Sitting of 21 March 1996

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

    BODMIN MOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday 28 March.

    BODMIN MOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords]

      ROYAL ASSENT
      Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

      Consolidated Fund Act 1996

      Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Act 1996

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Peace Process
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations he has had with the Government of the Irish Republic on their contribution to the substantive negotiations relating to the peace process. [20407]
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the progress of the peace process. [20410]
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Irish Government concerning an acceptable elective process leading directly to all-party negotiations. [20413]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): A round of intensive consultations was held between 4 and 13 March involving the British and Irish Governments and the constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland. These discussions were illuminating and the Government have been reviewing the outcome with the Irish Government. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making a statement later this afternoon which will set out the Government's decision on the way forward.
    Mr. Riddick: As there is some understandable resentment on the part of some people in the north of Ireland of the considerable involvement of the Irish Government in the affairs of the north, would it not be an appropriate goodwill gesture for the Irish Government to announce that they intend to drop the clauses of the Irish constitution that lay claim to Northern Ireland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Under the Anglo-Irish Agreement, certain rights are conferred upon the Irish Government. I think that it is worth remembering that one of the declared principles shared between the two Governments on the process of negotiations with which we are concerned is the possibility of finding a replacement for the Anglo-Irish Agreement that would attract broader support and have a broader base. I think that the Irish Government recognise very well the limitations placed upon the rights that I have mentioned, and observe them.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the Secretary of State now realise that, by trying to please the Ulster Unionists' demand for elections as a passport to all-party talks, there is a distinct danger that he will end up pleasing no one, and that the only positive result might be that he will unite all Northern Ireland parties in their opposition to the scheme? If there is widespread opposition to this hare-brained hybrid electoral scheme, will he consider an alternative approach whereby the passport to all-party talks might be based on existing electoral mandates, with fresh elections being held after a new constitutional framework is agreed at the all-party talks?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am fairly philosophical about uniting people in opposition to anything that the Government may put forward in the interests of negotiations in Northern Ireland, but I think that one of the things that we have learnt is the wide disparity of views that are held. We will wait and see how what the Government will introduce this afternoon is received. We have a shared ambition with, I believe, all the constitutional parties to bring forward the process by which all the parties who are democratically mandated and wholly committed to peaceful and democratic means can sit down and discuss the issues that will be fundamental to an ultimate political settlement.
    Mrs. Prentice: On those discussions, does the Secretary of State agree that, as well as the electoral system, there are other crucial elements on the road to 10 June and that having discussions with the Irish Government, and agreement with them, is the best way to ensure that those other elements are included?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is certainly true that the Irish Government have a legitimate interest in those matters that have come to be called strand two and strand three matters. It is therefore sensible that we should reach a common position, if possible, as to the ground rules for negotiations that bear upon those matters.
    Mr. Wilshire: In respect of Question 7, which focuses on elections in Northern Ireland, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the organisation of elections within a sovereign state is entirely the business of that sovereign state and of nobody else? Can he confirm,

    479
    therefore, that the foreign Government in Dublin will play absolutely no part in the discussions that will take place in the House when we come to legislate?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Yes, that is true, and that is understood by the Irish Government.
    Mr. Trimble: Does the Secretary of State recall the inter-party talks of 1992, which failed largely because of the failure of the Irish Government to make a positive contribution on substantive matters? Has the Secretary of State any indication that the Irish Government will in the future act positively not only on articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, but on the issue of finding a new agreement, to which he referred?
    With regard to that matter, when the Secretary of State says that the Irish Government recognise the limitations on their powers to interfere under the existing Anglo-Irish Agreement, were they acting within the limits of those powers when they interfered so shamelessly in the past few days, with the effect of changing the statement that the Prime Minister is to make this afternoon?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I recall very well the discussions of 1992, as I know the hon. Gentleman does. They came to an end, inconclusively, after between five and six months, in November, for a variety of reasons, and I do not think that it is possible to identify any particular one today.
    As to the conduct of the Irish Government that we may anticipate in the negotiations that we hope will take place, I have every confidence that they will be positive and will wish to address matters in a constructive way, as indeed will we and, I am confident, all the constitutional parties.
    I dealt earlier with a question about the involvement of the Irish Government by right in matters connected with strands two and three. I am not aware that the Irish Government have sought to go outside those entitlements in any respect recently.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: The Secretary of State has spoken much about the shared understanding between the Government and the Government of the Irish Republic. Was the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic acting in keeping with that shared understanding when he said in The Irish Times of 18 March that decommissioning would not
    "be allowed to inhibit … progress"?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is difficult to extract from one newspaper headline or one newspaper report anything that gives a reliable account of people's views. From the point of view of the British Government, I can say unequivocally that we stand by the position adopted by both Governments in paragraph 12 of the joint communiqué of 28 February. I have no reason to suppose that the Irish Government are in any different position.
    Mr. Mallon: Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether the Government have had any unofficial contact or discussions with the IRA, or those representing its views, since the breakdown of the ceasefire?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Since the breakdown of the ceasefire, no. I do not know quite who the hon. Gentleman would include in the category of those representing the
    480
    views of the IRA, but since the breakdown of the ceasefire I have not had, and I do not believe that any Minister has had, any contact with Mr. Adams or Mr. McGuinness; before then, I had.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I put it to my right hon. and learned Friend that compromise actually means seeking agreement? If the constitutional parties of Northern Ireland could reach agreement, would there be any difficulty in the United Kingdom Government agreeing to their system of defining those who should be party to the talks?
    May I put it to my right hon. and learned Friend that the only people who appear to want to go on turning women into widows and children into orphans are those who represent Sinn Fein-IRA, who appear at the moment to find every excuse to avoid getting involved in the democratic process?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I hope very much that Sinn Fein will become involved in the democratic process. I believe that any subsequent and ultimate political accommodation will be more soundly based if it does. That, of course, involves its being prepared to accept an adverse outcome to its wishes, if that be the case under the operation of the democratic process. That is the test that it has to face. As to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I would be glad to accommodate any system that was agreed by the constitutional parties of Northern Ireland.
    Ms Mowlam: Following the consultations with the Irish Government, does not the Secretary of State agree that what is important is that the talks start on 10 June? When, therefore, does he envisage telling hon. Members about the basis of the structure, the format and the agenda for those talks? What time scale is he working to?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement this afternoon, as the hon. Lady knows, and I shall not anticipate it. The statement will be accompanied by the publication of a paper, which will be available in the usual way.

    Housing Rents
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the proposed average increase in housing rents for the year 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [20408]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): The rent for Northern Ireland Housing Executive tenants will increase from 1 April 1996 by 2.75 per cent.—on average, 87p per week.
    Mr. O'Brien: The Minister must be aware that, over the past 10 years or so, rents in Northern Ireland have increased well above the rate of inflation. People on fixed incomes obviously suffer the greatest if they are not in receipt of housing benefit. Rent increases push up the housing benefit bill, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has demanded reductions in public expenditure—which is totally unfair to the people of Northern Ireland. When will the Government do something about being fair and honest

    481
    with tenants in Northern Ireland? When will the Government give them a better opportunity to retain more of their income?
    Mr. Moss: There is a flaw in the hon. Gentleman's thesis: the present average rent paid by Housing Executive tenants in Northern Ireland is £31.65 a week—which is £6 per week less than rents for local authority housing in England and in Wales. Therefore, I believe that the tenants of Northern Ireland get a good deal.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: The Minister will be aware that 75 per cent. of tenants in Northern Ireland receive housing benefit to assist them with rent. The Housing Executive pays out housing benefit and decides what the rents should be. There have been giro drops in Northern Ireland, but the Housing Executive has no incentive to deal with them, because it gives people money anyway.
    Mr. Moss: The Government's policy is to keep Housing Executive rent increases in Northern Ireland in line with the average increases recommended for local authority housing in England and Wales. That is why the rent increases for next year have been limited to inflation—2.75 per cent. We are keeping the rent increases in line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom.

    Mourne and Banbridge Hospitals
    Mr. McGrady: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received about the closure of the Mourne hospital, Kilkeel and the Banbridge hospital. [20409]
    Mr. Moss: Since the beginning of 1996, three representations have been received about proposals from the Southern health and social services board affecting the future of the Mourne hospital, and two representations have been received about the closure of Banbridge hospital. In addition, a petition about Banbridge hospital—which contained more than 5,000 signatures—was sent to the Prime Minister.
    Mr. McGrady: The Minister's reply shows that there is great disquiet and discontent among people in the catchment areas served by the hospitals in Kilkeel and Banbridge. Is he aware that the consultative process carried out by the Southern health and social services board was a charade, in light of its decision of 29 February, because it could not possibly have taken on board, analysed and assessed the representations made to it by the community? In view of that, will the Minister, first, withhold ministerial approval from that unlawful decision, secondly, receive the representations that were ignored by the Southern board and, thirdly, receive a small deputation from the community groups representing each of the hospitals?
    Mr. Moss: Consultation on the future services in Banbridge and Mourne have been going on since 1992. The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that there was some public confusion about the earlier consultation. That is why the board decided in April and May 1995 to have further consultation, which concluded at the end of last year. I am not prepared at this stage to change the board's decision, but its decision about both hospitals is
    482
    conditional on services of as good, if not better, quality being provided on site in those communities. I shall consider the matter extremely carefully before I endorse the decision.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: With all the rationalisations going on, will the Minister be able, soon, to announce that there is a place for community hospitals, which provide minor surgical and medical treatment for patients in their areas who may already have received major surgery or other treatments in acute hospitals or regional specialty centres, providing respite care and nursing attention?
    Mr. Moss: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. We shall soon publish our regional strategy for the next five years, which points to the concentration of acute services at, say, six major hospitals, but that does not mean that there will be no role for all the other hospitals in Northern Ireland. We are considering a definition of a community hospital which will do many of the things that are needed on a local scale and will complement activities at the big acute hospitals.
    Mr. Dowd: On the future of hospital services throughout Northern Ireland, is the Minister aware that the further cuts of £31 million in health budgets have exacerbated the funding crisis that already confronts them, and are likely to lead to deeper cuts in acute services—so much so that the trust managers and health boards have been obliged to call emergency meetings to discuss where the axe will fall? What action is he prepared to take to avoid the appalling prospect of further closures and bed closures, especially in intensive care, which have been such a damaging feature of the NHS throughout the United Kingdom recently?
    Mr. Moss: The delivery of the health service in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the health boards, and they have been given an apportionment of the finances for the next year. I do not expect them to come up with any proposals to cut beds, and certainly not intensive care. I have given the boards and trusts a target of 1.5 per cent. efficiency savings and additional 1.5 per cent. cuts in some services but, as the boards are tasked with representing the health needs of their areas, I do not expect a major reduction in emergency treatment in our hospitals.

    Ulster Culture and Landscape
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to promote interest in the culture and landscape of Ulster among Ulster's diaspora. [20411]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): The British Council and the Northern Ireland tourist board promote interest in Northern Ireland internationally, though their activities are not directed primarily at people of Northern Ireland origin or descent.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I congratulate the Northern Ireland tourist board and its friends in Bord Failte on co-promoting the ancient Province of Ulster. Does the Minister share my view that an invitation should be

    483
    extended to many hon. Members who have never visited the Province of Ulster, let alone Northern Ireland, and that our friends in North America and Australia should be encouraged to visit Ulster to see it for themselves?
    That would be a great confidence-boosting measure to the people of Northern Ireland, especially if the visitors were to visit Cavan and Monaghan and go to see the mountains of Mourne, the Antrim coastline and the city of Belfast, stopping off at Bush Mills and visiting the beautiful city on the Foyle, as well as looking in at St. Patrick's city of Armagh, the American folk park in Omagh and President McKinley's birthplace in Antrim.
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman and I may not often agree, but in so far as the areas that he described are in Northern Ireland, I very much agree with him. We all do our best to promote tourism to all parts of Northern Ireland. As he says, there is much to see. I fear that the itinerary that he has set out may be beyond the pocket of the average tourist, but it obviously was not in his case.
    Rev. William McCrea: What steps will the Minister and the Government take to encourage the majority Ulster Scots culture, rather than the constant bombardment of the Ulster people and others by a foreign Irish Gaelic culture? Will the Government take the initiative, as they have rightly said that they believe in the Union?
    Mr. Ancram: As a Scottish borderer, I have a great deal of respect for the Scots language, which is the parent language of Ulster Scots. The Ulster Scots linguistic tradition is one important strand in Northern Ireland's complex cultural heritage and I am taking steps to ensure that it receives the same treatment as the Scots language in Scotland.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: In view of that excellent statement, is the Minister surprised that the central community relations unit now gives 20 times more money to the promotion of the Irish language than to the Ulster Scots tradition—even though, as he said, Ulster Scots is the main linguistic tradition in Northern Ireland? Will he therefore ensure that the imbalance is corrected when promoting Ulster culture abroad—which is what the question refers to—and that the Government will no longer discriminate against the majority culture in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman heard my comments about how the Ulster Scots language should be treated, which is the Government's policy also. As to promoting Ulster abroad—particularly to those of Ulster ancestry—the Northern Ireland tourist board has a mechanism for attracting people back to Northern Ireland, which is what the question is about. It has introduced a guide entitled "Tracing Your Ancestry", and I wish it well in that endeavour.
    Mr. Worthington: The people of Northern Ireland's diaspora and the people of Northern Ireland itself are interested in one aspect of its culture above all others—whether the talks on 10 June progress in a way that helps to promote a full settlement. That should include decommissioning in the way suggested by Mitchell and strands one, two and three—
    Madam Speaker: Order. We have strayed quite a long way from the question, which refers to the culture and landscape of Ulster. There are many more questions on the subject that the hon. Gentleman is raising.
    Mr. Worthington: One important cultural aspect is that of parity of prestige within Northern Ireland. I would like the Minister's assurance that talks will go forward on all aspects: decommissioning and strands one, two and three in parallel—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite out of order. It will be in order for the Minister to reply to part of the question.
    Mr. Ancram: I can give a very short reply. The intention of any negotiations is to ensure that, in the future, there is mutual respect for each other's culture within Northern Ireland.
    Madam Speaker: Thank you. Perhaps in future hon. Members—particularly those on the Front Bench—will keep to the subject of the question.

