly, that giving them full citizenship would require legislation which it would be difficult to get through Parliament; and, thirdly, that existing arrangements give them sufficient protection.
None of these objections stands up to scrutiny. As to the first objection, that this is not a special case, I would ask the following question: where, in all the history of Britain, has sovereignty ever been transferred to another

1223
state where British nationals left behind will have no right to become citizens? If this is not a special case, what is?
As to the second objection, the difficulty with legislation, it is now clear that this objection has been overtaken by events. In a debate on Hong Kong in another place last month there was all-party support for legislation to be introduced. The Shadow Foreign Secretary assured the Government that the Labour Party,
"would co-operate in facilitating the passage of such legislation".
As to the third objection, that existing assurances were good enough, the Prime Minister himself has now recognised that loose words of comfort are not good enough. As noble Lords have mentioned, during the Prime Minister's last visit to Hong Kong on 4th March this year, he announced that, if these people came under pressure to leave Hong Kong after 1997, Britain would "guarantee" the ethnic minorities admission and settlement. He said:
"The guarantee today is more specific and a good deal harder".
He went on to concede that previous assurances had not gone far enough. But these are still only words. They do not meet the will of this House, expressed in its Motion three years ago, to grant them full citizenship; the Bill before us does.
Like all Hong Kong people, the ethnic minorities wish to continue to live in Hong Kong; but they are apprehensive that after 1997 there will be no sovereign obliged to protect them. Their number is small; they lack clout. Their plea is just. They have not yet despaired of their British sovereign.
I am deeply moved by the compassion, understanding and sense of justice shown by noble Lords who have spoken before me. I urge the Minister to support this Bill and to put an end to the anxieties of this small, unique and deserving group of individuals.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, one of the great advantages of speaking at this stage of a Second Reading is that everything that should have been said has been said. I shall therefore make my remarks extremely brief.
Before coming on to the Bill itself, perhaps I may express my personal gratification at the election yesterday of Mr. C-H Tung as the first Chief Executive and even more so if, as reported in The Times today, that appointment is to be coupled with that of Mrs. Anson Chan, the present Chief Secretary, as the future Chief Secretary. I am delighted at Mr. Tung's appointment, which I think will be an extremely good one.
As to the Bill itself, I wish to emphasise one point only. To use the perhaps overused and abused word "unique", this is a completely unique situation. There has never been a situation like this before. The noble Lord, Lord MacLehose of Beoch, made a very telling comment when he said that in all his 12 years of governorship—outstanding years, if I may say so—the question of nationality was by far the most emotive that he came across. I can remember being in correspondence with the noble Lord during the passage
1224
of the British Nationality Act 1981. One of the biggest problems from the Government's point of view was the sheer weight of numbers. I do not think that that was said in as many words, but, reading between the lines, that is how we all interpreted it. During the passage of that Act the illustration was used of Macao and how the Portuguese, with a different nationality law from that of this country, were granting and would continue to grant—and still will grant, to the best of my knowledge—full Portuguese nationality to the Chinese citizens of Macao. The difference is, of course, that the numbers in that case were infinitely fewer than those of the population of Hong Kong.
It is water under the bridge as far as the Chinese ethnic population of Hong Kong is concerned and therefore there is no longer a question of numbers for Her Majesty's Government. But we still have this very small number of 4,000 to 5,000 who will become stateless. It is a unique situation. As my noble friend Lord Blaker said, it cannot set a precedent; there is no precedent to set.
I do not envy my noble friend her job in replying this evening to such a battery of one-sided comment. I urge her to persuade her right honourable friends that the Government, even at this late stage, should do something really decent—and perhaps even generous, if that is how the Foreign and Commonwealth Office wishes to look at it—by giving this Bill a fair passage.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Briggs: My Lords, the speeches which have been made during the course of this debate have been so moving that I do not intend to add anything of particular depth. People know Hong Kong so well and those who have spoken before me have played such a big part in its recent history that they have said everything there is to say.
Justice is at stake here. In addition, there is a case for regarding this as an historic moment. In fact, we are going through a particular change in the history of the world in which our record will be looked at very carefully in years to come.
These people about whom we are speaking have played an enormous part in the history of Hong Kong. As was said, many of them did not go there of their own free will. Through their work and their loyalty, as well as through their very special and individual talents, they have contributed much to the history of Hong Kong. I have talked to many of them in Hong Kong. They look to his House as a place where their views, ideas and interests can be heard. If, at this moment, we make our own gesture of an historic kind, we shall make relationships in that part of the world a great deal better in the future. We have the chance to do it.
During the course of this debate—I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, on bringing it forward—many marvellous things have been said. Much of it has been said before. The ground has been tilled. But the timing is now crucial. We do not have any more time. Unless we act now, we shall miss an opportunity of getting right our own historic record in a part of the world where we shall need in the future to have our record right.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I support the Bill. I have only two questions to ask my noble friend the Minister. If we are concerned, and feel some responsibility for how Peking may treat the people of Hong Kong after 1997—and that, I would suggest, is in part (some might say considerable part) what the negotiations over the past 14 years have been about—how would we stand if we now abandon the 5,000? The subsequent question is: What would be the moral force of any protest that we might have to make in the future if there were to be—I hope there would not be—any ill treatment of the Chinese people of Hong Kong?
5.52 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, from these Benches I strongly but briefly support the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, in moving this Bill. From this Bench we particularly appreciate the references that he made to the late Lord Bonham-Carter, our colleague who was a leader in initiating this concern in your Lordships' House.
Everything has been said. I do not speak with the knowledge of Hong Kong shown by so many of those who have spoken, including two distinguished former governors. But what has emerged over the long period in which this case has been deployed is that there is a small but unique group for whom we in Britain have a responsibility. It is a situation without precedent. As one noble Lord pointed out, we do not see how conceding this matter would create future precedents which would make difficulty for the Government.
Over my long political lifetime, I have had a good deal to do with the process of spreading independence within the British Commonwealth. It is a process of which we can be properly proud. But never before have we been in a situation in which we face leaving people for whom we have a moral responsibility stateless. The Government ought to face up to that situation.
The Government's position was stated by the Foreign Secretary in another place in November. He took the view that those people already have a right of abode in Hong Kong. He went on to say that, if there were undue pressure, unacceptable pressure, they would be looked after by the Government. He gave an explicit assurance that they would have a right to enter the United Kingdom.
Let me say to the Minister who has the slightly thankless task of replying to this debate that, with reference to the statement that these people have a right of abode in Hong Kong, the fact is that the ethnic minority's security is not guaranteed by the Basic Law. They will not be full Hong Kong citizens. In individual cases, of which all of us could give examples, there are people who have already suffered in their careers because of the present situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, dealt in an unanswerable way with the proposition that if there is pressure something will be done; namely, that there is no proper definition of "undue discrimination". What is the definition of "unacceptable pressure"? How does one define "normal lives"? What is the meaning of "unreasonable or unacceptable treatment"?
1226
When it comes to an explicit assurance about looking after that tiny group of people, I feel that what is required is the very small step by Her Majesty's Government from giving those unenforceable assurances to giving the security of full United Kingdom citizenship, with the legal guarantees that go with it.
Time is now desperately short but it is not too short for the Government to take up the Bill, to amend it in whatever way is required, and make it an appropriate statute. The Government are assured of the co-operation of the Opposition parties on this matter. This is a small group of people for whom we have a responsibility and who are faced with being stateless. It is a group of people who are proud of their connection with Britain and who over generations in Hong Kong have given good service to our country. This is a debt of honour. Before it is too late, the Government ought to meet that debt of honour.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, on having introduced this Bill, on his longstanding commitment to the cause of ethnic minorities in Hong Kong and on the enormous amount of effort that he has put into the Bill to make sure that it is the kind of Bill that will meet the need.
I am conscious that in this House today there are many persons who have enormous experience and knowledge of Hong Kong. My knowledge of Hong Kong is much less. But, given the weight of opinion in this House based upon such talent and experience of Hong Kong, I hope that the Government will listen hard to the arguments.
I am also conscious that every one of us, as 1st July next year dawns, will be apprehensive and concerned on behalf of all the people in Hong Kong. We shall also be concerned lest there be anything that we failed to do that we could have done to safeguard all the people. One of our failures might be that of not looking after the rights of the ethnic minorities. There is a chance today for us to demonstrate that, at least in that respect, we shall have done everything possible. I do not say that we shall not have done so in other respects as well, but here we are concerned with a very particular issue.
I have made three visits to Hong Kong. On each one I met representatives of the ethnic minorities there and been impressed by the force of their arguments. As has been said very clearly, they will not have the same status as other people in Hong Kong because China will not guarantee them citizenship as they are not technically ethnically Chinese. So they will be left without the rights to which they ought to be entitled. They will have a document but it will merely be a travel document. It will not be a document that will guarantee them the proper rights of citizenship and admission to any territory. Never before in our history of decolonisation have we left people in that position. We have looked after the interests of other people when we have decolonised many other parts of the world; we cannot make an exception with regard to this one small, but important, group of people.

1227
My noble friend Lord Mishcon dealt capably with the Government's arguments that if people in Hong Kong came under pressure, the Government would look after their interests. But that may well be too late; it may well be invidious, and it is only a partial assurance—so partial, that we regard it as inadequate.
When I first went to Hong Kong and talked to the ethnic minorities I found that around 9,000 people were affected by this situation. A number have since then acquired British or other passports and the figure has fallen to between 4,000 and 5,000. Those are individuals, not heads of households. The number of households is of course much lower than that. As has already been said, many of those people came to Hong Kong originally at our invitation and instigation. Many are second or third generation Hong Kong residents. I understand that most of them came from the Indian sub-continent and many have served the Crown loyally over many years, if not generations.
In the past there has been concern by people opposed to the giving of passports that to do it on this occasion would set a precedent elsewhere in the world to other groups who demand British passports. But, as has been said this evening, no other group in the world has that claim. If they did, somebody would have mentioned them. We are talking about a unique group of people and in granting them passports, as the Bill suggests, we shall not in any way be setting a precedent for other groups elsewhere in the world.
I served in the other place on the standing committee dealing with the British Nationality Act and we spent a lot of time discussing Hong Kong—perhaps we were not all that prescient in regard to what is happening now, but we did spend a great deal of time on the issue. Though the argument about opening the door to other groups has existed since then, nobody has produced any examples to deal with it. It is a unique group.
If all goes well in Hong Kong, as we all pray and hope it will, the majority—indeed the totality—of those 4,000 to 5,000 people will prefer to stay in Hong Kong. We would be giving them an assurance and a safeguard. In fact, I believe that if they came to Britain they would be an asset to this country. They have demonstrated their entrepreneurial talents and skills and no doubt would immediately make their mark on this country and contribute to our economy and to our life. However, if all goes well in Hong Kong, they will not want to come here.
The proposition in the Bill is a simple one and it is difficult to see what opposition there could be. My understanding is that the Bill is widely supported in this House and in the other place; it is supported by the present Governor of Hong Kong and two previous governors; it is supported by the Chinese Government, LegCo and the bulk of public opinion itself. Who is against it? I know that the Government of this country speak with one voice. But if one looks behind that voice, there is reason to believe that there are many voices in government who would urge that this Bill be supported. I know the Minister cannot comment on that, but my understanding for some time has been that the only thing
1228
that stands in the way of the passage of this Bill is the Home Office. Perhaps tonight we shall hear something different and I shall be proved wrong.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, went through what appeared to be the Government's arguments against the Bill and successfully demolished every one of them. I suppose there is one other argument—let us be frank—an election is coming. Is the Home Secretary nervous lest he be accused of being soft on immigration? I can say emphatically that that will not be an argument in the election. Every party has said that, if the Government give the Bill a passage, we shall give them our total and wholehearted support. It will not be an election issue therefore and the Government need not worry about that.
Over the years the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong have never failed to give Britain their support; let us make it clear to them tonight that Britain will not fail to give them our support when they need it.
6.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, it is clear from today's debate that this Bill deals with a subject about which not only my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke but many others in your Lordships' House feel very strongly.
An earlier Bill closely resembling this one was introduced in 1993 by the late Lord Bonham-Carter, and my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke spoke in support of that Bill. The present Bill is primarily concerned, as was the Bill introduced by Lord Bonham-Carter, with the 8,000—there is a difference between us of around 3,000, but I make no issue of that—or so Hong Kong British dependent territories citizens or British nationals (overseas) who hold no other nationality. I recognise that the Bill is not therefore aimed at the other 22,000 or so members of Hong Kong's ethnic minority population who also have some other nationality besides British.
It has been argued very strongly today that because of their unique position those members of the ethnic minorities with whom the Bill is concerned should be given British citizenship as a form of insurance against what might happen to them after June next year. Parliament concluded, when the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill was debated in 1990, that no special citizenship arrangements were needed or appropriate.
One of the arguments for special citizenship measures has been that the ethnic minorities concerned will become stateless on 1st July 1997. The Government do not accept that argument. Specific provision was made in Article 6 of the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order 1986 to deal with the possibility of statelessness. Under the terms of the order people who have only British nationality—in the form of Hong Kong British dependent territories citizenship or British nationality (overseas)—before 1997 will keep British nationality, primarily as British nationals (overseas) but, alternatively, as British overseas citizens if they fail to register as British nationals (overseas) and would otherwise be stateless. The children of these people will automatically become British overseas citizens if they