    Schools (Standard Assessment Tests)
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in operating standard assessment tests in schools in Northern Ireland. [20412]
    Mr. Ancram: Assessment in Northern Ireland will become statutory from September 1996. Externally set and marked tests will be used in key stage 3 alongside teacher assessment. In key stages 1 and 2, it will take the form of teacher assessment, informed by the use of externally set assessment units.
    Mr. Jamieson: I congratulate the Minister on the way in which he has implemented standard assessment tests in Northern Ireland—by talking to teachers and by ensuring that there is proper teacher assessment and that the tests are workable and manageable. Will he give a firm undertaking today that he will pass on his Northern Ireland experiences to his hon. Friends who are responsible for implementing education policies in England, because they have botched virtually every education reform that they have introduced?
    Mr. Ancram: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his new-found enthusiasm for assessment. The Government welcome that attitude in view of the problems that Opposition Members have caused in that area previously. As the hon. Gentleman knows from attending Northern Ireland questions, Northern Ireland is different. If he wants me to pass to my English colleagues some of the aspects of Northern Ireland education that have led to setting such assessments, particularly key stage 2, I remind him that we have selective education in Northern Ireland and a transfer test.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept the great value of standard assessment tests in schools? Does he accept also the importance of close liaison with the teaching profession in setting and marking

    485
    those tests? Has he noted that the Labour party has consistently opposed those tests in England and has done its utmost to disrupt them, to its great disgrace?
    Mr. Ancram: I agree with my hon. Friend. I commented earlier on Labour Members' attitudes to assessment and testing. I have received co-operation from teachers in Northern Ireland. It is important that assessments are viewed not only as a means of telling parents how their children are doing, but as a means of informing teachers also. I am sure that they appreciate it.
    Mr. Beggs: The Minister has already answered my question in his later answers. I am confident that he agrees that parents and pupils will benefit when test results become available. What action will his Department take when results identify schools in which children are repeatedly under-achieving? Will additional funding be made available to employ more teachers to raise pupils' achievement in those schools?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that, in addition to their benefit for parents and teachers, tests enable us to assess how schools are doing. We certainly want to learn the lessons from those assessments. As he knows, we already have an initiative to raise standards in low-achieving schools. The type of qualifications gained in those schools play an important part in deciding who takes part in the initiative.

    Tourism
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the prospects for tourism in Northern Ireland. [20414]
    Mr. Ancram: While the breakdown in the IRA ceasefire is clearly cause for concern, the Northern Ireland tourist board reports that interest in Northern Ireland as a holiday destination remains high, and it is confident of future growth.
    Mr. Spring: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that Northern Ireland is one of the most attractive and least spoiled parts of the United Kingdom? Does he agree that the excellent news on tourism was recently further boosted by the very welcome announcement of a £16.3 million investment in the Province by the Stakis Hotel Group?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of that investment. During the past three weeks, both the Stakis and the Jurys hotel groups announced major hotel investments in Northern Ireland. At a time when some questions have been asked outside Northern Ireland about whether recent events would have any effect on the confidence of the tourism industry, those investments give a sure indication that people are still ready to invest in a very large and potentially successful growth industry in Northern Ireland.
    Miss Hoey: Does the Minister agree that prospects for tourists visiting one of the most delightful parts of Northern Ireland—Rathlin island—will be greatly enhanced by the new ferry service? Does he agree that it is quite disgraceful that the islanders who have operated
    486
    a ferry service and kept the island's link with the mainland going for a long time have done so without any help or financial compensation? Will he have a word with the relevant Minister, and tell him that that cannot be allowed to happen?
    Mr. Ancram: I think that the hon. Lady recognised that she was touching on territory that is not my responsibility at the Northern Ireland Office, but that of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is sitting beside me, heard what she said. He informs me that he is to meet her and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) shortly to discuss the matter.
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Is the Minister aware of the advantages to tourism in Northern Ireland that will result from relining the west link junctions with the flyover system, which has been financed by the Government and the EC?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter, but he will appreciate that it does not fall strictly within my area of responsibility. He has mentioned—it is worth reminding ourselves of it—that the support that peace can bring to the Province can only help to encourage more investment in tourism in Northern Ireland, which will in turn produce more jobs. That is what we must all look for.

    Council Tax
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce the council tax in Northern Ireland. [20415]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I have no plans to introduce the council tax in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Brown: Given the general acceptability of the council tax in England, Wales and Scotland, is it not a disappointment to hear my right hon. Friend's answer? Why will Northern Ireland be deprived of the benefits of the council tax, which are enjoyed elsewhere in the kingdom?
    Sir John Wheeler: There are many differences in the governance of Northern Ireland. The council tax has not been introduced because local government arrangements in the Province are significantly different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is why I have no plans to introduce a council tax.
    Sir James Molyneaux: As a council tax payer, I have no wish to debate the merits of that innovation, but may I suggest that it might be sensible to give councils in Northern Ireland powers similar to those exercised by their counterparts here in Great Britain and thus make the rating authorities the councils, rather than the Department of the Environment?
    Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I can tell him and the House that it is the Government's wish to see established in Northern Ireland political structures that command widespread community support. If, with the help of the

    487
    right hon. Gentleman's party and others, progress can be made towards that objective, I have no doubt that, in future, councils in Northern Ireland will have an expanded role and responsibilities to go with it.

    Patrick Kelly
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received concerning the transfer of Patrick Kelly from prison in Northern Ireland to prison in the Republic of Ireland. [20416]
    Sir John Wheeler: While my right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of formal and informal representations, the repatriation of Patrick Kelly is a matter for the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Madden: Can the Minister confirm that Patrick Kelly first applied to be transferred to prison in the Irish Republic last autumn and that he was transferred to a prison in Northern Ireland last December? How many more medical reports are necessary before this man is transferred to prison in the Irish Republic so that he can be near his partner and child? He is clearly an extremely sick man. The Government promised to act with generosity and imagination—badly needed in Patrick Kelly's case.
    Sir John Wheeler: The prisoner in question remains under the jurisdiction of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but it is true that he has been transferred to Northern Ireland as a temporary condition to facilitate visits from his family who, as I understand it, live in or near Dublin. As to the prisoner's medical condition, that should be a matter not for subjective claims but for objective evidence. As I understand it, his medical condition is not such as to be immediately life-threatening. Thus it remains the position that transfer to the Republic is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to deal with, as Kelly belongs to him in jurisdictional terms.
    Dr. Hendron: I wish to add my voice to the case for Patrick Kelly. May I inform the Secretary of State and the Minister that great concern has been expressed about Patrick Kelly by his common law wife and child and by people throughout the island of Ireland? My understanding is that Mr. Kelly is in fact very seriously ill with cancer, and I should have thought that sensitivity and compassion would be shown towards him. I therefore entreat the Minister to use his considerable influence with the Home Secretary to have Patrick Kelly transferred to a prison in the south of Ireland and, hopefully, released soon afterwards.
    Sir John Wheeler: I have already explained the procedure to the House. The hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished medical practitioner, will, I know, fully understand the importance of accuracy in describing the medical condition of the prisoner in question. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the prisoner's condition is not life-threatening, so the matter of a transfer is one for my right hon. and learned Friend to decide in consultation with the Government of the Republic of Ireland. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has had to say.

    International Fund for Ireland
    Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what procedures he intends to put in place to monitor the expenditure of US contributions to the IFI in order to comply with the recent decision by the United States Congress to apply the Macbride principles to such expenditure. [20417]
    Sir John Wheeler: Matters pertaining to disbursements by the international fund are a matter for its independent board. The board is supported by an advisory committee of senior officials who will advise it on the implementation of any conditions that may be attached to future donor contributions.
    Mr. Ross: Surely the decision by the United States Congress raises the much wider question of whether employment practice in a United States-owned firm in Northern Ireland has to abide by United Kingdom or United States law. In those circumstances, what is Baroness Denton going to say to any possible investor from the United States who seeks advice on these matters?
    Sir John Wheeler: The international fund, when operating in the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, will obey the laws of the United Kingdom as they apply in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Connarty: The Minister will recall that I proposed a 10-minute Bill on positive discrimination towards the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland. During the debate, it was pointed out that many communities in Northern Ireland, of all traditions, suffer endemic, long-term unemployment and that positive discrimination towards the long-term unemployed is not allowed under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. Do the Government have any proposals to allow IFI money to be spent in a way that would positively discriminate in favour of the sumps of long-term unemployment in the communities of all the traditions in Northern Ireland?
    Sir John Wheeler: The Government deplore any discrimination against any citizens living in Northern Ireland, which has the most formidable battery of laws—some regard them as oppressive—applying to that area. As to the detail of future policy, that is a question for my colleague, Baroness Denton, who will consider the hon. Gentleman's point carefully.

    Job Creation
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received concerning job creation in Northern Ireland. [20419]
    Mr. Ancram: In the past six months, there have been numerous representations on job creation at ministerial level. The approaches have been from Members of Parliament, district councils, economic development groups and business and voluntary organisations. The representations have mainly concerned the level and location of inward investment.
    Mr. Evans: I understand that unemployment has dropped in Northern Ireland by 750,000 since 1992 and that confidence in Northern Ireland is such that, since the ceasefire, no inward investment projects have been lost to Northern Ireland. I also understand that the rate of inward investment in Northern Ireland is so tremendous that the people there get three times their per capita share. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we could re-establish the ceasefire in Northern Ireland, confidence would grow further and the boost to jobs would benefit all the people of Northern Ireland in all sectors of industry?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. It is self-evident that, if there is a credible ceasefire, confidence to invest will be much greater. At the same time, it is important to recognise the success of the Northern Ireland economy at this time. As my hon. Friend says, unemployment is at a low level and, in fact, is at its lowest level since May 1981. Employment, which is perhaps as important, is at its highest level ever and has risen faster than in the rest of the United Kingdom throughout the 1990s. It is important that we get the message across to potential investors that Northern Ireland is a good place to invest for many reasons, not least because of the quality of the work force.
    Mr. Stott: While, of course, I welcome the efforts to create jobs in Northern Ireland, will the Minister take on board the serious problem that faces Shorts in Northern Ireland as a consequence of the liquidation of Fokker and the potential loss of more than 1,000 jobs? Can the Minister tell the House what the Department will do to try to mitigate the worst effects of that awful catastrophe?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that problem. We regret the demise of the long-established partnership between Shorts and Fokker, and we recognise the impact that that will have on Shorts. Government agencies will do all that they reasonably can to assist Shorts to minimise the effect of the situation on employment at Shorts.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the inward investment in Northern Ireland is greater than that coming into the Republic of Ireland? Does he agree that that is not a reflection on the ability of the Irish people in both parts of the island of Ireland, but because investors in Northern Ireland do not have to worry about the social chapter while in the south they do?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. There is no doubt that the existence of the social chapter must act as a disincentive, as against the situation that exists in Northern Ireland.

    Peace Process
    Mr. McNamara: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of all-party talks. [20420]
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), and to the hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice).
    Mr. McNamara: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman inform the House whether the dog's breakfast of an electoral procedure to be announced later today has been welcomed by the Republic of Ireland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not recognise as a dog's breakfast anything that has been or is likely to be announced.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As a Conservative Member who voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement and treaty because it allowed a foreign country to interfere in the internal affairs of another country, may I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend agrees that it is important, as we move towards peace talks, that the position of the proper, legally established and responsible majority party in Northern Ireland—the Ulster Unionists—be not undermined in any way?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is very important that no proper position should be undermined in any way. I also think it important that we hold to our international obligations and seek to improve them by agreement, where that is possible.
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on developments in the peace process talks. [20421]
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, and to the hon. Members for Falkirk, West and for Lewisham, East.
    Mr. Dykes: May I wish my right hon. and learned Friend and other Cabinet colleagues well in these crucial processes? Is he confident that there is now a good outlook that Sinn Fein will eventually persuade the IRA to declare a renewed ceasefire?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's good wishes, but the answer to his question is that it depends entirely on members of Sinn Fein, who are excluding themselves. They will be admitted to the negotiations if they lift their own self-imposed exclusion.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March. [20437]
    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 a further meeting later today.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: In the wake of the Dunblane tragedy, does my right hon. Friend agree that we should take all possible steps to prevent illegal firearms from

    491
    getting into the wrong hands? Will he look at the firearms laws to see what reasonable steps can be taken to revisit them?
    The Prime Minister: I do agree with my hon. Friend about that. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland have been in discussions with the police for some time about the possibility of a firearms amnesty. Those discussions had begun before the appalling tragedy in Dunblane. I can now tell the House that it has been agreed that an amnesty will take place. Details are being worked out, and we will advise the House of them as soon as possible.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that the only way now to restore trust and credibility over bovine spongiform encephalopathy and beef is not more assurances from Ministers but clear and firm advice based on scientific evidence? Does he agree that that evidence should be published in full so that the independent scientists who provided it can be properly examined and can defend it?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health gave the assurance yesterday that he would publish the advice that we have had. As the House will know, we ensured that the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee's statement was published as soon as was practically possible yesterday. As my right hon. Friend told the House yesterday, the facts on which the committee based its deliberations will be made public in scientific journals as soon as possible. I shall of course ensure that the appropriate evidence is placed in the Library of this House.
    Mr. Blair: I am grateful for that assurance; I hope that it genuinely covers all the advice that has been given. I assume from what the Health Secretary said yesterday that the scientific advice that the Government have received is absolutely clear that it is entirely safe to carry on feeding beef and beefburgers to children. May we have a categorical statement that the right hon. Gentleman's scientific advice does indeed say that? [Interruption.] The clearer and better the statements, the sooner public concern will be allayed—Conservative Members should realise that.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be able to see the advice for himself because we have published the advice that we have had on this matter, and we will publish any further advice that we receive so that people can see for themselves, from the scientists, what the evidence is. That is more valuable than hearing from those without scientific information, and we will make sure that it is available.
    As my right hon. Friend has already said, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that children are more at risk than adults from eating beef, but I understand very well, as, indeed, will every hon. Member, the concern that parents will have, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has specifically asked SEAC—the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee—to provide specific advice on that matter. As soon as we receive that advice, we shall make it public so that people may see it for themselves.
    Mr. Blair: I think that it should be made entirely clear. Is the statement that the Prime Minister is giving us that the scientific advice is that it is entirely safe to continue to feed beef to children? If he can tell us yes to that question, it would allay some of the fear.
    The Prime Minister: I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that the advice is on the record. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman would listen, it would be helpful to the whole House. The advice is on the record, and the right hon. Gentleman himself said a few moments ago that he needed to see the scientific advice, not speeches by Ministers. I agree with that point. That is why we are making public the scientific advice so that there can be no doubt what the absolutely basic advice is from the scientists. It is on the record. Further advice will be put on the record.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent decisions of the European Court of Justice are progressively undermining the social chapter and that it is becoming not worth the paper on which it is written? Although I welcome the Government's decision to try to deal with that problem and the problem of fish while at the intergovernmental conference, does he accept that the time factor means that the British taxpayer is likely to face claims from Spanish fishermen before the IGC is completed? Will he therefore accept the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) and legislate to prevent this decision from being acted on in the British courts, and restore the sovereignty of the House?
    The Prime Minister: As I told my hon. Friend, we propose to pursue these matters in the IGC. Of course I am prepared to look at any advice that I receive from any of my hon. Friends, or, indeed, from any hon. Member. Although we are concerned about the way in which the health and safety element of European legislation has been applied—we believe that it has been misapplied—I do not accept my hon. Friend's point that it undermines the whole basis of the social chapter opt-out. Evidence suggests the contrary, and we intend to ensure that the social chapter opt-out remains of the value that it has always been, both now and in the future. We shall pursue that point and the other matters raised by my hon. Friend very vigorously in the IGC.
    Mr. Ashdown: In view of what now appears to be the well-justified public concern about certain aspects of food safety, of which BSE is only the latest example, has not the time now arrived to break up the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food so that the interests of the producer and the consumer can be looked after by two different Departments?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with what the right hon. Gentleman had to say, and I think that, on reflection, he will not agree with it himself.
    On the question of recent events, an independent committee of the most eminent scientists advises the Government on these matters. The Government invariably take that advice. No Minister now or in the past has the scientific competence to deny that advice, and we do not do so. We take that advice and we publish it. That is the right way to proceed.
    Mr. Thurnham: In the wake of last week's awful tragedy, will the Prime Minister add to the tributes to a lifetime of work for children by the late Baroness Faithfull, who died on the same Wednesday morning still hard at work at the age of 85? Does he agree that, in her lifetime of devotion to the welfare of children and through her sincere concern for the treatment of offenders, she set an example to us all?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that, and am happy to endorse his tributes to Lucy Faithfull. In her lifetime she was a tireless worker on behalf of disadvantaged children, and her devotion and concern does indeed set an example to everyone.
    Mr. McNamara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March. [20438]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McNamara: Is the Prime Minister aware that the average unemployment level in the three Hull constituencies is 20.2 per cent? More than 30,000 men are unemployed. How can the Prime Minister justify the spending of £5 million of European and United Kingdom funds to relocate jobs from Fenners polymer factory in Hull to south Wales, thus losing 350 jobs in Hull and more than 150 in Peterborough? Would not the money be better spent on creating proper jobs in south Wales, rather than creating unemployment in Hull?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I shall look at the instance to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but, as I do not know the background, I cannot comment immediately. I can, however, comment on the fact that, although unemployment in Hull is far higher than we would wish, it has fallen by 20 per cent. from its peak and continues to fall. I am delighted about that.
    Mr. Wilshire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that today's welcome reduction in inflation means that there will be more protection for jobs, more protection for savings and more protection for public services? Would he care to tell the House what would happen to jobs, savings and public services if the Labour party ever came to power?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the importance of low inflation. For the first time in 30 or 40 years, we now have a low-inflation economy, and there is no sign that inflation is going to take off. If it did so in the fashion in which it did so in earlier years—most obviously in the late 1970s—it would not only rob savings of their value, but would rob millions of people of their jobs.
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March. [20439]
    Mr. Foulkes: "I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago." [Laughter.]
    Madam Speaker: Too clever by half.
    The Prime Minister: Forgive me, Madam Speaker. Because of the noise on the Opposition Benches, I did not catch the question—but I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Turner: Are the Prime Minister and the Government at all contrite about the BSE crisis, given that Labour's then agriculture spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), raised the question of safety six years ago? What he said was contemptuously rejected by the Government at the time.
    The Prime Minister: Let me repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said yesterday. At each and every time in the past, we have accepted totally and immediately the expert advice given to us by the scientists on this matter—on each and every occasion. If we had not accepted that advice, the hon. Gentleman would be in a position to criticise the Government, because those scientists are there to advise us. They are the specialists; we are wise to accept their advice; we have done so in the past; we are doing so now; and we will do so in the future.
    Mr. Jenkin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that small businesses in countries such as France and Italy enjoy substantial exemptions from the employment law that applies in those countries? Let me enter a plea on behalf of British small businesses: give us the same advantages.
    Mr. Skinner: They want a social chapter.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is mistaken if he thinks that my hon. Friend is seeking the social chapter. I think that he is seeking an assurance that we will not have it, and that the Government want to enable small businesses to continue to create the extra jobs that they have created in recent years. I announced a number of measures to that end recently. We will continue to consider what might be done to enable small businesses to fuel more growth, and create more jobs and prosperity in our economy.
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March. [20440]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hardy: Is the Prime Minister aware that, just before the 1979 election, a Select Committee visited prisons and met burglars? It found them to be ardently Conservative. Were not burglars richly rewarded as crime soared, the proceeds of crime rose and the number of convictions fell markedly? Is the Prime Minister confident of retaining the support of that bedrock of Conservative enterprise?
    The Prime Minister: I confirm that crime was rising for decades and is now falling in this country. One of the reasons why it is falling is that there may be even more burglars, howsoever they may vote, in prison, which is where they should be.
    Mr. Congdon: Will my right hon. Friend explain to the British people why unemployment is lower in Britain than in France, Germany, Spain or Italy? [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: I can echo only what the hon. Member for Bolsover is now convinced of. [Interruption.] I thank the hon. Gentleman very much; I will conduct him. The social chapter and minimum wage are certainly a part of the answer. The low tax structure that we have compared with Europe is part of the answer, the deregulation in this country is part of the answer, the supply-side reforms are part of the answer and a Conservative and not a social democratic Government are part of the answer. We intend to retain those benefits, both in the short term and in the long term, and to provide more jobs.
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March. [Interruption.] [20441]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the Prime Minister started late.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Madden: May I ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I gave him prior notice, concerning Irish prisoners? Will he intervene personally to expedite the transfer of Irish prisoners, including Patrick Kelly, to prisons in the Irish Republic? Will the Prime Minister do that in view of the specific assurances that the Government of the Irish Republic have given about the sentences to be served? Will he also ensure that the regime prevailing in Belmarsh prison is dramatically improved in relation to Irish prisoners?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is considering a number of requests for repatriation, including the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Each request must be considered on its merits. It needs to be subject to the consent of both jurisdictions and of the prisoner concerned. Those matters are being examined. As a result of Sir John Woodcock's report, security at Belmarsh is being improved. I understand that a newly refurbished special secure unit is due to open next month.

Elective Process (Northern Ireland)
3.31 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the arrangements leading to all-party negotiations in Northern Ireland.
In my statement to the House on 28 February, I announced that all-party negotiations would commence on 10 June. In a communiqué issued on the same day, the British and Irish Governments also agreed on intensive multilateral consultations with the Northern Ireland political parties. The purpose of those was to help the British Government to draw up proposals for a broadly acceptable elective process, including the possibility of a referendum, and to try to reach agreement on the format and agenda of all-party negotiations.
During those consultations, the Government have met all the major parties and most minor parties in Northern Ireland on several occasions. Sinn Fein has of course excluded itself. There have been several meetings between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Tanaiste, Mr. Spring, including a review of the outcome of the consultations. The Irish Government have also had a number of meetings with the Northern Ireland parties.
In some areas, we have seen encouraging signs of convergence between the parties' views. In others, sharp differences have remained. The form of elections has been one of the main areas of disagreement between the parties.
Three main systems have been proposed: an election in 18 constituencies, each electing five members by single transferable vote; an election on a party list system across one single Northern Ireland constituency; and a single constituency election across Northern Ireland with votes for parties, but not for named candidates. None of those systems has secured the clear support of major parties representing each of the main communities. Some parties have even threatened not to participate in the process and thus abort the possibility of all-party negotiations should one of the other systems be chosen.
I made it clear in my statement on 28 February that, if no agreement proved possible, the Government would come forward with proposals based on a judgment of what is most likely to be broadly acceptable to the parties and to the people of Northern Ireland. Whatever the merits of each of the three main systems, it is clear that none, on its own, meets that criterion of broad acceptability.
We have therefore considered how to proceed. We have decided to propose a new system, including the most attractive elements of other proposals. We will therefore introduce legislation, immediately after the Easter recess, providing for an election on 30 May using a list system rather than individual candidates, organised in 18 constituencies, but not by single transferable vote, and supplemented by Northern Ireland-wide party preference.
Briefly, electors will have to register just one vote which they will cast, in the constituency, for the party of their choice. Five seats in each of the 18 constituencies will be allocated from party constituency lists of candidates, published in advance, in proportion to each party's share of the vote. In addition, the votes in all the constituencies will be aggregated and the 10 most successful parties across the whole of Northern Ireland will secure two elected representatives each, from party lists published in advance.
498
I believe that this is a fair and balanced system that will produce a representative outcome. The Province-wide element should help to achieve the widely shared objective of making the negotiating process as inclusive as possible through representation of the smaller parties.
The elections will create a pool of 110 elected representatives. The successful parties will be invited by the Secretary of State to select, from among their representatives, negotiating teams for the negotiations to begin on 10 June. The transition from the elections to the negotiations will be automatic and immediate.
Our aim is to see inclusive negotiations. Sinn Fein has, however, currently excluded itself from negotiations by the ending of the IRA ceasefire. That is its choice. But it can make itself eligible to participate through the unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire. That, too, is its choice.
The negotiations need to take place in an atmosphere of confidence. As I told the House on 28 February, all parties will need to make clear at the beginning of negotiations their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the Mitchell report and to address, also at the beginning of negotiations, Senator Mitchell's proposals on decommissioning. There can be no backing away from that. Equally, there must be confidence that, as the negotiations proceed, they will be comprehensive and address all legitimate issues.
As well as furnishing negotiating teams, the elected representatives will be members of an elected forum to meet in Belfast on a regular basis when negotiations are not in session. The purpose of discussion in that forum will be to promote dialogue and mutual understanding within Northern Ireland.
The forum will not engage in the negotiations, which will be free-standing, but could interact with and inform the process at the request of the participants in negotiations. For example, the negotiators might agree to commission discussions, studies or reports from the forum. The legislation will also provide for the forum to be able to conduct hearings at which public submissions by relevant bodies or individuals can be made.
The forum's life will be time limited to 12 months, renewable for up to a maximum of a further 12 months. It will not continue in existence if negotiations are no longer in process. In its procedures, it will be required to proceed by broad consensus.
We have also looked at proposals for referendums. We agree that the people of Northern Ireland must have full ownership of the negotiation process and its outcome. The electoral legislation will give the Government powers to hold referendums in Northern Ireland. That will enable us to meet our undertaking to put the outcome of negotiations to the people of Northern Ireland before submitting it to Parliament.
It has also been argued that a referendum now could be valuable, for example, on the use of violence for political ends. Our judgment at present is that the case for such a referendum has not yet been conclusively made, but we have not ruled out the option of holding a referendum with an appropriate question or questions on the same day as the elections.
There is one other important area that needs to be settled before negotiations can begin: the ground rules for the negotiations. At the end of last week, a consultation

499
paper was issued to the parties. It sets out what an acceptable approach might be, drawing on the experience of the 1991–92 talks round and preliminary consultation with the parties. Further consultation with the parties will continue to ensure that the maximum common ground can be identified.
I have outlined today what I believe to be a viable and a reasonable way forward. Everyone in this process has had to make compromises, some of them difficult compromises. Everyone has needed to exercise patience, and I am grateful to those who have done so. But the basis of our approach has remained unchanged—namely, the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the Downing street declaration, and the need for an approach that can build confidence and lead to an agreement capable of winning the allegiance of both main communities.
I therefore urge the Northern Ireland parties to look carefully at the announcement that I have made today, and the short paper giving more detail which we are publishing in parallel. No party has got all that it wanted. Equally, I see no issue of principle that could reasonably cause any party to walk away from the democratic process that I have set out. I do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland would understand if any party did.
Let us also not forget that the threat of terrorism continues to hang over the process. That is why the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence, and parallel decommissioning, remain so important. The IRA used the lack of a fixed date for all-party negotiations as an excuse to break its ceasefire. There was never any justification for its actions. Now, its excuses are running out.
What I have set out today represents a clear and direct route to all-party negotiations. The prospects for a just and lasting settlement are better than they have been for a generation if all parties take advantage of the opportunities that lie before us. Let me make it clear yet again that, while we want to see all parties round the table, the process will go on with or without Sinn Fein. If it excludes itself from taking part in democratic negotiations, it will not be able to exercise a veto against others doing so.
Once again, the people of Northern Ireland are watching the latest steps along the road to negotiations with bated breath. Their hopes for peace could not be clearer or more overwhelming. We need to move beyond procedures to the substance of negotiations as speedily as we can. The chance is there—no one who stands unreasonably in the way of a settlement will be readily forgiven.
I therefore commend to the House the approach that I have set out and the hope that the House will today send a clear signal of support for this democratic process. That would be the best answer to the terrorists who continue to threaten it and the people of every part of our islands.
Mr. Tony Blair: For obvious reasons, the statement has been difficult to make, and we all need to consider the details carefully. As I am sure that the Prime Minister would agree, the solution on the election process is certainly not ideal, but then the situation is not ideal. So long as the Government search in good faith for peace, Labour Members will not stand in the way of progress. Indeed, we shall try to assist it.
500
Does the Prime Minister agree that the crucial point is that there is now a starting date for talks—10 June—that the elections will lead directly to those talks, and that he envisages no delay to that process? Does he further agree that the position on decommissioning remains the same, and that no party will be able to participate in negotiations unless it supports the Mitchell six principles and commits itself unequivocally to peaceful methods?
May we repeat again the call echoed across Northern Ireland in the nationalist as well as the Unionist community, for the IRA to cease forthwith its murderous campaign, for which there is no shred of political or moral justification?
Obviously it is unfortunate that the Prime Minister has been unable to announce all the elements of the package today, and we look forward to further details, especially about the format and agenda of the negotiations. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the other elements in the package, including the ground rules and the issue of the referendum, will be wrapped up as soon as possible, in a way broadly acceptable to both communities?
Am I right in thinking that although the negotiators will be nominated from the elected parties, the two bodies—the forum and the negotiators—will remain independent, and the conduct of the negotiations is to remain with the negotiators? Will the Prime Minister say a word more about how he sees the two bodies operating in parallel? And can he confirm that the negotiations will be based on the three-stranded process, with both Governments taking part in the strands appropriate to them?
Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the electoral process gives no one exactly what he or she wants—but in fairness I remind the House that the Government's duty was to find consensus and, if none existed, to bring forward their own proposals. The plain fact is that consensus does not exist, and imposing one absolute system over another is obviously fraught with difficulty; hence the compromise. Imposing this on participants is obviously desirable, but least desirable of all would be any more delay or uncertainty. We should not forget that the election is a means to an end—genuine negotiations to try to give a proper forward settlement for Northern Ireland. And that leads to the final and most desirable objective of all, which is peace—a peace that lasts and is sustainable, because its basis is determined not by violence or bombs but by debate and agreement.
In all the complexity of the electoral systems—no doubt hon. Members found it difficult to follow precisely that complexity, the interweaving strands, and how the various parts of the process fit together, even as we were hearing about them—we should not lose sight of that simple and higher duty, to let no prejudice or interest stand in the way of peace. I am sure that that is the will of the people of Northern Ireland.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I agree with his view that the electoral solution is not ideal. It seems complex, but from the point of view of the elector it is simple. Electors will simply have to cast one vote in their own constituency, and everything else flows immediately from that. So there is no complexity from the point of view of the elector in Northern Ireland; it is a very simple process.
The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the start date of 10 June is fixed, and that there will be no delay. The position that he set out on decommissioning, the Mitchell report and the six principles is also correct.