1229
would otherwise be stateless. The anti-statelessness provisions even extend to their grandchildren who will have an entitlement to acquire British overseas citizenship by registration if they would otherwise be stateless.
It is thus clear from Article 6 of the 1986 order that the ethnic minorities will not be stateless. I cannot stress that enough. Another issue is the often-repeated claim that the ethnic minorities will have no right of abode after 1997. The solely British ethnic minorities have a right of abode only in Hong Kong at the moment. They will continue to have a right of abode there because the Joint Declaration and Article 24(6) of the Basic Law guarantee it for people who do not have a right of abode elsewhere. That has been reaffirmed in recent discussions with the Chinese Government.
Most of the Hong Kong population will be in the same position as the ethnic minorities in that they will have the same rights of abode after the change of sovereignty as before, with the vast majority not having the right of abode in the United Kingdom. The Government's view is that the change of sovereignty will not impact upon the ethnic minorities in any way which justifies their being given special treatment in the form of a right of abode in the United Kingdom.
Considerable doubt has been voiced tonight about the value of British nationality (overseas) and British overseas citizenship, one or other of which the ethnic minorities will have after June next year. Those nationality statuses are in no way inferior to the British dependent territories citizenship which the ethnic minorities now have. There are tens of thousands of people in the world at large with British overseas citizen status, and the British overseas citizen passport is well established. I would point out that a large number of the British overseas citizens, scattered throughout the world, have this as their only citizenship. As to British nationality (overseas) status, there are likely to be around 3.5 million people in Hong Kong by next year with this status and the British Nationality (Overseas) passport is accepted throughout the world.
Holders of the British Nationality (Overseas) and the British overseas citizen's passports do not need entry clearance for visits to the United Kingdom. The holders of such passports can also call upon British consular assistance worldwide. These passports are much more than just travel documents. Their holders, if resident here for the required period, have an entitlement to registration as British citizens as opposed to having to apply for naturalisation, which is discretionary.
Your Lordships will see therefore that there is no difference between the position of the ethnic minorities now and what it will be after next June in terms of ability to travel, consular protection and entitlement to British citizenship after fulfilling the UK residence requirements.
I want to emphasise that it is not appropriate to consider this problem purely in the context of Hong Kong, although I know that that has been the strength underlying many of the points which have been made. If the argument were to be accepted that having a form
1230
of British nationality that is not British citizenship, and having right of abode somewhere else besides the UK, is a totally unsatisfactory situation and one that has to be brought to an end forthwith, that would undermine the whole basis of British nationality law. The British Nationality Act 1981 provides for different forms of British nationality to be acquired according to the circumstances of the particular case. Each form of British nationality is perfectly acceptable and valid. It is absolutely legitimate for someone to have, say, British dependent territories citizenship and no other nationality, and right of abode only in the relevant territory. There are many thousands of people in the world who have one of these other forms of British nationality and who have right of abode only in a particular territory. The ethnic minorities are not unique in having a form of British nationality which is not British citizenship and in not having a right of abode in the United Kingdom. This global situation has to be taken into account.
The ethnic minorities have, for many years, been secure in the knowledge that if, against expectations, they came under pressure to leave Hong Kong and had nowhere else to go, the British Government of the day would consider their case for admission to the United Kingdom sympathetically. That assurance was given because the ethnic minorities feared that as non-Chinese residents of Hong Kong they might be discriminated against and their lives made intolerable.
In March this year the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that we were giving the ethnic minorities a firm guarantee of admission to the United Kingdom for settlement if they ever came under pressure to leave Hong Kong. The Government have accepted that evidence of discrimination in a particular case could be a relevant factor in deciding whether any individual had come under pressure to leave. That is a partial answer to a point raised by my noble friend Lord Blaker. We would most certainly take into account any form of racial harassment.
The Government have been pleased to note that several hundred members of the ethnic minorities have been successful in their applications for British citizenship under the British nationality selection scheme, which provided for British citizenship for 50,000 key personnel and their families, because we recognise that the ethnic minorities have made, and continue to make, a substantial contribution to Hong Kong's prosperity and stability.
Our primary objective has been to ensure the ethnic minorities' security in Hong Kong, which is where their ties are and their future lies. We believe that we have adequately protected their position. There are, in the Government's view, no new circumstances which would justify our now making additional citizenship arrangements for the ethnic minorities.
To summarise, the Government have set in place the selection scheme which has given British citizenship so far to more than 130,000 people in Hong Kong, among them members of the ethnic minorities. I will come back to the specific point made by my noble friend in a moment, if I may. It has safeguarded through the Joint

1231
Declaration the Hong Kong residence rights of all the ethnic minorities who currently have right of abode in Hong Kong, including the residence rights of those ethnic minorities who are the subject of the Bill before us today. We have guarded against their statelessness by means of the Hong Kong British Nationality Order 1986 and have provided for their British nationality to continue. Of great significance also is the promise made in March by the Prime Minister. I repeat his words today. If the House will bear with me today I shall give the full statement. The Prime Minister said:
"There are two other immigration and nationality matters which have been raised many times by Hong Kong people: the position of the wives and widows of ex-servicemen who fought for Britain in the War and that of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities in Hong Kong after 1997. Let me address first the question of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities with no nationality other than British. This is a limited group; their right of abode in Hong Kong after 1997 is guaranteed by the Joint Declaration; the British Government have made clear that any member of this group who would otherwise be stateless will be entitled to British Overseas Citizenship as will their children and grandchildren. We have also said repeatedly that if against all expectations any solely British nationals come under pressure to leave Hong Kong, the British government of the day would consider with considerable and particular sympathy their case for admission to the United Kingdom. Let me make clear today to this group that we are prepared to guarantee-1 repeat to guarantee—admission and settlement if at any time after 1 July 1997 they were to come under pressure to leave Hong Kong. It is the position, of course, that this group do not wish to leave Hong Kong, they are settled here, their business is here, their families ties are here but they wish to be sure that if they come under pressure to leave that they will have a country to go to. Mr. Chairman, from today, they have that assurance.".
The Prime Minister also made it clear that he was not convinced of the merit of setting down in detail the specific circumstances which would need to be met for that assurance to come into effect. The Government have also said that discrimination or racial harassment would be taken into account when deciding whether any individual had come under pressure to leave. I cannot add to that statement.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister. Will she say, in connection with all these assurances, whether the ethnic minority will enjoy British consular protection after July of next year?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, yes I can. I have already made that point, but the answer is, yes, they would have consular protection.
My noble friend Lord Blaker referred to the shortfall in the number of people who came in under the special scheme. Parliament decided, of course, that the scheme should cover a maximum of 50,000 households, and that is the figure specified in the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990. The figure of 225,000 was only ever an estimate of the total number of people, including family members and children born after 1997, who might ultimately receive British citizenship as the result of that Act. Therefore, it was an illustrative figure—not definitive—and only an estimate of the total commitment. Therefore, the figure quoted by my noble friend was right. It was 130,000, but the 220,000 has no formal status at all.
1232
My noble friend Lady O'Cathain referred to a particular case in Hong Kong and clearly set out the case for that family. I hope my noble friend will accept that I cannot enter into individual cases. What I can say, referring to the point illustrated by the case, is that the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law make clear that foreign nationals serving in public service in Hong Kong have the right to serve as public servants in government and in government departments at all levels, except, of course, for a handful of principal official posts, considered to be of particular sensitivity. That is no different from many countries, including this country. There are a number of posts in this country of such sensitivity that it has to be British nationals and citizens of this country who hold those posts.
The Joint Declaration also makes clear that appointments and promotion of public servants shall be on the basis of qualifications, experience and ability, and giving British citizenship would not improve the position of those people in principal posts.
My noble friend Lord Geddes referred to the Macau and Portuguese issue. Portugal makes no distinction between Portuguese nationals in Portugal and Macau, as I think my noble friend knows. The United Kingdom has had to make citizenship distinctions enshrined in the British Nationality Act 1981 restricting right of abode in the United Kingdom to British citizens. Therefore, we do not believe it is sensible to draw that analogy. Different historical and constitutional factors are reflected in long-standing differences between the two countries' policies on legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, asked a direct question about the uniqueness argument. She is absolutely right. There has been no such set of circumstances before. Other colonies have become independent. There was no transfer of sovereignty. Hong Kong is therefore no different from other territories where solely British nationals live who have a right of abode only in those territories. To do something for Hong Kong would set a precedent in respect of other territories. The scenario set out by the noble Baroness was right.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford intervened with a question about ethnic minorities and the possibility of abandoning them. I hope I have said enough to assure my noble friend that that is not the case. We have set in place a number of measures to ensure that those people are not abandoned. They have British nationality; they have a right of abode; and they have a guarantee of admission here. Therefore, in the circumstances described by my noble friend, I should like to think that that would trigger in the guarantee that we have given that ill treatment of people in Hong Kong, particularly this group of people, simply on the grounds of their nationality would be a possible reason, although, as I say, we have set our face against specifically setting down particular circumstances. I repeat the point I made earlier. They would have full British consular protection in Hong Kong.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred in passing to the attitude of the Chinese Government to the minorities acquiring citizenship. This is a confusing picture