501
We shall conclude the format, the agenda and the ground rules paper as speedily as possible. The ground rules paper is out for consultation, and we shall wish to consult further the constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland, with the intention of reaching, as far as that is possible, an agreed position on it. We shall seek a consensus if one is there to be had.
On negotiations, the right hon. Gentleman is right about the separation of the forum and the negotiators. The negotiators, in essence, are masters of their own process. If they choose to refer elsewhere they may so choose, but it is not obligatory for them in any way to do so. The three-stranded process is as he set it out. He is also right in saying that this election is a means to an end. The election is not the end in itself, it is simply the process by which a proper, democratic mandate is arrived at which will enable the parties honourably to sit down one with the other and conduct the negotiations that all Northern Ireland is crying out to see happen. With that in mind, I hope that the House will give them a speedy and helpful start.
Mr. David Trimble: First, may I welcome the fact that we are going to have elections and a forum on the way to the negotiations, as I believe that that is the right way to proceed. However, I must tell the Prime Minister that we are concerned about the practicality of this entirely novel suggestion for 18 different list elections.
I believe that I am right in saying that there is no precedent for list elections on this small scale anywhere in the world. We need to have a lot more information about the mechanisms, particularly when we come to allocate fractions for the final seats. Would it not have been better to stick to the existing proportional representation system, which is accepted by all parties for all local elections in Northern Ireland and not to have allowed himself to have been blown off course by the unholy alliance of the Irish Government, the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Democratic Unionist party?
I welcome the clear statement by the Prime Minister on the Mitchell report on decommissioning, but will the reference in his statement to "at the beginning" really mean the beginning, with no other matter coming beforehand on 10 June? What arrangements will be made to ensure that the commitments to Mitchell will be honoured? That clear statement on Mitchell contrasts with the fudge in the paper on ground rules that was issued last Friday. Does the Prime Minister know of our concern about the duplicitous manner in which that paper emerged and on the need for greater openness and integrity about the way in which the Northern Ireland Office conducts its business?
The Prime Minister: Let me deal with the last point first. The paper that emerged on Friday was a paper for consultation, not a blueprint with decisions. It was published so that we could consult the hon. Gentleman and his party and the other parties in Northern Ireland. At the end of that consultation we will be able to make decisions.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for elections. He is right to say that there is no precedent for the nature of the election that I am proposing. But I have to say that there is no precedent that I know for the
502
circumstances and complexities that exist in Northern Ireland. If I had been able to find an easier compromise more familiar to people across Northern Ireland, I assure the House that I would have found and advanced such a compromise. In the absence of one, I have had to seek a system that I believe combines attractive features from the representations made to us, is simple and will provide a fair and representative outcome of the elections.
On the Mitchell report, I reiterate that, at the beginning of negotiations, all participants will need to make clear their absolute commitment to the Mitchell principles and progress on that is clearly vital, as the hon. Gentleman indicated. If I may return to the electoral system, I believe that, although the description of the electoral system and how it amasses its outcome seems complex, its mechanism—one single vote for one single party on one single occasion—could not be simpler.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I do not disagree with much of what the Prime Minister has said, except when he said that this was simple. I am not sure that people will see it that way. Is not the plain truth that this is a dog's breakfast, but that it is probably the only dog's breakfast on offer and may well be the best dog's breakfast that could have been arrived at, given the position that the Government found themselves in? In those circumstances, is it not a good thing that all parties should now get on with it and try to produce the maximum vote for those who want to negotiate peace and the minimum vote for those who want to continue with conflict?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his last words and grateful for what he had to say about this being the best that might have been achieved. I might have preferred him to use a term other than "dog's breakfast", because I do not believe that to be true.
I believe that what we have here is a compromise to which all people should be able to subscribe. Its purpose is to make sure that we achieve the outcome that I think the people in Northern Ireland wish to see—to go through an election process and into negotiations. The election is the means to that end, and I am glad at least that the right hon. Member welcomed it in that spirit.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: It is a matter of some regret that the Prime Minister was not able today to give a definitive answer to three important questions. The first relates to the referendums suggested by our party; the second to the transitional steps between elections and negotiations; and the third to the ground rules for all-party negotiations. Can I surmise that those questions are not yet to the liking of the Prime Minister's friends in the Ulster Unionist party, and that they are being given more time to nibble away at them as well? We will await those answers with interest, so that we can judge the package as a whole rather than piecemeal.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that, in the joint declaration of 28 February, the British and Irish Governments stated that any elective process must be broadly acceptable? In Northern Ireland terms, that means acceptable within the Unionist and nationalist communities. May I tell the Prime Minister again that a body of 110 people elected in the context of overall negotiations has no support within the nationalist community? It is seen as Unionist-inspired and

503
Unionist-dominated. In effect it is a prototype of the Unionists' preferred structure for Northern Ireland, given to them and delivered to them even before negotiations begin. That will be done by sleight of hand and will pre-empt the negotiations.
The Prime Minister knows that there is no support for that elected body in the nationalist community. The Irish Government know that there is no support for it in the nationalist community. How can they then proceed with it, when it does not even meet their own criteria as stated on 28 February?
Will the Prime Minister also accept that there is no broad support within the nationalist community for the proposed elective process, which is seen as a sop to the Unionist parties, and judged divisive and nonsensical? It will distort and distract the real negotiations. How then can the Prime Minister claim broad support for that which can best be described as a monster raving loony election proposal? Was he not tempted to send for the men in the white suits when those proposals were put to him by his advisers?
The Prime Minister: I have known the hon. Gentleman for a long time, and he did himself no credit in the past two or three minutes. None the less, let me pick up each of the points that he raised.
On the referendums, there was no agreement among the parties we consulted about them. I have kept the option open, as I expressly stated a few moments ago, about whether there should be a referendum. At the moment, there is no agreement for one.
On the ground rules, as I have made perfectly clear, the paper on those rules has been published for consultation. The hon. Gentleman knows that—it has been published for consultation with him as well. There is no point in his making absurd charges when he knows that the paper has been published for consultation with him and with each and every other party.
As for the timetable for transition, the hon. Gentleman will find that that has been dealt with in the paper we published this afternoon. As for a broadly acceptable electoral system, if there had been one, I would have used it. One of the reasons why there was not one is that the hon. Gentleman's party blocked some of the proposals. The hon. Gentleman and his party were involved in ensuring that there was no broadly acceptable, satisfactory electoral system, as did some of the other political parties. If there had been one, I would readily have taken it up. The hon. Gentleman must take his share of the responsibility for the fact that there was not one. As he is an elected Member in Northern Ireland, that responsibility needs to be taken seriously.
Both the hon. Gentleman and I have a responsibility to the people of Northern Ireland. If the permanent settlement that I and the hon. Gentleman desire is to be achieved, it will be bound to involve some compromise. No one, not even the hon. Gentleman, will get all that he wants out of it. I am prepared to address the question of compromise and I have done so. The hon. Gentleman must also do the same, because if the peace process breaks down due to the intransigence of any one person or party, that person or party will have to defend himself or itself to the people of Northern Ireland. I could not defend any
504
party that walked away from the best chance of peace that Northern Ireland has had for a generation—and I believe that the hon. Gentleman could not defend it either.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Is it possible that the Prime Minister, having set himself the goal of finding an elective system that is most broadly acceptable, has found one that is most broadly unacceptable? Is it not the case that the Prime Minister is dancing on the head of a pin when he divides the second and the third elective systems as if they were two separate systems? They are both list systems. If they were taken to be one system, it would show that there was broad acceptance for a list system in Northern Ireland—acceptance by parties that gained about 70 per cent. of the vote at the last election in Northern Ireland, and acceptance by parties across the political and community divide. Instead, he has allowed himself to be blown off course by the whingeing and the electoral panic of the Ulster Unionist party.
Will the Prime Minister also indicate to hon. Members what he means when he refers to decommissioning as having to be "addressed"? What is the relationship between the negotiating teams and the elective body? Will the elective body have a role in determining whether there is sufficient consensus on proposals brought forward by the negotiating teams?
The Prime Minister: There are a variety of list systems, including the one that I have proposed. I refer to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Ulster Unionist party—not only did the Ulster Unionist party oppose it, but the Alliance party opposed it. Indeed, for almost every proposition that was put forward by one party, more than one party was prepared to oppose it. For every solution that I propose, I have no doubt that several parties will claim that it is being done solely in the interests of another party.
The reality is that I am trying to produce a compromise that not everyone may like, but that people will have to accept because the pressure of public opinion in Northern Ireland requires this process to move forward, as I believe it should.
The negotiating teams will be selected from the forum and, as I indicated a few moments ago, they will be masters of their own destiny as to how they carry out the negotiations. I will not reiterate what I said about decommissioning at the beginning of the process. In answer to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I made the point that progress on decommissioning is clearly vital.
Mr. Clive Soley: Apart from selecting the negotiating teams, the main purpose of the forum thereafter seems, to some extent, to reflect the activities of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in Dublin, which has had some considerable success. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister that the forum should operate in a similar way in order to bring some reconciliation within the communities of Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister: Yes, the forum will be similar. We see the forum as a body that will provide an opportunity for elected representatives to promote dialogue and mutual understanding. That, in Northern

505
Ireland, is a valuable task in itself. The forum will also provide an opportunity for individuals and for groups in the wider community to make their views known.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the opinion of many people, he is a prime candidate for the Nobel prize for patience? Many people in this country, who have a deep desire to see the Union preserved, are beginning to feel a trifle impatient.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is enigmatic, and I note his comments. I say to my hon. Friend and to all hon. Members: in terms of the difficulties that we face in Northern Ireland, patience may well be the mother and father of progress.
Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the Prime Minister confirm that no party—particularly not Sinn Fein—will be allowed to retain its weaponry right to the very end of any negotiations that take place? Many people in Northern Ireland who are committed to peace are concerned that the people in question will simply negotiate and if the ultimate bargain—if bargain there be—is not to their liking, they will use the weapons that they have retained and which the proposed agreement calls upon them only to "address"?
Does the Prime Minister recall that the whole purpose of the electoral body was to act as some sort of detoxifying chamber, in which representatives of Sinn Fein could meet elected representatives of democratic parties? In fact, the whole decommissioning issue has now been knocked on the head, and it would appear—I ask the Prime Minister to confirm this—that no final agreement will be reached while Sinn Fein-IRA retain their armaments.
The Prime Minister: Let me deal with the points that the hon. and learned Gentleman raised broadly in the order in which he raised them.
The question of decommissioning must be addressed at the beginning and progress must be made. There must be parallel decommissioning, as the Mitchell principle set out. As the talks proceed, the decommissioning must proceed in parallel with the talks. The precise manner of that is a matter to be determined at the beginning of the talks, as I previously indicated.
The second of the Mitchell principles—I believe from memory that it was the second—does refer, as the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly intimated, to the total decommissioning of weapons. That will obviously be a point that all the negotiators will wish to fix on at the beginning of the discussions.
Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. Friend has produced a most imaginative proposal—a proposal that should ensure that the widest possible representation is available for the talks when they begin. Can he tell me, however, whether there is in his proposals a safeguard to ensure that such electoral eccentrics as Screaming Lord Sutch and Sir James Goldsmith do not become involved in that election for their own curious purposes?
The Prime Minister: Democracy is a strange and curious thing, but I think the nature of Northern Ireland politics suggests that the specific candidates suggested by my hon. Friend would not be likely to obtain many votes. I think also that it is likely that the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland will be indicated on the face of the Bill that comes before the House. To the best of my knowledge, neither of the two parties headed by the two gentlemen mentioned by my hon. Friend is likely to feature in that Bill.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Many people dislike electoral systems in which they nevertheless participate. In this country, the Liberal Democrats dislike the fact that we do not have proportional representation and the Opposition parties dislike that fact that 3 million to 4 million people are missing from the electoral register, but we still all participate. The key thing now is that all the political parties in Northern Ireland, despite what they feel about that method, should tell us now that they intend to take a full part in the election to advance the peace process.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I entirely agree with every word he said.
Mr. Richard Spring: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the elected forum should reflect the widest possible range of democratically mandated opinion in Northern Ireland? Will he welcome with me, therefore, the opportunity that has been given to the smaller political parties in Northern Ireland to be represented via the top-up of 20 members?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In the consultations we had with the parties, there was a wide desire to find a legitimate way to ensure that the smaller parties were represented, for without them the prospect of the negotiations making progress would have been greatly lessened. That is the purpose of the top-up provision—a novel constitutional element in the United Kingdom, I know, but one that is effective and will ensure the widest possible representation in the negotiations that lie ahead.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: The Prime Minister said that his Government remain to be convinced of the value of holding a referendum. Could it be that he has been encouraged in that attitude by the rapidly diminishing enthusiasm of the Irish Government for such a referendum since he proposed that we include, as a question in that referendum, part of question 10 of the Downing Street declaration—the part that alludes to a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods? Could it be that the Downing street declaration is not supported by the Irish Government as whole-heartedly as we had hoped? Could it be that they are adopting an attitude similar to that of the SDLP, whose members seem to have lost their enthusiasm for the consent of the people of Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister: I forget whether I said that there was "no enthusiasm" for a referendum—I had in mind the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland rather than the Irish Government. I do not know whether the Irish

507
Government retain their enthusiasm for a referendum: I was referring to those consultations with the constitutional parties.
No case has yet been made, and I have not yet uncovered any likely agreement as to what precise question would be posed in the referendum. It is possible that such an agreement may be reached. I have not ruled out the prospect of holding a referendum on the same day as the elections, but at the moment it seems more unlikely than likely.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend accepts that all hon. Members—whatever their position or party—want peace in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend has announced a very complicated package that will clearly need a great deal of study. However, he has not yet said why he believes that there are no grounds for declaring that a referendum could solve the problem. If we believe that the province of Ulster is part of the United Kingdom, why are we not prepared to put a straightforward proposition to the people of Northern Ireland: do they believe in the integration of Ulster, the province of Northern Ireland, within the United Kingdom? I believe that that is long overdue.
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, there is a place for referendums. I have said that, at the end of the negotiations, we shall put the outcome of those negotiations to the people of Northern Ireland. In my judgment, it is right that they should have the opportunity to decide on the outcome of those negotiations. That is the way in which we propose to operate: that referendum is certain.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that the new Rubik' s cube-type election procedure that he has announced today could have been avoided, as everyone knows that the all-party talks could have taken place without any elections? We know also that, at the time of the Scott report, the Prime Minister and his colleagues made sure that the three votes of DUP Members were registered on his side by flying a kite that favoured them in order to save the Government.
Now that the Scott report is out of the way and the Prime Minister managed to secure victory by one vote, he must turn to the nine Ulster Unionists whose votes he needs in order to carry him for as long as possible through to the next election. That is why he has come up with
508
this complicated procedure. He conned the DUP, and the chances are that he will con the Ulster Unionists before the day is out.
The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure how the hon. Gentleman's thought processes work—in fact, I am not even sure whether the hon. Gentleman's thought processes do work. However, he has the unique gift of being 100 per cent. wrong in every assertion that he has made. The all-party talks could not have taken place without an election—as the hon. Gentleman would know if he had the first crumb of knowledge about what was happening in Ulster. The talks could not have taken place and the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that fact. There was no agreement with the Democratic Unionist party.
Mr. Skinner: They thought so.
The Prime Minister: They did not think so. DUP Members know that there was no such agreement; the hon. Gentleman should ask them about it.
Mr. Barry Porter: In view of the trenchant opposition to the proposals voiced by the somewhat strange alliance of the DUP and the SDLP—I do not know what to call it—does the Prime Minister agree that it seems to some entirely appropriate that the views of the major party in the province, which represents the majority of the population, should be taken very seriously?
The Prime Minister: We take very seriously the views of everyone in Northern Ireland. One of the great tragedies of Northern Ireland over the past 30 or so years is that a minority on any particular point has been able to bring whatever peace process existed to a juddering halt. That is why we need to take into account not only the views of the largest party but the views of smaller parties and the views of both traditions of Northern Ireland. Without that, no settlement could last.
Miss Kate Hoey: The Prime Minister said that Sinn Fein-IRA would not be at the negotiations on 10 June unless there was what he called an unequivocal ceasefire. Will he clarify for the House and for the people of Northern Ireland how he will define such an unequivocal ceasefire?
The Prime Minister: We have made it clear that we want the restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994 and an indication that it is intended to be unequivocal. That is the point that we have made in the past, and it remains the position.

Business of the House
4.15 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week:
MONDAY 25 MARCH—Second Reading of the Family Law Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 26 MARCH—Opposition Day (8th allotted day). Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled The Problems Presented by the Privatisation of Nuclear Power, followed by a debate entitled Government Cuts in Health and Safety Provision. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
WEDNESDAY 27 MARCH—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY 28 MARCH—Until about 7 o'clock, conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
FRIDAY 29 MARcH—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 1 APRIL—Opposition Day (9th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
I am not yet able to give details for Tuesday 2 April and Wednesday 3 April, but I expect that it will be necessary to take Government business on both days. The morning business on Wednesday 3 April will include the usual pre-recess three-hour general debate on the Adjournment. As previously announced, the House will rise for the Easter recess at the close of business that day until Tuesday 16 April.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 27 March to consider European Community document No. 9674/95 relating to Border Controls.
[Wednesday 27 March: European Standing Committee B—European Community document: 9674/95, Border Controls. Relevant European Legislation Report: HC 70-xxvi (1994–95).]
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. First, he will know that yesterday the Secretary of State for Health said—the Prime Minister repeated it today—that the Government are awaiting further evidence from their advisory committee on the risks of eating beef products, and that that committee is meeting this weekend to consider the specific issue of giving advice to parents. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the House is kept fully informed on this matter, and, if necessary—it may well be necessary—will he make arrangements for a further statement to be made on Monday by the Secretary or State for Health so that questions can be asked about that further advice?
When does the Leader of the House expect to be able to find time for a full and informed debate on the latest information about bovine spongiform encephalopathy and what has happened in recent years, so that the issues explored briefly in questions on the statements yesterday can be given the full attention that they deserve and require?
510
Secondly, the Leader of the House announced that on Monday the House will debate the Second Reading of the Family Law Bill. There has been speculation as to how the Government might subsequently deal with that Bill—assuming, of course, that it is granted a Second Reading on Monday.
When will the Leader of the House be in a position to make an announcement about any steps that he intends to take in dealing with certain clauses of the Bill—its Committee stage—on the Floor of the House? The Government's attitude towards that might influence certain hon. Members when they come to vote on Second Reading. In particular, can the Leader of the House tell us what the Government propose to do about split pensions? It is a vital issue for thousands of women who are waiting to learn what the Government intend, given the vote in another place a short time ago.
Finally, as the House has not exactly been overwhelmed by the weight of business since Christmas, and as the Leader of the House said at the turn of year that he was willing to consider further the workings of Parliament, will he find time soon after the Easter recess to debate possible changes to our procedures, so as not only to make Parliament work more efficiently but to make it more effective?
Mr. Newton: Further advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, as has been said on a number of occasions, is expected shortly after its meeting this weekend, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health would expect to come to the House promptly to make a statement on it. It is a matter of observation that my right hon. Friend was here to make a statement yesterday at an early stage after previous advice was received.
I cannot be absolutely precise, but good faith has been shown by the way in which the Government have dealt with the matter. It would be premature for me to make a commitment to a debate, as the hon. Lady requested, at the Dispatch Box this afternoon, especially in advance of receiving further advice. I will bear the request in mind, and we may be able to discuss it further through the usual channels.
On the Family Law Bill, the hon. Lady will know that discussion on those matters is proceeding in the usual channels at the moment. The Government certainly expect to make provision for the discussion of appropriate clauses—the so-called conscience clauses—on the Floor of the House. On pension splitting, I cannot add to what I said last week about the Government having under consideration the amendment passed in another place, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would expect to make the position clear in his speech on Second Reading next week.
I continue to bear in mind the hon. Lady's request for a debate on parliamentary procedures and related matters. I have to say that, on my observation, we are not at all short of business. The hon. Lady may be thinking of a slack week that we had two or three weeks ago, but that was a pause before legislation started to arrive here from another place.
Mr. John Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, halfway through the period for which he has announced the business, the

511
intergovernmental conference will open in Turin. Will my right hon. Friend and the Government ensure that the negotiating Ministers come back to report to the House and to give progress statements, to allow hon. Members to question them and to ensure that the Government are making progress in the direction of a Europe of nations?
Mr. Newton: As always, I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says, but there will be a long and complex process and it would not facilitate that process—or be practicable—for full statements to be made every time there was some kind of meeting connected with the process.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the use of bovine serum—that is, serum derived from cattle—in the production of vaccines for immunisation? I was advised this morning that the Department of Health stopped the use of bovine serum from British cattle in 1989, and that no vaccines have contained it since 1990. Will the Leader of the House make arrangements for the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House next week to say whether that is so, and, if it is so, what was the scientific advice available when the Department of Health took that decision?
Mr. Newton: I cannot comment on the scientific advice in relation to the point that the hon. Gentleman raises, but I will draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that it has become an odd practice of the House that, when we have motions for the Adjournment on subjects such as Europe and the Scott report, the House mysteriously divides with the intention of embarrassing the Government? Does the Leader of the House think that the reason why there will not be such a vote tonight is perhaps to cover up massive splits among Labour Members?
Mr. Newton: I hope, think and believe that the reason is that everyone is anxious to have a calm and constructive debate.
Mr. Harry Barnes: May we have a debate on the subject covered in a letter that I have just received from a nine-year-old constituent, Louise Orrill of Wingerworth? She is being taught in a class of 37 children, in accommodation intended for only 20. Her school, Hunloke primary, is due to lose another teacher as well, which will only add to the problem.
Why do these difficulties persist, when there was supposed to have been an improvement in the standard spending assessment? The problem is that it did not take account of the growth in the pupil population. That needs serious consideration, because the problem is widespread in Derbyshire and throughout the country.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am not in a position to comment on a particular local
512
authority's position, let alone on a particular school. He has, however, with characteristic ingenuity, found a way—fairly speedily—of making sure that his constituent's representation is drawn to the attention of the Education Secretary.
Mr. Edward Leigh: With regard to the Family Law Bill, my right hon. Friend will be aware that many hon. Members feel strongly, as a matter of personal conscience—it has nothing to do with party political controversy—that the Bill is misguided, in that it introduces no-fault divorces, and the waiting period is too short. Does he accept our view that, on a matter of such enormous importance, all the contentious issues relating to no fault and the waiting period should be discussed on the Floor of the House? In that way, members of both parties, including Ministers, will be able to vote freely and exercise their consciences on a vital social matter.
Mr. Newton: I hope that my hon. Friend was here a moment ago when I said that it was the Government's intention to propose that what might be called the conscience clauses be debated on the Floor of the House. I cannot add to that, but I hope that what I have said will give my hon. Friend the sort of assurance that he seeks.
Mr. Roy Hughes: When will the order under the negative procedure relating to eyesight tests for heavy goods vehicle drivers be brought before the House? Have the Government had any change of attitude over this controversial measure, which is causing such concern throughout the country—especially to those immediately affected?
Mr. Newton: I cannot say anything about the timing at present.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) about bovine serum used in vaccines, may I help the Leader of the House by repeating the request for an early debate? I understand that the chief medical officer has issued a letter to the medical profession, reassuring its members that only foreign bovine serum has been used since 1989, so it is a matter of some urgency that we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. Newton: I have already promised to draw the earlier question to my right hon. Friend's attention—and if I remember correctly, it was a request not for a debate but for further information.

TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) ACT 1921
Resolved,
That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the incident at Dunblane Primary School on Wednesday 13th March 1996, which resulted in the deaths of 18 people.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Intergovernmental Conference
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
[Relevant documents: Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on European Legislation on 13th February (House of Commons Paper No. 226), the Commission Opinion on the holding of an Inter-Governmental Conference entitled "Reinforcing Political Union and Preparing for Enlargement", European Parliament resolution A4–0068/96 entitled "Report on (i) Parliament's opinion on the convening of the Inter-Governmental Conference (ii) Evaluation of the work of the Reflection group and definition of the political priorities of the European Parliament with a view to the Inter-Governmental Conference" and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 18th March (House of Commons Paper No. 306-i).]
Madam Speaker: More than 50 Back Benchers have expressed a wish to speak in this debate, so I have limited all Back-Bench speeches to 10 minutes.
4.27 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I am delighted that the House is to have this opportunity today to discuss the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, taking into account various papers, including the Government's White Paper entitled "A Partnership of Nations". The next few years will be as important as any in the European Union's 40-year history. The Union confronts a number of serious challenges.
First, we must tackle with vigour the urgent task of improving Europe's global competitiveness. Europe must be as successful as north America and the far east if we are to ensure high employment and growing prosperity. Secondly, we must promote the enlargement of the EU as a means to assist stability and to consolidate freedom and democracy in the countries of central Europe.
Thirdly, enlarging the European Union necessarily entails reforming its agricultural and structural policies if we are not to bankrupt the Community budget. Fourthly, we shall need to work out the arrangements for financing the EU after 1999.
Fifthly, the European Union will face hard choices on a single currency. Britain's position is, of course, protected by the opt-out negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
The IGC, which begins on 29 March in Turin, is only one of a series of parallel negotiations within the European Union over the next few years; nor is it necessarily the most important. It is not likely to be the defining event for the European Union in the 1990s.
Generals and Ministries of Defence are sometimes accused of always preparing to fight the last war. Perhaps some commentators, in according such attention to the IGC, have been preparing for a re-run of Maastricht. If so, that is unwise. Maastricht had its origins in the project to create a single currency. Before that, the 1985 IGC, which negotiated the Single European Act, was inspired by the goal of a single market.
The next IGC—the one about to begin—unlike 1985 or Maastricht, has not been convened to negotiate a big idea. The conference that begins in Turin will essentially be an exercise in improving the effectiveness of the European Union's machinery before we tackle the bigger challenges
514
that I have already mentioned. My intention in saying this is not to belittle the importance of the IGC, but I believe that the conference should be seen in its proper context.
Our White Paper, "A Partnership of Nations", sets out the overall British strategy for the conference. The Government are committed to making a success of Britain's membership of the European Union. We shall be positive in our approach and shall work for agreement with our European partners. We believe in partnership, because we remain convinced of the central importance of the nation state in our vision of Europe's future.
Our approach found an encouraging resonance last week, when the French Prime Minister, Alain Juppé, said:
"The nation state remain more than ever the essential, central place where the democratic contract, the social and political link between citizens and their elected representatives, is fulfilled".
The nation state remains as relevant as ever to today's Europe.
Mr. Peter Shore: The Foreign Secretary is on to an absolutely central point about the integrity of the nation state and a European partnership of nations. Does he not think that the most convincing evidence that the House and the Government could give of their commitment to a Europe of nation states rather than to a federal Europe would be to say now, and clearly, that we have no intention of allowing the transfer of economic powers to European institutions that would be involved in economic and monetary union and a single currency? If he could clarify that and give us that firm assurance, his others words would carry greater conviction.
Mr. Rifkind: I recognise the importance of the issue that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, and it is for precisely that reason that the United Kingdom and Denmark were the two countries that refused to accept even the principle of a single currency during the Maastricht negotiation. That is not the view of the other members of the European Union, but the United Kingdom took that position—a rather lonely position but one that demonstrated our determination to protect the United Kingdom's interests and to ensure that no step would be taken that was contrary to our national interests.
Mr. Llew Smith: In the White Paper, the Government argue that they are against the erosion of national Parliaments. If we should become part of monetary union, will the Minister indicate what economic powers would be left in this Parliament and what economic powers would be with the European central bank?
Mr. Rifkind: These will indeed be issues that will need to be addressed fully, but they will not be relevant to the IGC, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not get tempted along that alleyway on this occasion.
The nation state remains as relevant as ever to today's Europe and to its peoples. In each country, citizens can best express their concerns through their national democratic institutions. The European Union supranational institutions cannot deliver the same level of democratic accountability.
President Mitterrand said, in his moving final speech to the European Parliament in Strasbourg last year: "Nationalism is war." Chancellor Kohl echoed that fear,