1233
because there have been reports, mainly in the press, claiming that the Chinese are not favourable towards awarding Chinese citizenship and other reports suggesting that the Chinese might be favourably inclined to granting Chinese citizenship to ethnic minorities. We have no confirmation either way. A number of questions on nationality are outstanding. They remain part of the negotiations and detailed discussions with the Chinese, especially on right of abode matters, and we shall continue to press for answers to those questions.
This is a Private Member's Bill and therefore I shall not oppose the Question that it be given a Second Reading. However, I thought it was right to set out for the House the Government's view of the matter.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, before dealing with some of the points raised by my noble friend on the Front Bench, I should like to say how much I appreciated the wide support given to the Bill from all sides of the House. The speeches in the debate were outstanding not only for their expression of feeling but for the depth of experience behind them. From our Benches we had some outstanding speeches. I thank those who made them. From the Cross-Benches we had a concentrated amount of experience of Hong Kong which is unmatched anywhere else in the House. I was also pleased to hear such good speeches from noble Lords on the Labour Benches and on the Liberal Democrat Benches, who spoke about the late Lord Bonham-Carter. As usual, Hong Kong has brought out the best in your Lordships' House.
When I listened to my noble friend on the Front Bench I felt that if I closed my eyes it would be like listening to the speech of my noble friend Lord Ferrers from three years ago. I am a little disappointed that no progress has been made since then despite the broad experience and wisdom that has been brought to bear on this subject. My noble friend disagreed that these people would be stateless. That flies in the face not only of everything we have heard today from many experienced speakers but of Fransmann, the International Commission of Jurists and Justice, all of which have been previously quoted. They have said firmly that these people will be stateless. They may not be technically stateless but, effectively, they will be stateless; and I find it hard to accept that passing this modest Bill will undermine the fundamental concept of the British nationality law. That cannot be quite right.
I know that my noble friend has had a difficult time opposing all the arguments, but I believe the Government's arguments were comprehensibly demolished one by one. I certainly do not want to embarrass anyone by going over them again. I believe that hope makes a good breakfast but a poor dinner. The day is still yet young so far as the Bill is concerned and I remain optimistic and full of hope. I thank everyone who participated in the debate for giving their time and advice. The people in Hong Kong, if they are listening—it is early in the morning there—will be very encouraged by what has been said in all the speeches
1234
except the closing speech of my noble friend Lady Blatch. I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
6.26 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I approach the task of introducing the Bill with mixed feelings. Most of your Lordships who take an interest in dogs and associated matters will have heard on many occasions the arguments rehearsed about the amendment of the Dangerous Dogs Act proposed in the Bill. If the late Lord Houghton of Sowerby were here, he would be introducing the Bill. He had a long and remarkable parliamentary life, in which among many other subjects he made a notable contribution to the welfare of dogs. He was deeply opposed to any action or legislation which threatened the lives and well being of dogs.
Lord Houghton had not an untimely death because he lived to what anyone would reasonably say was a ripe old age. Until a short time before his death he was able to stand up in your Lordships' House and debate any subject of which he had knowledge, at, if I may say, inordinate length if required. A year ago, when he was ill and I had the pleasure on his behalf of introducing a similar Bill, I was horrified to see that I, too, spoke at some length. I do not propose to do that today. All I wish to say is that although I intend to be brief I am no less committed to the underlying argument supporting the Bill.
The Bill is simple in its scope. It aims to reintroduce into the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 the discretion of the courts which was taken away from them by Sections 1 and 3 of the Act. The legislation was introduced in the early 1990s in response to a rightful clamour for action to be taken to control the use of certain dogs, particularly the pit bull terrier, in the unattractive activity of dog fighting. In addition to that there was a great deal of publicity about a number of attacks which had been made on persons, including children, which had the unfortunate effect of causing damage and wounding. That gave rise to what I believe was a not surprising demand in the press for some action to be taken by government.
I am a great supporter of the press. I do not intend to speak in the debate which is shortly to take place in your Lordships' House on the media in a democracy. I take perhaps a more lenient view than some noble Lords on the role of the media, particularly the popular press, in drawing attention to areas in our life where certainly great attention is needed from both government—and individual citizens. But I believe that the relationship between the popular press and government—particularly when a government is losing popularity and seeks to court it by taking up matters which have been pushed in the press—has in the past become a little too close to be healthy, although I expect it will happen in the future.

1235
In this instance the action taken to control dangerous dogs, specifically the pit bull terrier, was taken in great haste. It was unfortunate that the problem of fighting dogs had to be dealt with together with the other matter of dogs and their behaviour in public places. There is also the danger to the police, in the pursuance of their duties, of dogs used by the criminal world either to attack the police when raiding their premises or to deter them from entering. I support absolutely, as I am sure would most other noble Lords, government action to prevent that. To be fair, from all the evidence that I have heard—other noble Lords may have other views—the Act has reduced the use of pit bull terriers by criminal gangs. However, the Act has not altogether got rid of the use of other breeds of dogs for similar criminal purposes.
The simple attempt of this Bill is to restore discretion to the courts. At present, both under Section 1 of the Act, which relates to pit bull terriers, and Section 3, which relates to other dogs, the regulations are such that no court, where it is found that a dog has contravened the law, has any discretion other than to bring in a mandatory sentence for destruction. That has resulted in many appeals where dogs have been separated from their owners and confined at great expense for long periods of time. That applies particularly to Section 1 and pit bull terriers. It is a difficult breed to identify even by experienced persons in the dog world, including veterinary officers. Many tens of thousands of pounds have been spent, in some cases, in kennel fees. At the same time there has been great mental hardship where owners have been separated from their pets with the uncertainty of what will happen to them.
It has always been in our tradition of jurisprudence—no doubt the noble Earl will expand on this when he replies—that one is innocent until proven guilty. In this case it is up to the dog owner to prove that his dog is innocent rather than for the dog to be proven guilty by the court. I suggest that every case, whether it involves human beings or human beings and their animals, is different in some degree and requires the court to exercise judgment and discretion which otherwise makes its decision extremely unsettling in many regards.
There is another element which I did not introduce on the last occasion we spoke about these matters. The Dogs Act 1871 is still in existence. On reflection, it seems to me that, as it is now shown, the police can choose—especially under Section 3 of this Act—whether they wish the dog to be prosecuted under the 1871 Act, where there is discretion in the court, or under the 1991 Act, where there is not. Therefore, effectively the police have the power to decide whether or not a dog is to be destroyed. That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. That onus should not be laid at the door of the police.
I know the principle behind this Bill because the noble Earl who will be answering this evening informed us of that when we debated this matter a year ago. I believe that the view of the Government and that of their advisers is that this legislation has been effective in taking out of circulation to a great degree a breed of dog which was unwelcome; namely,
1236
the pit bull terrier, even though no one knows exactly what it is. The Act has created a situation where the Government can claim that they have reacted to popular demand. But, in fact, they have created an enormous amount of expense and hardship. There needs to be a simple adjustment to the Bill recognising to some extent that the Bill deals with a difficult situation.
The difficulty confronting the Government is that the whole subject of dogs in this country is beset with problems. We do not know exactly how many dogs there are in this country: there may be 3 million or 5 million. There is no certainty. We have no means of ascertaining the true figure. Sooner or later we shall have forced on us the need to discover exactly how many dogs we have, whether that is as a result of the prospect of rabies or for other reasons.
For the time being the Government do not want to be faced with the difficulty of creating what can be termed normally as a registration scheme. I can see that from their point of view it is a very difficult matter. It will cost money and it will probably have to be administered by local authorities. As we all know, that would be a situation to fill the Government with understandable concern. Nevertheless, sooner or later, the situation of dogs generally will have to be dealt with. When that happens I suggest that the whole problem of dangerous dogs and how they should be dealt with can be addressed more satisfactorily.
Meanwhile, it is surely time for us to consider the unnecessary suffering of dog owners and their dogs when they are parted as a result of decisions taken in the courts on the basis of this Act rather than on the basis of the facts presented to them. If this system of dealing with offences continues so that all the courts do is refer to a piece of paper which tells them what they must do by way of sentencing, without considering the rights and wrongs of each case, our society will be much the poorer for it.
This Bill seeks to address that situation by restoring discretion to the courts and thereby save not only a lot of unhappiness and suffering by dog owners but also save the state a great deal of unnecessary expense. The Bill will also save a considerable amount of police time taken up in chasing dogs with long poles with wire loops attached, often by officers who are not familiar with dogs let alone the type of dog they are pursuing.
Most noble Lords will be aware that more often than not in cases of this kind the police go out to catch a dog that has been reported to them, perhaps by an anonymous letter or telephone call, for reasons other than the threat posed by that dog. They are forced to go out and take action. That is often the start of a protracted case that results in a great deal of expense and often unnecessary suffering by the owner.
I hope that the noble Earl will have something new to say this evening. Perhaps there will he a change of heart on the part of the Government and their advisers on this subject. Originally, the press clamoured for action. Without exception the press say that this Bill has not worked in the way intended.

1237
Surely it is time for the Government to make a minimal change to this legislation to satisfy the demands of dog owners, dog groups and the public.
Others more experienced than I in dealing with dogs will speak tonight. I am grateful for their participation in the debate. I look forward to this Bill being given a second reading in this House, passing through the other place and becoming law; but I am always an optimist. I beg to move.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for reintroducing this Bill. He has put it well and I will not take many minutes to emphasise a number of areas. The noble Viscount does great service to the memory of the late Lord Houghton of Sowerby who put his heart and soul into amendment of the Dangerous Dogs Act. I recall that he was one of the very few who opposed the original Bill on the basis that it lacked justice in the United Kingdom.
Attempts to modify the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 are well known. Because the noble Viscount has put it very well I will not rehearse them. They are supported by the findings of the Select Committee of this House on the Bill. Since the enactment of the 1991 Act there have been numerous examples of the law being brought into disrepute because of the operations of that Act. I suspect that more examples will be given in this evening's debate. This Bill attempts to give discretion to magistrates as to the fate of a dog that has been "arrested" on a charge of being a dangerous dog.
The Bill does not seek to alter the main thrust of the 1991 Act. I do not want to persuade my noble friend the Minister that the legislation is wrong in principle. It is not. The problems lie in the operation of that Act. I regret to say that the Act has been brought into disrepute as a result.
It may be argued that the number of attacks by dangerous dogs on children and others has been reduced by the Bill. I do not doubt that that is so. But numerous cases reported in the press and on television and radio have resulted in a situation where 85 per cent. of the population now want the legislation either amended or repealed, compared with the 85 per cent. who initially supported the measure in 1991.
I do not agree that the Act should be repealed, but I plead with the Minister and the Government that it should be amended, simply giving to magistrates the discretion that is provided for in the Bill. I hope that the report on the operation of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 by the Home Affairs Committee in another place will be favourably disposed to the arguments to be made in the House tonight. I believe that the speedy dispatch of the Bill through this House should provide the necessary conjunction, leading to a resolution of the acknowledged difficulties of the Bill which will allow it to operate in the manner intended, namely, to control dangerous dogs and to prevent the harm occasioned by them, in particular attacks on children.
6.46 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, from these Benches we welcome the Bill, and thank the noble Viscount for re-introducing it in this House. It has our wholehearted support. It is a little like seeing an old friend again. I hope that on this occasion the Government will see fit to give this Bill a warmer welcome than they did last time when, having been examined and approved by the Select Committee, it was shown the door by the Minister in its final stages in this House.
As has already been said, the original Bill was very much the work of the late Lord Houghton of Sowerby. He was the driving force behind it, and its progress through this House occupied much of his final months. He was determined to right an injustice as he saw it. It was one that he predicted during the passage of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, and it was one about which subsequent events proved him to be right. His concern for injustice both to men and animals was, and continues to be, an inspiration to many of us. I believe that he would have been glad to hear that this cause, about which he cared greatly, will not be laid to rest with him.
I, together with the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, who speaks immediately after me, had the privilege of serving on the Select Committee of this House on the original amendment Bill under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman. Following extensive evidence and deliberation, that committee considered that the Dangerous Dogs Act should be amended in the way that this new Bill seeks to do. The original Act came into force at great speed on a tide of public outrage following some appalling cases in which children in particular had been killed and seriously injured by dogs. There was also growing and justified public concern about the ownership of dogs of the pit bull terrier type.
Much of the Act—from the evidence which the Select Committee heard—has worked well, but the public perception of that Act is that it is a bad piece of legislation. Some parts of it are undoubtedly bad. Its effects have led to the destruction of dogs belonging to owners who have committed only technical offences, lengthy court hearings while experts on both sides debate whether or not a particular dog is of the pit bull terrier type, and dogs kept for years effectively on death row at great public expense. But it has also had successes. As we understood it, the Act was intended to do two things: first, to eliminate in a relatively short time dogs of the type known as pit bull terriers by imposing stringent conditions on anyone tempted to own such a dog. Those conditions involved registration, neutering, insurance, muzzling and so on.
The second object of the original Bill was to strengthen the powers of the courts to deal with dogs of any type which proved to be dangerous or potentially dangerous. In reaching its recommendations, the committee was anxious not to frustrate the intention of Parliament in either of those respects. After hearing extensive evidence, it was our considered view that the proposed amendment did not and would not do so.