515
saying that Europe has no desire to return to the nation state of old, and that nationalism has brought great suffering to our continent. Extreme nationalism and xenophobia are indeed poisons, but they will not be overcome by an internationalism that seeks to deny national consciousness, local differences and historical experience.
The German Chancellor is right to say that we do not want to return to the nationalism of the 1930s; but the nation states of western Europe have learnt the lessons of history. One of the great achievements of the European Union has been the replacement of the habit of conflict which dominated western Europe for centuries and which spawned two world wars in this century, with a habit of co-operation.
Every month, every week, every day, Europe's Ministers and officials are meeting, resolving differences, working together and building for the future. Any reversion to the habits of the past is literally inconceivable. That achievement has been entrenched by a reconciling of the unity of Europe with the diversity of its nations. To have striven for the former by ignoring the latter would have been fatal.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I realise that the Foreign Secretary is trying to establish the delicate balance between those factors. The Maastricht treaty, however, specifically upholds national identities, so there is no built-in problem there.
Paragraph 6 of the White Paper states that the Government are
"committed to the success of the European Union, and to playing a positive role in achieving that success."
Must that not include our paying attention to the requirements and aspirations of the other member states in the negotiations—without weakening our position—and accepting that they want to create a genuine European Union?
Mr. Rifkind: It certainly means that we must listen courteously to the views of others. It means that we must recognise that they are not enemies but partners, and that we must make a genuine and constructive effort to reach agreement.
My hon. Friend will acknowledge, however, that for each nation—not just the United Kingdom—there will be sticking points. There will be positions that are arrived at not simply out of a desire to be obstructive or out of bloody-mindedness, but because they reflect an honest perception of what the national interest of each country requires. When Britain—or, for that matter, any other country—identifies such a position, it is right and proper for it to be as firm as possible in ensuring that that position is respected.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Mr. Rifkind: I hope that the hon. Gentlemen will forgive me if I do not. I want to make some progress.
516
Over the years to come, the European Union may develop in three possible ways. We want it to be a partnership of nation states, co-operating freely in pursuit of their overall collective interests and using the institutions of the Union only when that is clearly necessary.
A second way would lead towards a federal Europe. The pressure for a United States of Europe still exists. Although it is not the declared policy of any of the member states' Governments, it is clearly the aim of the European Parliament and the Commission, judging by the maximalist opinions that they have submitted to the intergovernmental conference.
A possible third way in which the European Union might evolve is a multi-track Europe, as referred to in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's speech in Leiden two years ago. That could lead to a flexible Europe with different degrees of integration for different countries, which would be a different kind of partnership.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: If we, as a nation state, do not wish to be included in what my right hon. and learned Friend describes as a federal Europe, must we not as a House ensure that we no longer go along with the process of legal integration, which is gradually denuding Parliament of competence and transferring it to the institutions of the European Community? Is it not true that the Maastricht treaty has done nothing to halt that process?
Mr. Rifkind: I accept that certain changes may be required. I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the role of the European Court of Justice; I intend to deal with that later.
I was talking about the third possible way in which the European Union might evolve into neither a loose partnership of nations nor a federal Europe, but a Union that is more flexible and has multi-track characteristics. Those intent on a federal Union in Europe maintain that, if the European Union does not integrate more and more closely as it grows larger, it will inevitably dilute and will eventually collapse.
I understand that argument, which is sincerely advanced; but I reject it. It is true that, if the European Union is to fulfil its potential, there must be core disciplines and obligations. If nation states were free to erect barriers against each other, we could quickly slide back from the achievements of the single market. Europe, however, must allow and even encourage variety, especially as it enlarges. How is that paradox to be resolved?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Not easily.
Mr. Rifkind: As is often the case, the hon. Gentleman is correct.
The Prime Minister's speech at Leiden began by arguing for tolerance of diversity and for suspicion of conformity for its own sake. The European Union must develop with the instincts of free peoples. That implies acceptance that some may wish to integrate more closely or more quickly in certain matters. Their national interest may require it, even if that of others does not.
The Prime Minister suggested three conditions that needed to be fulfilled for that purpose. First, such flexibility must not undermine the core of disciplines and

517
obligations on which the single market depends. Secondly, no member state should be excluded from an area of policy in which it is qualified and it wishes to participate—policies must be open to all.
Thirdly, there should be no inner and outer circles—no two-tier Europe. As the Prime Minister put it at Leiden:
"There is not, and there never should be, an exclusive hard core either of countries or of policies"
in which some member states lay claim to a privileged status. For 40 years, the European Union has worked to reduce divisions in Europe. No one wants such divisions to be reintroduced.
Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend note that paragraph 12 of the Government's White Paper says:
"If we were to press ideas which stand no chance of general acceptance, some others would seek to impose an integrationist agenda which would be equally unacceptable from our point of view"?
Does he not accept that that is a form of appeasement, that we will not press ideas if they are inconvenient or may not be generally accepted by other member states? Is that not a defeatist position for us to adopt?
Mr. Rifkind: We are about to enter into a negotiation, not a debate, so the Government and I must take account of the fact that, in that negotiation, we must set certain objectives. We are not excluding objectives in that negotiation simply because we might start as the only country expressing certain views. I have not the slightest doubt that we will start by being the only country advocating certain proposals and changes, some of which are referred to in the White Paper, but we cannot sensibly enter a negotiation if we judge that, not only at the beginning but at the end of it, there is unlikely to be any willingness to support our position.
The IGC will deal with one aspect of the work of the European Union. We will argue strongly for matters that are within the relevant competence of the IGC. If we make proposals that we believe are vital to the United Kingdom, we will argue them with all the vehemence at our disposal. We will not stop arguing them simply because there is not a measure of agreement.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My right hon. and learned Friend's position will be overwhelmingly, although not unanimously, accepted by Conservative Members, but he seems to be saying that there is no sticking point in the negotiation. Are there any sicking points where, if he cannot get his way, he will say to our partners, "We will bring the temple down because this matters to us more than anything else"?
Mr. Rifkind: The IGC will not be a success unless its conclusions are accepted by all member states. I notice that, only yesterday, one of my French colleagues said that the IGC would fail if certain French interests were not properly taken into account. The same applies to the UK and to other member states.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Rifkind: May I make a bit of progress? I will then happily give way to my hon. Friend.
518
A further principle with regard to flexibility that I outlined a fortnight ago in my Paris speech is that policies using Community institutions and the Community budget should be undertaken by less than the full membership only when that is agreed by all. Policies agreed by some against the objections of others should not carry the imprimatur of the European Union, or use EU institutions or resources.
Two years ago, the Prime Minister's Leiden speech was considered heresy by some of our European partners. That is not so today. They increasingly accept that the development of the European Union may need to include a degree of flexibility, or, as it is sometimes called, "variable geometry". We welcome that, provided that the concept of flexibility is not misused, for example, to introduce obstacles into the single market or to enable some countries to pursue closer integration among themselves and still expect all member states to foot the bill. We are, however, alive to the risks. As the European Union enlarges, it will have to incorporate more flexibility, which may require some new mechanism in the treaty.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: If the Government are in favour of variable geometry, why should that variable geometry not extend to allowing France, Germany and perhaps some countries surrounding Germany to enter a hard-core arrangement? If they think that that is to their advantage and we do not find anything wrong with it, why should they not get on with it?
Mr. Rifkind: If countries wish, on an intergovernmental basis outside the European Union, to enter into agreements between themselves, we cannot stop them—they do not need our agreement or our permission. That is what happened with the Schengen agreement. That is intergovernmental, was reached outside the European Union and does not require our consent. If, however, countries wish to integrate under the European Union, use its resources and be subject to the work of the European Court and of the European Commission, that requires the consent of all member states. That is a crucial requirement for us.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Rifkind: I must make some progress. You said, Madam Speaker, that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I will give way later.
Of course, some variable geometry exists. Not all countries participate in the Schengen agreement on frontiers. The UK has opted out of the social chapter. Britain and Denmark have not committed themselves to joining a single currency. As the Union enlarges, such variable geometry will be increasingly visible. The likelihood that a majority of existing members will not be able to participate in any single currency that might be created in 1999 is widely acknowledged.
One must add to those factors the new market economies of central and eastern Europe, nine of which have applied to join the European Union. It is unavoidable that most of those central and eastern European countries will be unable to join a single European currency possibly for a generation. The EU must get used to the idea that, if the single currency goes ahead, most of its member states will not be a part of it for the foreseeable future.
Sir Terence Higgins: If that position exists, is it not clear that there is a two-speed Europe?
Mr. Rifkind: No, because a two-speed Europe implies that we are all going to the same destination, but that some may arrive at it later than others. That may be true with regard to some policies and some countries, but it is equally clear that some member states will not wish to move towards some forms of integration, even in the long term. That is why I referred to a multi-track rather than a multi-speed concept of European Union.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Rifkind: I must make some progress.
The inclusion of the principle of subsidiarity in the European Union treaty was a British success at Maastricht. Since then, the principle has been developed further. The European Commission accepts that action at the level of the nation state should be the rule and Community action the exception. Some progress has been made. Since Maastricht, the number of legislative proposals from the Commission has fallen dramatically, but there is scope to do more. We shall seek to entrench subsidiarity further.
In 1992, the Edinburgh European Council adopted guidelines on how subsidiarity should work. We propose that those should be incorporated in a protocol to the treaty. Such a protocol would require that the Commission shall propose the
"simplest form of action possible".
The Commission would need to explain why Community action was chosen in preference to co-operation between member states. A new measure would have to satisfy the test that it minimises financial or administrative burdens, and leaves the maximum scope for national decision-making.
We shall vigorously defend the pillared structure of the treaty that was introduced at Maastricht. That acknowledges that Community procedures and institutions are inappropriate when it comes to foreign policy, defence policy and questions of home affairs such as policing. Those are issues that need to be handled intergovernmentally, because they go to the heart of national sovereignty.
Once again, France agrees with the United Kingdom. In his speech last week, the French Prime Minister said:
"The IGC should clearly limit the Commission's field of action to Community matters; the second and third pillars should fall to the exclusive competence of the Member States".
Much can be done in the IGC to improve the operation of the second and third pillars. Britain has already made proposals and we shall have more to make, but there can be no question of abandoning the intergovernmental nature of co-operation—for example, by introducing voting procedures more appropriate to the European Community.
I must confess to some dismay at the prospect of months and months of negotiation about decision-making procedures in common foreign and security policy. There are times when the European Union becomes a triumph of process over product.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) asked in his Churchill memorial lecture in Luxembourg last week whether the European Union was
520
going to spend the next year discussing majority voting or the real issues confronting us, such as our policy towards Russia. He said:
"On present form there is a real danger that Ministers and politicians will spend precious time going to and fro over the arguments about machinery."
I hope that we can prove him wrong, for, as he went on to say, it is unreal to imagine that the European Union's contribution to foreign policy would be transformed by different decision-making procedures in CFSP. The more important priorities are for thorough joint analysis, sensible policy proposals and the machinery to implement our ideas quickly and well.
Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. This House is deeply exercised by the judgment by the Advocate General on the 48-hour week. This House was told, without any doubt, that it retained competence over social policy. If the Advocate General's judgment is sustained by the court as a whole, and if, as is likely, we do not get unanimity in the IGC to reverse that judgment, will my right hon. and learned Friend give the House an undertaking that he will not rule out the possible necessity of passing legislation to overcome that judgment?
Mr. Rifkind: I cannot anticipate now what we might or might not be determined to do a year from now if all other methods fail. I am not prepared to comment in that way. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that we intend not only to fight vigorously to get the court to make a judgment different from that of the Advocate General, but to raise the issue at the IGC—and we will view it as an important priority for this country to obtain the necessary changes.
Mr. Dykes: How does my right hon. and learned Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) square with paragraph 36 of the White Paper, in which the Government emphatically say:
"The Government is committed to a strong, independent Court without which it would be impossible to ensure even application of Community law, and to prevent abuse of power by the Community institutions."
Further on in that paragraph, the Government say:
"The ECJ safeguards all Member States by ensuring that partners meet their Community obligations."
Is that not more important than giving my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North the impression that we might be flexible on those very fundamental matters?
Mr. Rifkind: The crucial problem with the 48-hour week was that the Commission, in the first instance, made what we believe to be an abuse of the legislation, and tried, on the spurious grounds of health and safety, to get around the United Kingdom's social chapter opt-out. The European Court's job is to interpret directives, and we believe that the interpretation it should make is one consistent with the clear intentions of Ministers when they originally considered the matter.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that companies in my constituency want to gain access to European markets and want a strong European Court of Justice to make the