1239
Exempt dogs of the pit bull terrier type—in other words those which are properly registered under the Act—have been drastically reduced in numbers since the Act came into force. It was our understanding that in 10 years not one will remain. I wonder whether, when the noble Earl comes to deal with the matter, he can give us some indication of just how many of the dogs now remain on the register. We were told originally that there were something in excess of 8,000. By January 1995—the latest figures we have—they were down to 3,500 and they are clearly diminishing daily.
As concerns the illegal pit bull terrier types, it is virtually impossible to establish how many there are. Some are being kept illegally by their owners who have either not bothered to register them or have, for some reason, failed to do so. A number of those owners were, it seems, criminals. We were told that the ownership of the dogs by the criminal fraternity had largely ceased because to attract attention through your dog might well lead to detection of your other activities.
We were told that, although there is no clear evidence as to whether it is widespread, there is still some use of the dogs for fighting purposes. But it seems that it is very much an underground activity and appears to be confined to the travelling fraternity. No figures, I stress, are available to us to give any indication of how many dogs are kept for that purpose.
The remaining illegal pit bull terriers would appear to be kept either by owners who have kept them underground and not registered them or people who own dogs which, because of the vagaries of breeding and heredity, have appeared to be pit bull terrier types, often from dogs which are of other breeds.
The third category are those owners who simply do not realise that their dog comes into this category and therefore have not taken any steps to register them. The lack of any discretion on the part of the courts has led to manifest injustice in relation to all brackets of dogs, both exempt and those which are illegal. As regards exempt dogs—that is to say those properly on the register—there have been instances of dogs being destroyed because a muzzle was removed in order for the dog to be sick or when a dog was found unmuzzled but securely locked in its owner's car.
As regards the illegal—if I may call them that—dogs, there are a number of owners who genuinely did not appreciate that they fell foul of the law by failing to register their pets. That has led to expensive and protracted hearings in the course of which arguments have been mounted with experts on both sides.
The Select Committee recommended that the discretion of the court not to destroy should only be exercised if the court was satisfied that both the dog and the owner could be trusted. In those circumstances, permission should be given to put the dog on the register, which would trigger all the other requirements such as neutering, insurance, muzzling and so on.
The lack of a discretion in respect of a destruction order in the Section 3 cases also causes great injustice. No account can be taken by the magistrates, for example, of the severity of injury or of provocation. So when a poisonous little boy with a stick pokes a dog
1240
repeatedly in the eye until eventually in exasperation it turns and snaps at him, grazing his hand, if the charge has been brought under Section 3, the court has no discretion. It has to order the dog to be destroyed and cannot take into account the circumstances in which that happened. But the committee was clear that discretion in those circumstances should only be exercised when the court is satisfied that the dog presents no continuing danger to the public.
The essential principle for any legislation dealing with dangerous dogs surely must be: first, that the public should be protected by the law from vicious dogs of any breed; and, secondly, that there should be no change to the existing law which weakens that protection. These modest amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act will not weaken the original Act. What they will do is to correct an injustice. Those noble Lords who have in recent weeks been receiving a huge postbag of letters in connection with the proposed gun legislation—which comes before this House, I believe, next week—will know how often the Dangerous Dogs Act is cited by members of the public as the prime example of bad legislation, conceived in haste and as a response to transient public pressures. The public have now seen that the Act is wrong in some of its respects. Some parts of it clearly are not working well and this short Bill should correct them.
Responsible dog owners are constantly urged to clear up any mess made by their pets. Surely it cannot be too much to ask the Government to clear up the mess made by their pet Bill, by giving encouragement and support to this Bill tonight.
6.56 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I promise two things: first, I shall be brief and, secondly, I shall be antagonistic. The Dangerous Dogs Act, like other legislation introduced without understanding the full implications, is flawed. For this reason, this is the fourth attempt to get it amended, as detailed by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland.
As has already been stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, we were both members of the Select Committee which was set up to look into amending the Act. The committee was unanimous in its opinion and recommended that the Act be amended. On 27th March this year, the noble Earl, on behalf of the Government, rejected the committee's recommendation: a committee formed from Members on all sides of the House and a committee which had listened to numerous witnesses. This rejection by the Government seems to me to be arrogant. If the Government had already formed an opinion before convening the Select Committee, why did they set it up? Further, as they did set up the Select Committee, why did they ignore its recommendations?
A lot of parliamentary time was wasted if the Government already knew that the committee's report was going to be ignored. In all honesty, I cannot see the Bill succeeding this time, due to the election being called sometime in the near future. Let us hope that the Act can be amended shortly thereafter. Lord Nelson benefited from using his blind eye. Trying to copy him does not suit the Government in this instance.
6.59 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for bringing the Bill back before us tonight. I also wish to thank everyone who has paid tribute to the late Lord Houghton, who was such a strong influence on all of us.
I have spoken many times on the Second Reading of the Bill so I do not intend to detain the House for too long. Naturally I, like many others, look forward to reading the report of the home affairs Select Committee which will be out next week.
In November, 1994, a gentleman by the name of Mr. Chieke left his dog outside the newsagent's while he went in to buy a newspaper. The dog was arrested. The police wanted Mr. Chieke to sign a disclaimer authorising them to destroy the dog and then they would not pursue the matter through the courts, as they believed the dog to be of the pit bull terrier type. Needless to say, the owner refused and apparently he did not understand any of it because he said: "The dog has done nothing wrong". On 16th August, 1995—about eight months later—at Wells Street magistrates' court, before a stipendiary magistrate, the prosecution applied for an adjournment as the veterinarian used by the police was unavailable. The magistrate was critical of the Crown Prosecution's inefficiency and refused the adjournment. The prosecution barrister refused to proceed, so the case was dismissed, with the magistrate saying "This is the same as an acquittal". So on 20th September at Parchmore Road police garage the dog was presented to Mr. Chieke. He then identified his dog and was re-charged under Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act. By this time the poor man was crying and his dog was howling. More than a year later, on November 25th 1996, the case went to Croydon magistrates' court. On the fourth day Mr. Chieke was found guilty of owning a dog of the pit bull type, fined £100 and given a conditional discharge. The dog was ordered to be destroyed. Mr. Chieke has owned his dog since it was two months old and it is a family pet. Mr. Chieke is 77 years old, has a heart condition and is slightly deaf. It is not surprising that he collapsed in court sobbing uncontrollably, begging to see his dog.
I only mention all of this because there is precious little humanity around when it comes to cases of this kind. If an owner is acquitted at trial on a legal technicality, the police still refuse to return the dog. So you see a person can be freed on acquittal but a family pet cannot, if the police still believe, but cannot prove, that it is of "the pit-bull type". There are dogs in limbo, locked up for years with nobody appearing to make a decision as to their future. I never thought that was right, and I do not think so now. There is a crying need to introduce some common sense into the original Act, and I believe that this amendment Bill does just that.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, first, I wish to associate myself with the comments which have been expressed by many noble Lords about Lord Houghton whose Bill this has been in previous years. The whole House acknowledges the determination and commitment he gave to the cause of animal welfare.
1242
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, in introducing the Bill, explained that it would remove the mandatory destruction provisions of the Act and allow the courts discretion in sentencing. It is also about the courts being able to give convicted owners the opportunity for late registration on the index of exempted dogs and review all current cases where a destruction order has been made but not yet carried out.
Before I deal with the provisions in the Bill, let me set out for the record why the Government introduced the Dangerous Dogs Act. The reasons in 1991 remain relevant today. Your Lordships will recall, as the noble Viscount said, the horrific events which led the Government to bring forward the legislation and the wide support which the proposals received. Our belief was, and remains, that there is no place in this country for fighting dogs and that the present generation of such animals should be the last.
The principal provisions of the 1991 Act were all designed to achieve precisely that objective. Under the Act, owners of pit bull terriers and other dogs bred for fighting were allowed to keep their animals on condition that they complied, by 30th November 1991, with the stringent conditions set out in the legislation. The mandatory destruction order applies where the owner of a fighting dog failed to comply with those requirements or fails subsequently to keep the dog muzzled and on a lead in a public place and where a dog of any type or breed causes injury to a person. In these cases, magistrates have no option, as noble Lords have said, but to order the destruction of the dog.
On each occasion when a Bill has been introduced to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act, the Government have given the matter careful consideration in the light of current circumstances. That is the case on this occasion. I have to tell the House, though, that the Government's view is that the provisions in the Bill would have two undesirable effects: first, they would undermine the incentives which the Act provides towards responsible dog ownership, and they would risk the perpetration of fighting dogs in this country; and, secondly, in our view, they would amount to a weakening of the protection which the Act affords.
Mandatory destruction was designed to face owners of fighting dogs with a clear choice: comply with the registration and associated requirements of the Act by the due date or face the certain destruction of the animal concerned. To owners of dogs of any type, there is an equally clear message. An owner whose dog is dangerously out of control and attacks and injures someone will, if convicted under the Act, face the certain destruction of the pet animal. The provisions ensure that dog owners who fail to act responsibly do not have any chance of regaining charge of their animals. That is an important provision. We do not want an owner who ignored the provisions of the legislation to regain custody of the dog concerned.
The Bill also provides for the courts to direct convicted persons to register their pit bull dog. But to allow those owners who originally failed to register to do so now would suggest that Parliament was no longer committed to ensuring the elimination of pit bull terriers