521
single market work? Britain's contempt for the law of Europe, of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman should be utterly ashamed, is causing great damage to our reputation as a law-abiding nation state.
Mr. Rifkind: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is talking through his hat. He well knows that we strongly support the role of the Court in ensuring the proper workings of the single market. If the hon. Gentleman discusses these matters with companies in his constituency, he will find that they are angry and frustrated by the attempt to impose a 48-hour week regardless of the circumstances of their companies and their discussions with their employees.
Mr. Budgen rose—
Mr. Rifkind: I must make progress, but I will give way again later.
In the defence area, too, there is a danger that discussion at the IGC may be hijacked by institutional architects more interested in decision-making algebra than real defence issues and the purposes of closer European defence co-operation. Britain, as a country with real defence interests and obligations, is less interested in blueprints and more concerned about how, collectively and consistent with our NATO responsibilities, we and our European partners can actually promote security and stability on this continent, on its periphery and beyond.
Britain is determined to play a leading role in the defence debate at the intergovernmental conference, but we are equally determined to ensure that the debate stays rooted in the real world. NATO is the bedrock of our security. Without the United States, the countries of western Europe would have to double their defence budgets to achieve comparable defence capability. Decisions to send service men and women to risk their lives must remain for national Governments, accountable to national Parliaments.
Defence is not the only area in which institution builders are in danger of losing sight of what people actually want. The truth is that some of the proposals to be put at the conference—the ideas, for example, which emerge from the Commission and the opinions of the European Parliament, which have been tagged to this debate today—are driven not so much by a desire to make practical progress or to respond to public demands as by an ideological mission to maintain the momentum of integration and centralisation in Europe.
A clear example of that relates to majority voting. I often hear the argument that retaining unanimity would bring an enlarged Community of 20 or more to a standstill. The Labour party consistently uses that argument; indeed, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) used it in reply to my statement last week. Superficially, that may sound persuasive, but it is bogus. It does not stand up to analysis.
First, almost all member states say that they recognise that majority voting is inappropriate for the most fundamental issues, however big the Union may become. There was broad agreement in the Reflection Group that
"unanimity should remain the rule for decisions on primary law",
such as treaty change, new accessions and the Community's overall revenue ceilings.
522
Equally, there is strong opposition to majority voting on issues such as taxation or big institutional questions such as the appointment of Commissioners. Reaching decisions by unanimity in such areas may not always be easy, but there is, in our view, no serious alternative. Member states will not allow themselves to be overruled on issues of such importance.
Secondly, the House should recall that majority voting already applies in those areas where regular decisions are needed to enable the Community to conduct its day-to-day business, such as the single market, agriculture and external trade. Some hon. Members have difficulty grasping that point. I lose count of the number of times I have heard the assertion that the Government are blocking serious agricultural reform by setting their face against further extension of QMV. I repeat that agriculture is already subject to QMV.
So what is left? The answer is some regional and environmental decisions; decisions on the locations of certain institutions of the Union; decisions on the shape and size of the research programme; and areas such as industrial policy and culture. Those are important issues. The Labour party will damage British interests by surrendering our national veto. But is anyone seriously saying that retention of unanimity in those few areas would render the Union unmanageable after enlargement? Of course not.
So why is there pressure for an extension of QMV? Partly, it is the desire to be seen to be doing something which can be presented, however erroneously, as a great leap forward. However, the real motive—this is my central point—of many who argue for more majority voting is ideological, not practical. They would like QMV for all decisions, but they know that that is non-negotiable at the present time—so they are seeking half a loaf now, hoping to secure the other half, the flour and the whole bakery, when they can.
That is the objective of the European Parliament, of the Commission and of a significant number of continental politicians. They want to extend QMV, as part of a long-term ambition of building a federal Europe. That is not a dishonourable goal, but it is disingenuous to pretend that, without more QMV, enlargement cannot succeed. The Government have not been against majority voting in the Community where there were good, practical arguments for it. That is why we supported the extension of QMV to the single market. No case has been made, however, for extending QMV further, and the Government will therefore oppose it.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: My right hon. and learned Friend should be aware that some Conservative Members are not nearly as frightened of QMV as the Government appear to be. If the vetoes are retained in their present form and the enlargement process brings in a number of small countries that would also have a veto, does he recognise that one of the fears of many of us on the Conservative Benches is that we would be told what to do by small countries, which are new to Europe?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is putting forward a very democratic principle. If she shares the central philosophical belief of the Government that the European Union should be a partnership of nations, then small countries, as well as large countries, have a right to be

523
heard. It may be my hon. Friend's view that, as long as the large states can have their way, it does not matter what the smaller countries face, but I do not think that such a view would carry great resonance in a large number of EU countries. We believe that the principle of a partnership of nations applies to all nations—large and small.
Where I would, however, have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) and with many others, and where we agree with Germany, France and Italy, is that there are strong arguments for increasing the relative influence of the larger member states in the voting system. For example, the total population of Luxembourg, Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Austria is 31 million—slightly more than half of Britain's. Yet those countries wield 19 votes between them in the Council, which is practically double the 10 votes of either Britain or France.
The current bias against the larger member states will become more pronounced with the accession of more, mainly small, states. The automatic extension of the current system on enlargement could allow a significant percentage of the EU's population, or the major net contributors as a group, to be outvoted. That would bring the Union's democratic credentials into disrepute.
Mr. John Butterfill: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that QMV is excluded in some aspects of the single market? For example, article 223 excludes defence procurement. That is especially important to British defence industries, which are prevented by it from gaining access to some of our partners' defence procurement. Does he not think that we could extend QMV in that area, where it would benefit British industry?
Mr. Rifkind: No. The debate about that article is not about unanimity or QMV, but about whether defence procurement itself should be a matter for Commission competence and should come within the operation of the EU. We have looked at that very seriously from the point of view of British interest, but we did not conclude that it would be acceptable for article 223 to extend to defence procurement. Nor do we believe that it would be in the UK's interest.
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Rifkind: As an example of variable geometry, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Banks: How does the Secretary of State think that greater advantage could be given to nations that are larger, either in terms of population or contributory powers? Could we, for example, follow a process of block voting, in which he could hold up a card, like a great panjandrum national secretary, and cast a block vote on behalf of the country? Does he fancy something like that?
Mr. Rifkind: That policy has always seemed to go down well at Labour party conferences, but the rest of the world has not considered it appropriate. We clearly need to consider a system of weighted voting that reflects the respective populations of the EU countries—I do not
524
necessarily mean in exact proportion. There is weighted voting at the moment, but it is not in any way reflective of the contributions of larger countries to the overall work of the EU. That needs to be corrected.
The desire for further centralisation is also clear in other areas. The need to create more jobs is one of Europe's highest priorities. The Labour party is arguing that we therefore need a treaty chapter on employment. Why? What would it achieve except employment for new armies of bureaucrats and trade unionists? Fine words in treaties do not create jobs; businesses create jobs, and they would be able to create more of them if they were left to get on with it without bright new initiatives either from Brussels or from the Labour party.
There are many areas in which it makes sense for the nations of Europe to combine forces through the European Union, and in which successive British Governments have accepted common European decision-making, because the benefits for British security, prosperity or the quality of life are so significant that they have justified some loss of unfettered national control.
We are not going to be driven into further centralisation for ideological reasons by those who maintain that the days of the nation state are over. We must look very carefully at the balance of the EU's legal order, to ensure that it permits a stable equilibrium and that we are not ratcheted by our obligations beyond what is sensible or publicly acceptable.
That is one reason why the IGC will need to look at the role of the European Court of Justice. The French, too, have concerns. I again refer to the speech made by the French Prime Minister last week, when he said that the European Court of Justice was
"becoming, little by little, a sort of European Supreme Court. This competence, if it were extended, could lead ineluctably to the acceptance of a federal type of European constitution. To avoid such an outcome, the Intergovernmental Conference should examine the issue, otherwise all the debates about the balance of power in the Union could become pointless".
I very much welcome the fact that the French Prime Minister, on behalf of his Government, has agreed with our judgment that the ECJ is a legitimate issue to be raised at the IGC, and that trends in the way in which the European Court is operating could point towards a federal structure in the EU, which France would also find an unattractive and unacceptable policy. We therefore look forward to hearing in greater detail French ideas on that important matter.
Mr. fain Duncan Smith: May I press my right hon. and learned Friend a little further on that point? He previously referred to the concept of subsidiarity, and he has just mentioned what we might do with regard to the European Court. He will be fully aware that one of the crucial doctrines of the European Court is that of the occupied field—when it moves competence into an area, it may never move out. Does he accept that subsidiarity and that doctrine are mutually opposed, and that, if he wants to proceed on the matter, he has to resolve that doctrine by the end of the IGC? Does he intend to make that an absolute?
Mr. Rifkind: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that it is not acceptable to suggest that certain areas of competence, once agreed, are irreversible. We have a democratic European community of nations. If it is the

525
view of the people and Parliaments of the EU member states that some area that has previously been seen to be relevant to the competence of the Commission is unnecessary, and that it could much better be handled at the level of national Parliaments, I would see nothing wrong with such a proposition.
Indeed, I see it as unacceptable to suggest that such matters cannot be considered afresh in the light of circumstance and experience. It would be a denial of the democratic nature of our European family of nations to try to prevent such a discussion from taking place.
Mr. Budgen: The House understands that the Government's first objective will be to try to amend the treaty on the powers of the court, but we all know that that is very difficult. Is the Government's present position one of leaving open the possibility that they might in future refuse to obey one of the European Court's judgments?
Mr. Rifkind: This Government and this country have always been staunch upholders of the rule of law. I trust that my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] It is the law that this Parliament has indicated it believes to be the law to which we are subject. I do not believe that it would be the will of the British people to disobey the law. It is a quite different matter as to whether—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Rifkind: If I may finish—
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Rifkind: May I be allowed to finish what I was saying before I give way?
The proper course of action when one believes that a law is unreasonable or unjust is to change that law, not to ignore its legal force.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I fully accept the important point that the Foreign Secretary makes, but does he not accept that many of us believe that the wording of the Advocate General's judgment, or recommendation, is so wide that the whole social chapter will be applied to this country by majority voting through the Single European Act? If by any chance those who take that view happened to be correct, what would the Government do? What advice would they give?
I fully accept what my right hon. and learned Friend says about the sanctity of law, but if our exclusion is virtually written off and torn up because of the abuse of the European Court, surely we must do something.
Mr. Rifkind: Of course it follows that, if the vital interests of member states were ignored in the European Union, there would come a time when the Union would become unworkable, and would not be able to continue as a effective force for the peoples of Europe. Our view is that the proper course of action on aspects that we believe to be unattractive and undesirable is to seek a change.
526
As we have seen in the past, that can be achieved. The British budget rebate was a good example. Not surprisingly, Britain began without a single ally—but by tough and firm negotiations we achieved our objective in a most creditable way.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Rifkind: May I make a few more remarks on that subject before I give way again?
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Rifkind: I am still dealing with the same point.
Our proposals on the Court of Justice for the IGC will be contained in a detailed memorandum that we shall issue shortly. They focus on two areas, the first of which concerns improvements in the functioning of the Court.
The EU needs a strong independent Court to ensure the even application of Community laws and to prevent abuse of power by Community institutions. Britain's proposals will not be designed to reduce the Court's legitimate authority. Rather, we want to help to ensure that it avoids disproportionate judgments that threaten to bring its reputation into disrepute; and we are concerned that the Court's interpretations have sometimes gone beyond what Governments intended when laws were framed.
Secondly, there can be changes in the law itself. In many cases, it is not the Court that is at fault when things go wrong, but the law itself, which can be an ass. It is absurd, for example, that there should be fishing quotas designed to guarantee a reasonable return for local fishing communities, yet at the same time treaty provisions on non-discrimination that render such quotas unenforceable. It is wrong that the health and safety articles are so loosely drafted that they can be used to make social policy by the back door, evading the unanimity requirement.
Those are issues that we intend to address at the conference. We do not accept that directives, once approved, are irreversible. Treaty provisions are not to be seen as tablets of stone. If amendments are needed, they should be agreed.
Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Rifkind: No. May I continue?
It is important to understand that the IGC will not cover the whole waterfront. I do not expect, for example, that there will be substantive discussion of the common agricultural policy. The treaty provisions on the CAP do not present a legal barrier to the liberal, market-driven policy that we want. We shall pursue the necessary reforms vigorously outside the conference. They cannot be evaded, given the prospect of enlargement and the next round of World Trade Organisation agricultural negotiations, which will continue to require EU reform.
Mr. Michael Lord: The last time that we had such a conference, and discussions such as this, a package was brought back to the House that many of us found totally unacceptable, and into which we had had no input whatever. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House today that, during the prolonged