1243
since there would be nothing to prevent fresh dogs, imported into this country or bred unlawfully here, from benefiting from the concession.
It would be a dangerous invitation to some people to risk bringing new dogs into this country, knowing that there was a back door route to registration if they were caught, and, perversely, that to legitimise one's position as an owner of an unregistered dog one would first have to be prosecuted and convicted of owning it unlawfully. Clause 4 of the Bill would go further by enabling the court to review all current cases where a destruction order had been made but not yet carried out.
The Government accept that the Dangerous Dogs Act contains tough provisions. But pit bulls, or other dogs which become dangerously out of control and injure a person, are no less of a threat today than they were when the 1991 Act was introduced.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned identification of pit bulls and pit bull type dogs. I am well aware of the argument about having to prove that a dog belongs to a type which is not a recognised breed. At the time of the legislation Parliament recognised that the identification of pit bull terriers would be a problem. The difficulties were not under-estimated but it was felt that the threat of such dogs made it necessary to reverse the burden of proof in the way that the Act does. The noble Viscount also said that there may have been over-use of the 1991 Act. In fact, more prosecutions are brought under the Dogs Act 1871 than under Section 3 of the 1991 Act.
In the past four years there have been 2,460 prosecutions under Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 but 2,562 under the 1871 Act. I can also tell the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that we reflected long and hard on the recommendations made by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House, particularly in the light of the committee's assessment that discretion should and would be exercised only where the protection of the public would not be at risk. But we must never lose sight of the reasons why the Act was introduced in the first place: the public concern that existed over dog attacks and the Government's absolute responsibility to take steps to address the problem, and the continuing risk.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, asked me how many pit bulls are still on the register. I understand that there are still 3,500 dogs on the register.
This is the fourth occasion on which a Bill to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act has been presented to the House. As I indicated at the outset, we have considered the proposals carefully. As I have made clear, the Government consider that the Act was a responsible recognition that something had to be done to meet widespread concern and to protect the public. The mandatory destruction order and the one-off nature of the registration scheme are matters which are integral to the provisions of the Act and to the objective which Parliament agreed. The Act remains relevant and necessary. It follows that I have to tell the House that the Government cannot support the Bill, although, as is the convention with a Private Member's Bill, we shall not seek to vote against it.
7.8 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply and all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Although it has been a short debate, and although we have expressed the arguments on many occasions, something more has come out tonight. There have been some notable contributions, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who put clearly her reasons for believing—they are the reasons which most who oppose the Act have—that this is bad law; and from the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, who gave us a clear example of an idiotic injustice. She gave a heart- rending story.
As before, the noble Earl's reply—it is not his fault, because I know him to be a kindly and compassionate man—was curiously frustrating, because he did not answer what we were all saying. All we are saying, and all the Bill is about, is giving back discretion to the courts. Giving discretion back to the courts will make it a better Act. We are not attacking the fundamental Act. We agree that fighting dogs should be removed from society; we agree that something had to be done; all we are saying is that the haste with which the Bill was brought in has caused it to be extremely damaging to people and their pets. This has been an extremely bad example of the way in which our great traditions of jurisprudence have been changed by the Government by not allowing the courts, which are full of people who are well educated and able, to bring to bear their judgment in these cases and where necessary to use their discretion.
We agree absolutely that something had to be done. We agree that to some extent, the Bill has been a success. Of course the police are using the 1871 Act because, if they have a choice and they can see that there may be injustice, they will use the Act which gives the courts discretion. They are not using the later Act, which is patently unfair and creates difficulties.
However, there seems to be a slippery relationship between those noble Lords who have spoken in the debate tonight and the noble Earl, because he does not seem to grasp the problem. The noble Earl seemed to imply that there are no longer any dangerous dogs. Everybody, even the newspapers who put the greatest pressure on government to bring in new dangerous dogs legislation, knows that there are still dangerous dogs and there always will be. Even a small terrier in the park which is out of control can inflict an enormous amount of damage.
Therefore, we have no argument with the noble Earl about the question of fighting dogs. We are told by the noble Baroness—and I am glad to hear it because I did not know—that the ownership of fighting dogs now seems to be limited to the travelling community. We all know what that means and I am glad that that is so. I wish that the travelling community did not have fighting dogs and I congratulate the Government if they have reduced the number of fighting dogs and in particular pit bull terriers.
However, the lack of discretion does no credit to our system of jurisprudence, to the Government or our society. It really is time that something was done about

1245
that. This Bill seeks to achieve that. The Select Committee of your Lordships' House was ignored by the Government but I hope that it will not be ignored by a Select Committee of another place should it reach the same conclusions. If the Government do ignore that, they will show that they are arrogant. If they did that, it would be downright pig-headed. I know that the Government have other problems but if they are hoping for support at the next election, they should not show themselves to be pig-headed. Therefore, I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Education Low-Priced Book Scheme
7.13 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso Lord St. John of Bletso rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in the light of previous assurances from the Government that the ELBS (Education Low-Priced Book Scheme) will be replaced in 1997 by something better, what progress the ODA (Overseas Development Agency) has made in planning and promoting an alternative scheme and what resources will be made available to support it.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to have an opportunity today to introduce this debate. As the Minister is aware, I have for some time been an ardent supporter of the ODA and of the able leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. However, I must say that I found it difficult to comprehend why the Government decided last year to phase out the education low-priced book scheme, which for many years has been both cost-effective and, just as important, extremely well managed.
There is no doubt that the scheme has made a major contribution to Britain's influence and reputation abroad. The arguments for the retention of what I shall refer to as the ELBS were well covered in the debate of 17th May of last year initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, who I am delighted to see will be speaking in this debate.
The purpose of this debate is to address what progress the ODA has made in planning and promoting an alternative scheme with, in the words of the Minister:
"something better when the ELBS is replaced in April of next year".
This debate also seeks to address what resources will be made available to support any proposed replacement scheme. In her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, the Minister said that the ELBS would be phased out because the ODA wanted to replace it with something better and she said that many of the concerns raised by noble Lords were based on:
"a misconception of our intentions and of the operation of the scheme".
For those noble Lords who are not familiar with the ELBS, it was set up some 35 years ago by the ODA to supply British subsidised textbooks to students at tertiary level in poor countries—in Africa, Asia, the Pacific, the Caribbean and the Mediterranean—covering
1246
practical disciplines such as medicine, science, engineering and business management. One of the major beneficiaries has been India.
British publishers have been paid a subsidy which has enabled them to produce and sell ELBS editions at a fraction of the standard edition price. From the ELBS sales by region for the calendar year 1995, more than 1.1 million books were distributed at an average unit cost to the ODA of only £2.50 per book compared with the average retail price of about £18.
I noted that one of the criticisms of the Minister of the ELBS was that the subsidy in many cases did not reach the poorer students. From the figures that I have, it appears that last year, 80 per cent. went to World Bank so-called "low income countries".
Many believe that the ODA does not regard tertiary education as a high priority and that it is elitist. Could the Minister, when she winds up this debate, comment on whether this assumption is true or false? It is noteworthy that the report in September 1994 on a review of ELBS, while it had many justifiable criticisms, recommended that the scheme should continue but should be reformulated so as to meet its development objectives more effectively.
I noted that, in answer to the Written Question by the noble Baroness, Lady David, on 17th July this year as to what progress has been made in providing a replacement for the ELBS, the Minister replied that:
"ODA's Education Division has had extensive discussions with various interested parties in the UK, including publishers, booksellers, the BBC and the British Council; consultations have also been initiated with relevant officials in Ministries of Education in three countries in Central Africa with a view to starting pilot book projects in this current year."— [Official Report, 17/7/96; col. WA 62.]
However, I understand from the working group of book professionals, that most participants favoured an "ELBS-style" replacement, but that the ODA's Chief Education Adviser had told them that this was not an option.
If, and I stress if, the Minister has an interest in promoting tertiary education in poorer countries, would she not agree that continuity in the supply of individual titles over the years is essential and that in many poorer countries, courses have been built around the ELBS textbooks that they have received?
Eileen Gillow, the head of ELBS administration, pointed out in her outline proposal for tertiary level textbook provision in the developing world that:
"students' ownership of their own textbooks is considered highly desirable by academics both in the UK and the developing world".
She went on to say that several countries—more specifically Zimbabwe and Kenya—are almost entirely dependent on ELBS for the provision of tertiary level text books. I am sure that others will touch on the alternative option of book tokens, giving students the opportunity to purchase their own textbooks. I do not intend to discuss that option this evening.
While I am well aware of the many commendable schemes that the ODA has implemented for providing books and other educational assistance to targeted countries and regions, I cannot fathom in what way the

1247
ODA feels that the ELBS has not provided value for money. The figure that I gave your Lordships a little earlier of £2.50 compared to the retail price of £18 seem in my opinion, and in that of the ordinary person, to be extremely good value.
In this phasing out period the ODA has provided the ELBS with £700,000 for books subsidies and an additional £66,000 for administration, which is approximately 50 per cent. of the ELBS budget of £1.5 million for the 1994-95 budget year. I understand that stocks of most ELBS titles are either exhausted or shortly will be. Can the Minister be more specific this evening as to the replacement scheme for the phased-out ELBS'? Further, can the noble Baroness clarify whether the World Bank low income countries, which have over the years been receiving ELBS tertiary level textbooks, will continue to receive such books? Alternatively, will those books be targeted only to the so-called "poorest" students. If so, how will the poorest students be selected? How will the books be provided more specifically to outreach students, such as nursing students in rural hospitals, who have no access to large libraries?
Finally, as we are nearing the so-called "D-day" when the ELBS will be phased out, can the Minister say whether any new arrangements have been developed and, if so, are they ready to be implemented on 1st April of next year? I trust, in the words of the closing comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, in his debate last year, that the phasing out of the ELBS will not be a disguised cut in educational book aid.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, for tabling this Unstarred Question, particularly because many noble Lords very much wish to know the progress being made towards the replacement of the ELBS which was announced in 1995 by my noble friend the Minister. It would be fair to say that many of us, including myself, all of whom very much admire the work carried out by the ODA, viewed that decision with alarm. We did so because of our experience in many instances of the great value of the ELBS in the developing world. Perhaps also we saw yet another erosion of the influence of the United Kingdom in those needy countries.
However, since that debate I have come to appreciate the need for such a review of the concept behind the ELBS. I say that in part because of the quite remarkable advances in the field of information technology in the world and also the equally remarkable developments in the ability of developing countries to make use of this broad range of IT. In some quite remote parts of the world, I have been most surprised at the sophisticated nature of the computer hardware and software that exists and, indeed, the great enthusiasm that there is for it in those distant parts of the world.
To my mind it is probably more logical to think in terms of a range of offerings under the concept of the ELBS rather than simply in terms of books alone.
1248
I would certainly agree that there is always a place for the ELBS, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, in areas where for example, nurses and animal technologists out in the bush can only rely on books, not on any other means of communication. Nevertheless, there is a wide range of possibilities which could be considered.
As I believe we all know, another increasing problem is that the type of textbooks which would normally be designated under the ELBS are becoming fewer in number. One of the reasons is that they are now being published electronically. Indeed, many scientific journals are published in that way. While that is quite suitable for the western world, such publications may not be readily available in third world countries. Therefore, if we took on board the concept not only of books but also of electronic information, we could view the future provision of information (for which the ELBS scheme was set up many years ago) with more optimism and achieve much more. It is my understanding that a pilot programme using ODA funds has been set up in Ghana which comprises an electronic network. It is to be hoped that that will prove to be successful and encourage the expansion of the system.
An area where I see a particular need, if we want to move into the field of electronic communications for educational purposes, is in the provision of short-term scholarships for individuals from the developing world for, say, three months. That would enable them to come to this country to receive instruction and training in the use of information technology. They could then return to their native countries and instruct others.
While I was somewhat disappointed and concerned originally at the demise of the ELBS, I now believe that there is a new range of opportunities available based on the rapid evolution of information technology, some of which could probably be made more amenable to different areas of the world. It could provide an effective provision of textbooks—though, having been part of the ELBS and having had the honour of having some of my textbooks designated as such, I must admit that it will come hard to see the demise of a scheme which has for so long done so much good in the developing world.
7.28 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am extremely glad that the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, has tabled this Question tonight. It seems to me to be high time that we had some statement from the noble Baroness, as it is over 18 months since we had the last debate on the subject on 17th May 1995. The Minister made some firm commitments at that time which, so far as I can see, have not been kept. Her department had announced the phasing out of the scheme in the spring of that year. I shall now give your Lordships some quotations from columns 655 to 660 of Hansard of what the Minister said in that debate:

1249
"We have said that it will be phased out in two years because we want to replace it with something better. We believe it essential that we do the very best for the students, particularly those poor students who cannot afford books".
The Minister continued:
"My concern is the students and that those students will turn to the UK when they are qualified and will bring trade for the UK in the longer term".
That, of course, is what we all want, and why we think it is so short-sighted to get rid of the scheme. The Minister also said:
"The scheme has had a fine reputation. No one disputes that. Over the years it has had some notable successes".
The Minister added that,
"my aim… is to replace ELBS with something better… The aim is to develop well before the old scheme ceases in two years' time new' arrangements that will fulfil the objectives to which we are committed".
The Minister also mentioned information technology. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, has just referred to that. It seems to me odd that if that really is a proper proposal, the ODA has not let us hear what it is. I am sure my noble friend Lord Peston will deal with the point because I am not so well-informed about information technology. However, I should have thought it was quite difficult to reach the distant parts of some of those countries in that way. They would need electricity and rather sophisticated equipment. However, if the Minister thinks the scheme will work, I hope that she will give us a clear description of how it is to be made to work. As I say, I am a little sceptical about that, but as the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, was so keen on that scheme I hope it will be followed up. I believe the Minister said in the debate in 1995 that whole textbooks and encyclopaedias were being made available on CD-ROM. However, will these people have the necessary equipment to receive them?
I feel that we have been let down. What has happened since that day in May last year? The ODA set up a Books and Information Working Group, chaired by Myra Harrison, its chief education adviser, to consider alternative arrangements that might replace ELBS. The group met for the second and last time on 22nd February this year. A further meeting was to be called in April and then September, but despite inquiries no call for a third meeting has been forthcoming. The 22nd February meeting proposed that pilot projects should be set up to test the feasibility of the respective replacement schemes: the voucher scheme, the book presentation scheme, etc. Not one of those pilot schemes, so far as I know, has ever got off the ground.
It was also proposed that a bibliography of low priced textbooks should be compiled. The ODA commissioned John Smith and Sons to carry out the work, although I understand that this has proved a far more difficult task than the latter anticipated. However, the bibliography was never presented as other than a useful aid and certainly not as the main plank of the Minister's programme for replacing ELBS.
The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, referred to the Written Answer to a Question I tabled in July this year. After referring to the bibliography that had been commissioned, the Minister stated:
1250
"We shall continue to examine various methods of getting books to needy students, which will enable us to target books and information provision more effectively than under the former Educational Low-Priced Books Scheme. We shall consult further with publishers and other interested parties through the ODA-convened Books Working Group".—[Official Report, 17/7/96; col. WA 62.]
That Question was tabled in July, but the working group does not appear to have met since last February.
I suspect that if the ODA would seriously consider creating a scheme to deliver low priced or free books to the poorest students in any significant numbers, it would discover—perhaps it has discovered—that the most cost-effective way of doing so is the scheme currently being dismantled.
I have seen a copy of a dissertation for an MA degree at Loughborough University submitted by Emily Kogos, who was librarian at Moi University, Kenya, and who had direct experience of ELBS as she was herself a Kenyan student who had made use of books provided by ELBS. I wish to quote a few phrases from her dissertation. She writes:
"Getting new editions of books at a lower cost has made ELBS invaluable to students especially at the post-secondary school level of education in Kenya. In the absence of such subsidised books, some bookshops such as the Text Book Centre…would order older editions of standard paper back books so that the prices could be within the reach of their customers".
That enabled the customers to buy books at an affordable price. The dissertation continues:
"However, the research carried out in respect of Kenya shows that ELBS books actually played the role of supplying cheap text books to university students. The students come from differing backgrounds with different purchasing capabilities. The majority though come from families that need external assistance to he able to pay the fees as required in the era of cost-sharing…Research done in Kenya showed that ELBS books reach the targeted groups…Books still provide the basic tools of learning in developing countries…Following the decision by the ODA to withdraw the scheme and to phase it out completely by 1997, there was an outcry from ELBS users with hundreds of letters being sent by students, librarians and booksellers. The general feeling conveyed was that the ELBS scheme had been invaluable in helping provide the much needed cheaper priced books, as well as keeping up with the latest book editions. Most letters expressed fears that the book market at the tertiary level in the affected countries would suffer considerably and that academic standards would be affected as students find it even more difficult to buy books…In line with the original objective of the scheme, ELBS books were availed to the tertiary market in Kenya at prices within the means of most students. The research showed that the main beneficiaries of the scheme were students…ELBS played a major role in the supply of affordable text books for higher education institutions in Kenya…The ELBS book scheme provided a stimulus for students in tertiary institutions in Kenya to own books. The withdrawal of the scheme therefore brings with it the repercussions of loss of purchasing power especially in the areas of Science, Engineering and Medicine. Students taking these subjects will be forced to buy fewer books or resort to the bad practice of mutilating library hooks to survive".
One of the supervisors connected with this dissertation, Mr. Sumsion, is probably known to the noble Baroness as he is the distinguished and respected director of the Library and Information Statistics Unit.
In April next year, if nothing is done, there will be no books for the students to buy. From what she has said in the past I am sure that the noble Baroness is sympathetic to the needs of students in the poorer countries of the world. To think that they will be

1251
deprived of help to get a proper education and proper qualifications is to me extremely distressing. I hope that even at this last minute—we are very close to March 1997 now—the Minister will reconsider what has happened and come up tonight with some firm proposal that will help these students.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John, for tabling this Unstarred Question leading to this interesting and important debate. When I tabled a Starred Question in this House on 2nd May 1995, I felt it right to declare an interest because, like the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, two textbooks on medicine which I had written had previously been included in the scheme, but have not been included for some years.
Subsequently, in correspondence with myself, the Minister was kind enough to say that she had every intention of making certain that the ODA would come up with something better than ELBS. She repeated that assertion in the reply to the Unstarred Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, a short while afterwards. As the noble Lord, Lord St. John, has said, this scheme has been in existence for over 35 years. Two years ago the grant from the ODA to support the scheme was £1.5 million. In 1994-95 it fell to £1.3 million. As the noble Lord, Lord St. John, has said, this year it has fallen to £766,000, or 0.08 per cent. of the ODA budget. It is true that the textbooks included in the scheme have been for tertiary level business education, engineering and technology, law, medicine and science, including social, agricultural and veterinary sciences. The books have been sold in 54 developing countries in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and in Oceania.
The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, is right. We are seeing a revolution in information technology, in electronic publishing, which is likely progressively to replace some textbooks in many circumstances. Some of the publishers who have had books included in the ELB scheme in the past are in the van of this electronic publishing revolution. Why would it not be possible for their electronic products, where appropriate, to be included in such a scheme in the future in those countries where the facility is available to make use of such IT material? Nevertheless, as a teacher in universities for many years, I still believe that one of the most important of all teaching aids is, and will continue to be for many years to come, a book.
In answer to the debate, the noble Baroness said that the ODA review was concerned with targeting a replacement scheme at the poorest students, in particular in countries with very low or low income. It is true that certain countries—I refer, for example, to Singapore and Hong Kong—where the electronic revolution has gone ahead apace were originally included in the scheme. Perhaps Hong Kong was included for political reasons. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man and of the ODA to exclude from such a scheme those countries, some 22 in all, which are richer, for which, as the scheme has materialised and matured, such targeting is no longer appropriate.
1252
Like the noble Baroness, Lady David, I have read with great interest the paper by Emily Kogos from Kenya. It made abundantly clear that students in the university where she was librarian have been wholly dependent on the books published under the ELB scheme. Like the noble Baroness, I have seen masses of letters to the Publishers Association and other organisations from students in Nigeria, Uganda, Malawi and other parts of Africa, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. It surely cannot be the case, as has been implied in certain correspondence, that the ODA believes that tertiary education in such countries is elitist. Such tertiary education will produce in the future the teachers in all disciplines in those countries; and they need the support of the scheme.
I do not believe that we can or should underestimate the crucial importance of British influence in the education of those students in developing countries. From my experience in British universities, and my chairmanship of the Sub-Committee of the Science and Technology Committee of your Lordships' House looking at the international investment in UK science, I know how greatly British education and British textbooks have influenced the work in many developing countries. It has ultimately been responsible for a good deal of inward investment from those countries, and individuals educated by British books and learning have ultimately made contributions.
The great virtue of the ELB scheme has been the rigorous selection of books, controlled local prices, the absence of pirating and the low distribution costs. Surely it is not out of the question that of the 54 countries originally included, the 22 which are now regarded as too rich should be discarded. The suggestion has been made that some of the books have been purchased by professional visitors to developing countries for personal use. That must be only a minimal problem. The textbooks in the scheme have not been advanced level textbooks but textbooks for use by undergraduate students.
Is it right that ODA believes that tertiary education is elitist? The chief education adviser to ODA said in correspondence with the ELBS administrator and others that the continuation of ELBS, even if modified, was not an option. Why ever not? It seems to me extraordinary that that should not have been considered.
The working group established by the ODA saw an excellent and detailed paper produced by Eileen Gillow. However, that paper, consisting of many pages with a carefully marshalled set of arguments, was not discussed by the working group. It was told that it must consider only alternatives to the ELBS and not a modification of the scheme. In view of the fact that the scheme will run out by the end of March next year—that is only three months from now—it is important to ask what the ODA proposes to put in its place. Will it be a scheme which will help tertiary level education by the provision not just of books but of electronic and IT material for countries which can use them? What will be the unit costs? What will be the administrative arrangements? What will be the total resources provided? As a result, will students in poorer countries have better access to teaching level books than the ELBS provided? Many of

1253
us are doubtful that that will be the case. Will the new arrangements have been developed, fully assessed, evaluated and in place by 1st April?
Many of us believe that any scheme proposed by the ODA will not effectively replace the ELBS, which has done so much to use British textbooks for the education of students in developing countries. I hope that the noble Baroness will reassure us to the contrary. Many of us believe that any scheme put in its place will not be better. Some of us have come together with the full support of the Publishers Association to establish an ELBS replacement trust because we genuinely believe that the scheme is so important to the future of education overseas that we must replace it with a similar scheme.
7.48 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the principle of distributing textbooks to those who in normal circumstances would be unable to receive them is commendable. It plays an important part in alleviating poverty by attacking illiteracy, which in turn creates the future professional and trading culture. It can also assist with teaching in agricultural and engineering matters, addressing practical issues. To that end, I am grateful to my noble friend for organising the debate.
With that said, and to reiterate my position as regards our last debate, I have long suspected that the ELB system was flawed. This is as much to do with direct publishing and distribution issues as with the age in which we live, of across-the-board, Treasury-led cuts. It is inevitable that some schemes had to go.
I have never been entirely clear who were the main beneficiaries under the existing scheme—the UK book industry, either through the contribution to administrative costs or by the resulting ability to retain an agent who could then service other forms of book orders, or those people in the country of destination who in many cases, I suspect, could afford the title anyway.
Additionally, bookshops around the developing world certainly cannot be relied upon to hold price structures that reflect the ELBS principles. That point cannot be denied. Retailers have to achieve, or strive to achieve, a certain percentage on turnover and hike prices in local currency to offset inflation and currency fluctuations, often over official rates. Only intensive and accurate agent scrutiny would resolve that. From a central bank perspective, scarce foreign currency is also used. Possibly the death knell of ELBS is even due to the complicated computations used in the UK. I do accept one point, however: local printing, as an alternative, other than in larger markets with a reduced book list, is probably not the answer.
I also accept that my concerns could be argued in other ways, but, regrettably, it appears that funds for ELBS do not seem to be available. But does not the ODA commit to substantial assistance in other book-related aid? Perhaps the Minister could tell us more about that.
However, we are where we are. What are we going to do about it? I have given some thought to how to resolve this. I was certainly impressed with the IT
1254
proposals. Hard copy is an expensive commodity, and it might be that IT is the answer. I would want all my previous concerns addressed, and those of publishers, while at the same time giving the recipients a speedy, effective, wide range of titles which can be paid for in local currencies, even at a cheaper cost than that at which they obtain ELBS titles currently.
This is what I came up with. A core catalogued list of titles covering subjects appropriate to developmental needs should be created from a wide range of publishers, with order-taking facilities set up in each university town in targeted countries. It would be quite simple to identify likely candidates as agents, who should have some idea of the publishing world—although that is not necessarily essential. Pre-paid orders would be submitted weekly via a UK central point for dissemination and execution. Orders would be consolidated for a weekly or bi-weekly air-freight service for customs clearance and local distribution. Because of the appalling nature of many overseas internal postal services, orders could be collected by the client or hand-delivered.
Advantages to all this would be that expensive intermediaries would be cut out and there would be stricter control on prices and quality of service. In other words, everybody would get what they want.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, was right to remind us that only three months remain until the official end of ELBS.
Finally, it being that time of year, it behaves me to wish the Minister bon voyage for tomorrow and her well-earned holiday.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I listened with great care to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. When he said that his proposals would give everybody what they wanted, I began to feel a little doubt as to whether the Waverley plan would be any better than the existing situation.
Viscount Waverley: Perhaps I should make it clear that, having established this type of operation on behalf of UK publishers in 14 overseas countries, I speak to that end with some experience.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord in the sense that I share his feeling of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, for raising this issue. I confess that he has raised it in a timely way, which had escaped my notice, my having initiated the debate nearly two years ago. This is a proper time for us to ask the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, to tell us what the results have been of the steps that she initiated following that debate in May 1995. Although we disagreed with her views about the ELBS, we were all rather encouraged by her confident assertion that she intended to phase it out and replace it with something better. As has been said by a number of noble Lords, we have no evidence so far of something better being created. The meetings that were intended to plan this seemed to come to a dead end

1255
almost a year ago, in February this year. Perhaps something is happening. This debate will have been well worthwhile if the Minister is able to produce something better for us.
Having thought a good deal about these matters since our debate, I fully recognise that the ELBS, as the Minister told us nearly two years ago, is only one of many ODA-assisted efforts in the field of educational books. I am particularly aware of the role of Book Aid International, for example, which she mentioned on that occasion and with which I was actively associated for many years when it was the rather splendid Ranfurly Library Service.
Last year Book Aid International sent out 680,000 books, principally to sub-Saharan Africa and to countries in particular need. Those books were provided by some very welcome assistance from the ODA but also by the voluntary effort of the Rotarian movement in this country and very generous gifts from the educational publishers. I refer to that because there was a certain tone in what the Minister told us on the last occasion which indicated that she believed that one of the weaknesses of the ELBS was that it was in the commercial interests of publishers rather than directly in the interests of development priorities.
We all recognise that the Minister, perhaps more than anybody else in British politics, is devoted to the field of overseas development and understands the difficult priorities better than anybody else. However, I venture to say that in the field of educational books there is an identity of interest between the development needs—of which education is a very important one—and the fact that the English language and British education are two of our great assets worldwide. I believe that the interests of the publishers and of our development aims in helping the poorest countries in the world overlap a great deal and largely coincide. The role that the publishers play in Book Aid International in terms of donations which go along with the subsidised ELBS ought to be taken account of.
Not knowing what the Minister will tell us about what has happened since the last meeting of the working group in February, we are searching for some constructive proposals. In May 1995 I said that I accepted that the ELBS, like any other scheme, needed to adapt to changing circumstances. The noble Lord who spoke about the impact of information technology on tertiary education is absolutely right; we are in a revolutionary new situation. However, one must be cautious about how applicable it is to some developing countries; the situation varies a great deal from one to another. I am actively engaged with a charity which deals with the training of journalists in third world countries. We have constantly to be aware that the kind of technology used in newspaper production in this country is not necessarily applicable to some of the poorer countries of the world. We must take account of information technology but we need to be careful about how we apply it.
In my brief remarks I wish to offer to the Minister a plan which would enable the ELBS to deal with its weaknesses and to be part of a wider mosaic of
1256
educational publishing from this country. I wonder whether we might streamline the existing ELBS scheme instead of phasing it out. We might concentrate it on the poorest countries and accompany it by an ELBS contribution to the book banks and presentations discussed in our last debate. Alongside that, I believe that there is a role for encouraging publishers in this country to go out of their way to see what help they can give. In eastern and central Europe, we engage a good deal in know-how operations and know-how funds. Perhaps we could try to do know-how fund operations in terms of publishing in some of the poorest countries of the world and help to encourage local publishing.
In the last debate the Minister mentioned the Indian experience in this field. I know, for example what Book Aid International does in its very modest way (it operates largely on a shoestring). It provides know-how kits for publishers in developing countries on how to set about the job of being a successful publisher. There are a good many ways in which the ELBS scheme, instead of being phased out, could be adapted and incorporated into the overall strategy of the Minister in this particular field.
It is on that point that I want to end, as other noble Lords have done. We are all aware that the Minister, like all Ministers, has had problems in the battle over public expenditure priorities. As I read the Red Book on the Budget, the ODA budget is fairly static in inflation terms and probably facing some reductions. It would be very helpful to us if, in responding to the particular problems of the future ELBS scheme, the Minister were also to put it against the context of her educational strategy for the ODA, to reassure some of us that tertiary education still has a significant role to play along with other forms of education in terms of our aid programme. Within tertiary education, perhaps she could assure us that the educational book side will be dealt with in a way that, as I said in my final words in the debate of May 18 months ago, is not in any way a sort of smokescreen to conceal a real cut in this particularly important form of educational aid.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, for introducing this short debate. I have a couple of interests to declare and, regretfully, an interest not to declare. I am a director of two very small publishing companies, neither of which has ever had a book in the ELBS or is ever likely to have. On the negative side, I am not and never have been the author of a textbook that has been adopted by ELBS. But, being above these things, that will not prejudice me against them. I am also, as is the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, one of those involved in trying to set up a trust to do something in this area in the future.
I shall make several points but I shall not go over the ground covered by other noble Lords, as most of the material has been dealt with very effectively. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, introduced the subject of IT. I am as committed to IT as any Member of your Lordships' House. I spend—perhaps waste—a great deal of time on the Internet. I use CD-ROMs

1257
and so on. However, although I accept all the visions of the future, we are a million miles away from the end of the book. With all respect to noble Lords, it is absurd to suggest that the future of education in the third world within our lifetime lies with IT. I should like to believe that, but it is simply absurd. The situation does not even lie like that with us. I am sure that, like me, the noble Lord spends most of his time reading books. There are CD-ROMs which are better than books—the Oxford English Dictionary on CD-ROM is undoubtedly better than the book. But there have been very few examples of that so far. The other thing to bear in mind is that they are all much dearer in electronic form. We shall not save money by going electronic—one day it will happen but not in anything like the near future. If we are serious in our desire—I emphasise my seriousness—to help the emerging countries (or whatever expression one wishes to use) in the educational field, books are of the essence. I have no doubt about that whatsoever. The question therefore is how we do something about it.
Secondly, following the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, I believe in utilising everybody's interests. Therefore, to be told that this is in the commercial interests of publishers I find astounding coming from the Conservative Benches. Of course, following Adam Smith, we want things to be in people's commercial interests so that they do them. Certainly, I shall not advocate anything that is not in someone's commercial interests because, if it is not, then nothing will happen. So I do not regard as a minus point and cannot believe that it could be the serious view of the ODA that one objection to the scheme is that it is in the commercial interests of publishers.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, do they not contribute to the overall costs of the activities abroad?
Lord Peston: Of course they do. We do not expect our publishers to be altruists. We expect our publishers to respond to incentives. In my judgment this is a suitable incentive and, to use an expression that I do not particularly like, one which is cost effective. I refer again to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. If he is right and this is just across the board led Treasury cuts, we are wasting our time. What are we doing here late on a Thursday night? If this is simply a case of the arguments following a decision rather than a decision following the arguments, I certainly do not know what I am doing here, because I am quite tired. I assume that we are discussing this matter rationally in terms of the correct use of a given budget—in this case the ODA budget. We are not playing the old game of "Let us spend some more"; we simply say that within that budget our judgment is that one gets extremely good value for money for approximately £750 a year.
That is my position. I have heard nothing from the ODA to dissuade me from that view. If one reflects on it, it is clear that for £750 one places in the hands of the eventual leaders of the societies about which we are speaking books in English written by people in this country. I can assure noble Lords that I have no great hope that in these few minutes we shall persuade the
1258
Minister to change her mind. But I can assure her that in three or four years' time we shall be in this Chamber and some noble Lord will rise and ask, "Why, in all these countries, are all the textbooks written by Americans? Why did no one do anything to make sure that they were written by British people?" In the noble Lord's own field, does he want all the books on veterinary science to come from the United States? I must tell him that, when this scheme goes, should the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and I not have the success for which we are hoping, that is what will happen. Interestingly, however, someone will then say, "We shall have to find some funds to get the scheme started again."
That is certainly my position. Books matter and IT will matter one day but we are nowhere yet near that point, and I believe that this is an amazingly good way of doing things to help those countries. Again, I do not move back from the point that I believe that it also helps our own country. I know that in under-developed countries we are concerned with altruism and all that and I stand second to none in my desire to be a caring person in world terms. But what I deeply care about is British influence throughout the world and I do not want to see that diminished.
As I said, I do not want to go again over the ground. But I must echo other noble Lords in asking, where are the ODA's new proposals? Essentially the scheme will die in what is not a very long period of time. I must tell the noble Baroness that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and I and colleagues have not had enormous success in raising additional money. I also say to her, slightly tartly, that the fact that she has been unable to support us has not exactly made life easy for us in trying to persuade anyone else to support her. I wrote to her and she wrote back to me about as disobliging a letter as she possibly could have done in terms of my having asked for some help. I was told—to paraphrase her reply—that there was very little on offer from her department to help us get started.
I would at least hope that if the noble Baroness feels that her department can do nothing more, we may get more support from her department in what we are trying to do. I do not hold out a great deal of hope that we can do much. It is not easy, in such a short period of time, to raise that kind of money. We are trying, but it is not easy.
One point that puzzles me about the ODA position is that anybody who knows anything about tertiary and higher education knows that in any society the people involved are above average. Whether we are discussing our own or anybody else's universities, we are not discussing the poorest of people but those a little further on. If one's desire is to help in that area, naturally one will end up helping a few better-off people.
When I was a student, though I thought I was incredibly poor, it turned out that even then I was one of the better off. I had no idea what real poverty was. But nobody suggested that grants should be abolished. If we want to help students in other countries, we must accept that some of the help will go towards the elite. However, we shall also be helping a number of

1259
extremely poor people. I do not understand the argument that the money is wasted; it is based on a view that we can target or fine-tune so brilliantly that the money goes only to the most deserving. There is no experience of policy-making in any country in the world that says it can be done that accurately. A broad range must be helped in order to help anybody at all. I do not accept the argument that, because richer people gain as well as the poor, that is a reason for stopping the help.
I feel passionately about books. I came from a house that did not have any books. I bought the first book ever bought in my family and can still remember the book I bought and the excitement of the beauty of a brand new book. I have wasted enormous sums of money over my life and probably owned more books than I will ever read because I find them irresistible. I want people in the third world to have that kind of attitude to books. Above all, I want them to have that attitude to books written by our people, coming from our country.
8.12 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, for raising this issue again and to all noble Lords for the useful points made. I was going to report, early in the new year, on what had been happening. There was no wish to keep anyone in the dark. If questions are asked, I shall always answer them, as all Members of your Lordships' House know. I am therefore glad to have this opportunity to respond and to inform your Lordships of the work undertaken to find the most effective ways we can of ensuring that the poorer students in the poorer countries have access to the books they need.
We heard some interesting ideas from the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, tonight. While I cannot respond at the Box to those ideas, we will investigate them. I believe also that where we can we should be encouraging local publishing. I, for one, was delighted when Macmillans set up headquarters in Swaziland. I was proud to open the new big warehouse there. That enables distribution to be carried out much more effectively and efficiently than from anywhere else.
Before I reply to the questions asked in the debate I should remind your Lordships of one point. In May last year when we had our debate I explained that we had to work under the Overseas Development and Cooperation Act. The British aid programme is defined in that Act as,
"promoting the development or maintaining the economy of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, or the welfare of its people".
I went on to say,
"Those are important words. The primary purpose of British aid is development".—[Official Report, 17/5/95; col. 656.]
We are required by law to make sure that that is done. Therefore, when we investigated (not once, but twice) the ELB scheme—the first investigation was as long ago as 1988, as the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, mentioned—the reviewers concluded both then and in the subsequent review that the impact and effectiveness of technical assistance for education would be enhanced if we managed a book scheme at country level. It was
1260
also realised that the ELB scheme could not operate in that way. What we will do if the pilots prove to be as successful as we hope is to put books provision back into the individual country programmes so that we can target them on those poorest people whom we should be helping under the Act.
In 1995 the chairman of the booksellers wrote to me about the book scheme saying:
"Global schemes [of the type now being phased out] are not the most effective way of targeting aid".
I agree. We are trying to be more effective, not less.
Eighteen months ago I said that there were flaws in the ELB scheme and that those had to be set right because the educational low-priced books were not reaching the poorest students as they could not afford to buy them. I am firmly committed—as this House knows—to increasing access to books in developing countries where they will remain the main source of information. However, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, should not be too doubtful about the speed with which youngsters in developing countries learn. If they can get their hands on a single computer in a village or a town, they manage to learn from computer technology extremely quickly. My noble friend Lord Soulsby, and the noble Lord, Lord Walton, were absolutely right when they pointed that out. Those children in developing countries are probably learning much faster than we did at the same stage of development.
We are examining not only how we increase the access to books in developing countries but how we can use ODA funds to improve the current situation. What have we been doing? We heard a little about that, but only snatches, in some of the contributions tonight. As we know, ELBS has continued to receive funding—it is in its last financial year—of £700,000. At the same time it has enabled us to begin other work.
ODA set up and hosted the working group with publishers and other interested parties. The noble Baroness, Lady David, said that they had not met since February. That is because, by the end of February, we had a sufficient idea of the way we should go and could start consultation in the developing countries about the suggestions which had come from the working party. Members of the working party jointly identified three priority areas. Those were to be the commissioning of a bibliography of low-priced editions; the targeted library support via pilot projects, which I will go into in a moment; and guidelines for books provision in bilateral projects, to which I referred a moment ago. But it was by consulting the ministries of education in some of the poorest developing countries that we were able to devise plans to test out the direct provision to schools and libraries of the sorts of books they need.
Let me follow up on the three ideas. The bibliography has been commissioned and, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, is being done by a well-known Scottish bookseller, John Smith and Son. We shall pay for that bibliography of low-priced editions. It will be available later this month and will include a list of titles of cheap student text-books in subject headings previously identified under the ELBS with additional headings for medicine. I believe that it will include

1261
veterinary medicine. I hope noble Lords realise that I have taken to heart the comments made about the importance of medical books and that they remain important.
Twelve publishers have so far agreed to contribute their list to the bibliography and I am grateful to those British publishers who have, as we knew some would, found ways of getting their products into developing markets without subsidy. That is to help us do what we want to do without making us go against the 1980 Act, and that is important. These publishers form a broader base than those who participated in the ELBS. The prices for the text books are generally in the price range of £2.40 to £10 and they compare favourably with the prices charged by the publishers under ELBS. The bibliography will contain about 300 titles to begin with. We do not regard that as final, but that is the basis on which we will build.
I am confident that the bibliography will continue to develop and will meet the real needs of students who need text books. We plan to distribute the bibliography early next year. We shall monitor its usefulness to suppliers, institutions and libraries. We shall also encourage the wider development of it.
The noble Lords, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, Lord Walton of Detchant, and Lord St. John of Bletso, raised a query about tertiary education, and some belief in the department that it might be considered elitist. I can assure noble Lords that that is not so. We have to emphasise the urgent necessity of tackling primary education as part of education for all. We are tackling tertiary education support through specific projects with universities like Lesotho's national university and through specific scholarships; in other words, closely targeting where we can be most effective and through specific academic links, which is a new project that we agreed only in July this year.
It is essential to have tertiary education. It is essential higher-level education, and it will be necessary for teaching the teachers for the future, but it must be built upon sound educational levels in the lower age groups. That is why there has been a slight shift towards primary education. It is not because we are giving up helping at tertiary levels, but because of the urgent need at primary levels. That is why our bilateral programmes have turned more towards carrying out, on a country basis in India, Pakistan, Malawi, Zambia and other countries, quite a lot more in that particular field.
I have said that I am glad that we have this bibliography stage one—and I only call it stage one—with 300 titles coming off the stocks now.
Secondly, we looked at library support through a number of pilot projects. In order to make progress we first sought the views of key senior individuals in a number of ministries of education. That resulted in the development of a list of pilot projects, based on local knowledge, of the areas of greatest need for the students. These projects will start in this financial year, and I hope literally in weeks rather than months. They have been selected to cover the needs of education, not only at tertiary level but also at primary and secondary levels,
1262
to see whether we can get books through, because there is a book shortage in the developing world, as we all know.
We have allocated £160,000 to fund the starting up of that set of initiatives this year, so that will be before the end of March. There will be more available in the year 1997-98 for these and other initiatives as we bring them on stream. An amount of half a million pounds has been allocated to the direct provision of books to these projects for the next financial year.
I must stress that these are pilot projects. Areas of need have been identified by the recipients themselves, and not by my officials nor by publishers. We shall begin the evaluation of the effectiveness of each of the pilot projects from next year onward.
The third matter that we agreed was to produce, for our country programme managers, guidelines to ensure that books and information provision is made in all projects where it is appropriate. Draft guidelines have been developed with the help of the British Council. We shall consider those once we have had the opportunity to evaluate the pilot projects, and we shall consider them with education people from the developing countries themselves.
In addition to all this, there is a large number of bilateral projects and new ones coming up through the pipeline, and each of them will include significant elements of book provision. One example is that we shall spend some £7 million on books in the new primary education project that has begun in Kenya. We have continued to support other book programmes and a number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, spoke of Book Aid International, for which I have absolutely unbounded respect because it has done such a good job. It continues to get our support to the tune of £300,000 over the three-year period, 1994-97, but we have given it an additional project grant for particular work with books in Africa of some £97,000. That was in the last financial year.
One of the reasons that Book Aid International is so good is that it places the books among students who most need them. We anticipate continuing our grant to Book Aid International at similar levels, if not even better levels, in the next three years.
Carrying out work for Book Aid International leads us to work with another association, that for the development of education in Africa. We have provided it with £120,000 for book work. We are the lead funding agency for the organisation's group on books and learning materials. Our aim is to influence more appropriate and sustainable book policies in Africa. We played a significant role in July this year at the Zimbabwe book fair because the debate needs to be carried on, not just here or in donor countries, but in the countries which will use the materials that we are pleased to be able to fund.
Next year's topic at the book fair will be access to books. We are heavily involved in the Indaba (discussion seminars) at the book fair. All those

1263
activities will inform our books and information project as well as informing the African countries' longer-term books policy development.
The Eastern Europe Low Price British Books Scheme has operated since 1991 at a cost of £1.88 million. We have made an allocation of £100,000 per annum for low cost medical books schemes. There are many other examples I could go into, but I assure your Lordships that educational books are alive and well in the ODA. It is, however, important that we apply them in the way that I described in our earlier debate and again tonight. That is to make sure that the books reach the poorest students in the poorest countries. In this financial year some 9,000 scholarship trainees and award holders will come to the United Kingdom. They will each have received an allowance for books at an average value of £300. We shall continue that. That is right. We shall also continue, wherever we find a need that can be answered by local production, to help local producers and thereby the local economy to grow.
I have made it quite clear that I want something better. My officials have been working to produce that. When we were asked for a second ELB scheme my chief education adviser was quite right to say that we were not going to have a second ELB scheme for the reasons of the 1980 Act, which I explained at the beginning. It was not to undermine the whole question of books for students; it was to be factual about the situation we face in law.
We are looking at a number of new ideas. My noble friend Lord Soulsby and the noble Lord, Lord Walton, both mentioned the electronic media. For our programme managers we have included in our guidelines for books the whole question of periodicals—these may be available by some photocopying system or CD-ROMs—and how to use the Internet connection and electronic data bases.
1264
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, we are looking at this pilot project of an electronic library network in Ghana. We find that there is much more scope for this than we had imagined, even though we are perhaps a little more in touch with it than the noble Lord, Lord Peston, may have been. We are providing short-term scholarships for intermediate technology under our present scholarship schemes where the overseas government concerned is identifying IT as a priority subject for study. More and more see that as an important point.
We are working away at this. If we spent all our time talking about all the things we are working away at, we would never get the work done. However, I am always willing to answer questions from noble Lords or, for that matter, anyone else, because I believe that what we are seeking to do is to ensure that the books are the right books and they get to the poorest students who have hitherto been having great difficulty in getting access to them. I would just say to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, that ELBS does not distribute books at the moment; it puts them into bookshops for sale. So it is a rather different scheme from the one people sometimes think goes on.
I could say many more things but I have already overrun my time. I hope I have been able to convince your Lordships that there is nothing negative about what we are doing. We are making the very best use of funds in the best interests of, in particular, recipients, but also in the interests of British taxpayers. That is my job; that is what I shall do; and I shall make very sure indeed that the books get to the people who most need them.

Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before nine o'clock.

  Treaty on European Union: Anti-Discrimination Proposal
  Treaty on European Union: Anti-Discrimination Proposal
  Israel and Iranian Nuclear Development Project
  Israel and Iranian Nuclear Development Project
  Turkey and Bosnia: Military Relations
  Turkey and Bosnia: Military Relations
  Turkey and NATO Enlargement
  Turkey and NATO Enlargement
  WEU Use of NATO Facilities: Turkish Veto
  WEU Use of NATO Facilities: Turkish Veto
  Civil Service: Male/Female Ratio
  Civil Service: Male/Female Ratio
  RUC: Recruitment of Roman Catholics
  RUC: Recruitment of Roman Catholics