527
negotiations, he will report back to the House of Commons on a regular basis and tell us how things are going, so that the House can take a view of the whole business?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend has raised an important principle. At the moment, we are in some disagreement with the European Parliament, because the United Kingdom and France are refusing to allow it to become a party to the negotiations. We intend to insist on that, and I am delighted that France is again a strong supporter of the United Kingdom's position.
I entirely accept that national Parliaments and the European Parliament have a right to be kept informed on the progress of the negotiations. I can certainly assure the House that any opportunities given to the European Parliament must also be given to the national Parliaments, so as to ensure proper consideration.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that that reply is totally unacceptable, and that we will expect him to come regularly to the House and report on his negotiations? They are bound to drag on beyond the next general election; the serious negotiation will not start until then, because some may hope that after the election they will have a Labour Government to deal with.
Mr. Rifkind: I have no difficulty with what my hon. Friend says. In fact, that is exactly what I thought I was saying, and I am happy to reassure him and the House as a whole that we have every intention of reporting to the House on the progress of the negotiations on a regular basis. That is what I thought I was saying, but if it needs further clarification, I am happy to provide some.
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Rifkind: The coming intergovernmental—
Mr. Marlow: My right hon. and learned Friend said that he would give way to me.
Mr. Rifkind: I did; it is true.
Mr. Marlow rose—
Hon. Members: That is the third time.
Mr. Marlow: No, the second.
My right hon. and learned Friend sets great store by the rule of law; we all do. But in this House we also set great store by democracy. If through democracy we cannot get what the British people want, how then can we achieve things?
Mr. Rifkind: I think that Parliament will always come to its own good judgment in time if it believes that the vital interests of the United Kingdom are not being properly respected. The final decision will be taken by this Parliament, as has happened in the past and as I am sure will continue to happen in the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Rifkind: The coming intergovernmental conference needs to be kept in proportion. It will address
528
some important issues. My main concern is that it should be used to strengthen the EU as a partnership of nations. As the Prime Minister put it at Leiden, the intergovernmental conference should be the anvil on which we forge a stronger Union.
Such a Union must develop a surer sense of the areas in which it can help to maximise Europe's potential, where the member states have shared purposes and common interests. It should also identify the areas in which it should choose to stand back, recognising the limits of its vocation. The intergovernmental conference will succeed if it helps to establish such a framework. The United Kingdom is determined to contribute to that success.
5.16 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: It would be churlish to begin without congratulating the Foreign Secretary on the straight bat with which he has fielded so many helpful interventions from the Government Back Benches. However, the confidence that he has expressed in the Government's position would have been more convincing if the Government had acceded to the request that I believe was made by both Opposition parties, to table a motion supporting their White Paper, to which we could have tabled an amendment.
As I sat through the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech over the past 40 minutes, I rather suspected that the reason why the Government did not table a motion was patently before us: it would have taxed even the skills of the Foreign Secretary to produce a motion that all Conservative Members could have voted for tonight.
Mr. Marlow: What about your side?
Mr. Cook: We offered to table an amendment if the Government would table a motion. Had we been able to table an amendment, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we would have divided the House on it.
One does not need to be a conspiracy theorist to suspect that the debate has been arranged for today, after such a major statement on Northern Ireland, precisely so that fewer Members will be able to take part, and fewer people outside will know what has been said to the Foreign Secretary in the House.
However, in the comparative privacy that the Government have given us for the debate, we can talk frankly to each other. Let me begin not with the Foreign Secretary's White Paper but with ours, which the Labour party presented to its conference six months ago and which, I am pleased to say, was passed unanimously. [Laughter.] I do not see why Conservative Members find that the least bit hilarious. I presented the White Paper to my conference and my conference passed it unanimously. I shall be extremely interested to see whether the Foreign Secretary dares to submit his White Paper to his conference—and, if he does, whether it gets a unanimous vote there.
Our starting point—
Mr. John Redwood rose—
Mr. Cook: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, of course.
Mr. Redwood: If the hon. Gentleman is so confident of the unity of the Labour party, why has he not tabled a motion in Labour party time so that we can see this fabled unity for ourselves?
Mr. Cook: We tabled a motion in our time last year and I would not rule out tabling another motion in our time this year. We look forward to the right hon. Gentleman giving his considered support should we choose to take his advice and table such a motion.
The starting point for our White Paper is that we are in the European Union and we are in to stay. We have no intention of seeing it develop into a supranational state. I would not go so far the Foreign Secretary when he addressed the House as a Back Bencher and said:
"directly elected membership of a European Assembly brings us one step nearer a United States of Europe. That may be a good thing, as I believe".—[Official Report, 7 July 1977; Vol. 934, c. 1503.]
I do not believe that with him.
We rule out, and always have ruled out, a United States of Europe. We believe that the peoples of Europe would rule that out. We want a Europe of nation states coming together of their own free will. We do not want to centralise more powers in Brussels. Indeed, it is the thrust of our policy to devolve power to the regions and nations of Britain, not to centralise powers up from Whitehall.
However, we must co-operate with our partners in Europe. Europe is our largest market. It is the largest reason for inward investment in Britain. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition visited Japan and addressed the Japanese equivalent of the CBI, he did not receive a single question about the minimum wage or the social chapter—those King Charles's heads that Conservative Members like to kick around the Chamber. The questions that he received were all about the security of Britain's commitment to Europe, because it is on that that future Japanese investment in this country depends.
Such investment is a two-way flow, because, despite all the concerns of Conservative Members about how the social chapter on the continent diminishes competitiveness, since the social chapter was signed by the nations of the continent, investment by British companies in those countries with the social chapter has been at a record all-time high.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Is it possible that the Leader of the Opposition received so many questions on the security of our membership of the European Community because the position of the Labour party on that issue changed at least five times?
Mr. Cook: The last change in the Labour party's policy was in 1983–84, when I was our last European affairs spokesman and indeed shadowed the Foreign Secretary. Since 1983–84, our position has been consistently in support of membership of the European Union, recognising, unlike Conservative Members, that if we are to remain a member of the European Union, the worst possible position is the one taken by the hon. Gentleman and his friends—to be in it and know that we cannot get out, but constantly to sound as if we wished that we were not in it.
Mr. Jenkin: Given that we are but one of 15 members of the European Union, why does the most reluctant nation in Europe attract such a huge proportion of inward investment?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Member puts his finger on precisely what he would put at risk. He knows perfectly well, and I know from visiting many companies that have invested from abroad, that they are in Britain precisely because we are one of 15 nations. Make us one nation in isolation and we will not have that investment. If he is hinting at the social chapter, I can tell him, having met many times the Japanese investors in my constituency, that not one of them would have the slightest difficulty in meeting any of the terms of the social chapter.
There is no prospect of the British economy succeeding if the economy on the continent is failing. Either we go down together or we succeed together. There is no magical escape from the ties that bind us to Europe by pretending, as some Conservative Members have sometimes done, that we do not really have that much in common with Europe and that, at heart, we are an Asian nation that has somehow come adrift from our true homeland on the Pacific rim.
It is vital that we get access to the new markets in the far east, but I note that when the Prime Minister went to Bangkok to deal with the Asian nations, he went as part of a European Union team—a team that gave him additional bargaining clout because it spoke for the largest market in the world. In a world that is increasingly coalescing into trading blocs, it is more, not less, important to secure our base in the largest trading bloc. We are much less likely to come to terms with the global economy if we start out by being as difficult as possible to our immediate neighbours.
That is the background against which we come to measure the Foreign Secretary's White Paper, which sets out the Government's benchmark for the IGC. It is difficult to measure that benchmark without a rubber ruler, because its enthusiasm for the European Union expands and contracts with each changing paragraph. If I were still a student of English literature, I would be tempted to say that the text was the work of two hands.
For example, I presumed that it was the Foreign Secretary, the repressed supporter of the European Union, who drafted paragraph 36 on the European Court of Justice which, quite properly, tells that we need
"a strong independent Court without which it would be impossible to ensure even application of Community law".
The Foreign Secretary is absolutely right. Since the annual reports on the European Court of Justice commenced in 1984, Britain has lost fewer cases in the European Court of Justice than any other major member. France and Germany have lost more cases than Britain. Belgium, never mind its alleged enthusiasm for Europe, has lost three times as many cases as Britain. Italy has lost six times as many cases.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook: I just want to put a question to the Foreign Secretary. He said that the Government were getting increasing support among the countries of the European continent for proposals to limit the powers of the

531
European Court of Justice. If Italy says that it would like to support proposals to limit the powers of the European Court of Justice, would the Government be relieved to have that support or worried about why they were getting it?
Mrs. Dunwoody: I am interested in my hon. Friend's argument. Can he tell us how many times, when Italy has lost, it has implemented the decision of the European Court of Justice?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend argues that the European Court of Justice should have the powers to ensure that its rulings are carried out. That has to be the case for any court. If one respects the rule of law, there must be powers to impose it. I cannot understand the complaint of my hon. Friend and the Conservative Euro-sceptics that other countries do not play by the rules when they want to weaken the very court that enforces the rules.
Mr. Duncan Smith: May I press the hon. Gentleman on that point? He holds up the European Court of Justice as a shining paragon of judicial intervention. Does he support its ability to translate the treaties, which is called teleological interpretation, or would he seek to limit it to specific interpretation of the treaties as they stand and not reading them as it would wish?
Mr. Cook: There is no difficulty in replying to the hon. Gentleman, because the court's abilities come from the British system of law. The court should interpret the treaty and the law and not what it thinks about it. On that point, I agree with him.
We turn to paragraph 37—
Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: If I may, I shall proceed with my point, but I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to make his.
Paragraph 37 is plainly by a quite different hand. Suddenly, the respect for the need for a strong, independent Court of Justice disappears. Until I heard the Foreign Secretary's speech, I had assumed that it had been hacked into the text after he had gone off to bed by the Minister of State, who emerges as a closet Euro-sceptic when the moon comes out. Paragraph 37 totally ignores paragraph 36 and proposes six different ways of limiting and weakening the powers of this independent court that is needed to enforce the even application of the rules.
As a result, the Foreign Secretary has ended up with negotiating objectives for the European Court of Justice flatly in contradiction with his own analysis. The truth is that, like so much else in the White Paper, the negotiating objectives are drawn up not on any calculation of the interests of the 56 million people of Britain but on a very fine calculation of what is necessary to fit the prejudice of a few dozen Tory Members—which is a perfect point on which to give way to one of them.
Mr. Budgen: To take up the hon. Gentleman's point about the rule of law, does he agree that one of the ideas behind the rule of law is that one has a legitimate way of
532
changing the law if one disagrees with it? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in European law, the citizens of this country have no legitimate hope that anything they say to change the treaty will succeed? Any suggestions for amendment of any substance will be met by a veto from one of the nation states.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman seems to make a strong case against the Foreign Secretary's defence of the unanimity rule. Surely the hon. Gentleman is now in favour of qualified majority voting.
The Foreign Secretary is a better judge of the prejudices of his colleagues than myself. I cannot help the right hon. and learned Gentleman in that calculation, but the omens are not good that he has got those prejudices right.
Mr. Marlow: Why not answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen)?
Mr. Cook: I can offer a judgement on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's White Paper against what we regard as Britain's interests in the IGC.
Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has not got an answer.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) answered his own question by conceding that the veto was damaging to Britain's interests. I thought that that was a most interesting intervention, one to which we shall return on a number of occasions.
How will we measure the White Paper against the public interest? We can judge it against three criteria, and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has anticipated one of them. First, are the objectives in the White Paper capable of negotiation? I can be brief about that, because I suspect that the Foreign Secretary is about to hear a succession of speeches telling him that those objectives are not capable of negotiation. That claim is, of course, correct. The general thrust of the White Paper will leave the Foreign Secretary out on a limb, on the sidelines of negotiation. That is not a good place from which to exert bargaining leverage.
I notice that the Government are the only major Government attending the IGC opposed to the reform of the European Parliament, presumably because they are, after all, the Government who have the greatest difficulty in getting their party elected to the European Parliament. I must tell the Foreign Secretary that I can see no British interest served by the Government's position on the European Parliament. Of course, Ministers who go to the Council of Ministers should be accountable to the House. In fact, the House should pay more attention to how it holds Ministers accountable for what they do in the Council of Ministers.
I see no national interest for Britain or any other member state blocking measures that would make bureaucrats in Brussels, who are effectively accountable to no one, more accountable to the European Parliament. I very much doubt whether the Foreign Secretary will be able to think of such an argument, which is one of the reasons he may have difficulty in negotiating on such an objective.

533
The Foreign Secretary will have noticed that some of his honourable colleagues and some members of the right-wing press are now pressing him to give an undertaking that he will veto the whole package if he does not deliver on his White Paper. Two days ago, a Mr. Boris Johnson, who I understand has aspirations to join the Conservative Benches—no doubt in order that he might better sustain the Foreign Secretary in his conduct of European relations—said that he was alarmed that the Foreign Secretary has not promised in advance to veto the outcome of the IGC.
The Foreign Secretary has my full sympathy for the delphic way in which he is refusing to give that commitment, because we both know that he has not a hope of delivering the full package of the White Paper. It is written for consumption in Southend and Stafford, not in Brussels and Strasbourg. It is very wise of him therefore not to tell in advance what he is going to do when the White Paper fails our first criteria of being capable of negotiation.
Our second criteria is whether—
Mrs. Currie: It is not criteria, but criterion.
Mr. Cook: I said criteria rather than criterion.
Mrs. Currie: No, it should be criterion.
Mr. Cook: In the spirit of unity, I will compromise: the second of our criteria is whether the White Paper equips the European Union to face the challenges of the 21st century. According to that measure, the White Paper is a glorious missed opportunity. It gives us a comprehensive tour of the footnotes of diplomacy, and even finds a place for a paragraph on the future development of comitology.
Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the Opposition spokesman on the economy, who says that the Labour party is committed to managed exchange rates and monetary union? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, by saying that, his hon. Friend guarantees that the Labour party, if ever if were to achieve government, would be incapable of delivering its promises on all those matters relating to public expenditure that fall within the convergence criteria, including health, education and the attainment of jobs?
Mr. Cook: Of course I agree with my economic colleague. We share a place in the shadow Cabinet, and it is a condition of being there that we agree. Of course we agree fully and absolutely on every point relating to Europe. [Interruption.] If I may say so to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), the parent text of our policy on monetary union was debated at our party conference three years ago. It has remained consistent since then and has stood the test of time much better than anything put forward by the Government. Both my Treasury colleagues and I are united in our commitment that a single currency must first require convergence of Britain's real economic performance with that of the continent.
Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will strike a bargain kindly not to interrupt me from a sedentary position once I have allowed him to intervene.
Mr. Marlow: I will keep that side of the bargain. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the single currency.
534
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he thinks that the probability that the single currency will go ahead is 60:40. What is the hon. Gentleman's prediction? Is it more likely to happen if the Labour party forms the next Government or the Conservative party forms the next Government? Perhaps he can give a straight answer to a straight question.
Mr. Cook: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point is that—let me take the second point first. [Interruption.] It seems sensible to work backwards. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I am absolutely confident that the advent of a Labour Government will make it vastly more likely that Britain will achieve convergence according to real economic performance with the continent. In that happy event, we will increase the prospects for Britain joining a single currency. I must say to the hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Shore rose—
Hon. Members: Oh!
Mr. Cook: I will give way in a moment to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). Although I hope that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) will remain sedentary and silent during the rest of my speech, I think that the House must address the serious issues about the single currency which have been dodged by the White Paper.
Mr. Shore: I was rather alarmed by what my hon. Friend said a moment ago. I certainly expect and hope that a Labour Government will have success in the real economy, but is he implying that if, for whatever period, we did converge with other and, on the whole, more successful economies than our own, we would still find ourselves bound by the existing convergence criteria? That would involve restrictions on the borrowing requirement of a Labour Government and the transfer of the Bank of England into a subsidiary or a branch of the European central bank, and would require us to rejoin the exchange rate mechanism. Surely my hon. Friend is not even contemplating such nonsense.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Cook: I must tell my right hon. Friend that we have repeatedly criticised the very convergence criteria that he listed. One of the reasons we have pressed the Government to support the Swedish proposal to put a commitment to employment into the Maastricht treaty is all the other convergence criteria that have already been accepted. The Foreign Secretary said in his speech—
Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: No. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
The Foreign Secretary said that putting a commitment to employment into a treaty did not guarantee that one would achieve the increase in employment. I have a lot of sympathy with the Foreign Secretary's obvious logic on that point, but the Government agreed at Maastricht to

535
put into the treaty targets on inflation, interest rates and Government deficits. The case for the Swedish commitment to employment as a target for the European Union is precisely that, if it is missing from that treaty, one has an unbalanced set of objectives for economic management within the European Union.
Mr. Barry Legg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: It is good of the hon. Gentleman to seek to help me, but I intend to return to my speech.
As I said earlier, the White Paper fails to tackle the real challenges facing the European Union in the 21st century. The Foreign Secretary said in his speech that enlargement was a central issue facing the European Union. In his White Paper, however, enlargement is relegated to a single paragraph in the introduction. I believe that enlargement is a much more urgent and central mission facing the European Union than suggested by the attention that it receives in the White Paper.
It is important that the European Union opens its doors to the new democracies of central and eastern Europe to provide stability in that region and to share with those countries our experience that bringing down barriers to trade provides a much better guarantee of security than putting up borders between us. I agree with the Government's objectives in their introduction, but I would have been more impressed with their commitment to enlargement if any consideration of it had surfaced anywhere else in the substance of the document that follows.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Obviously, we are interested in the Labour party's views on enlargement. However, the hon. Gentleman did not quite answer the last question from his right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). Is the hon. Gentleman committing his party to renegotiating the treaty? If he is, this would be an appropriate time to spell it out so that hon. Members are in no doubt.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman need be in no doubt. The Labour party has repeatedly stressed its position for three years: we will not enter a single currency unless and until we have achieved convergence of real economic performance. There can be no doubt in the mind of the hon. Member—or in the mind of any other listener—as to the Labour party's position, because it has been repeatedly stated from the Dispatch Box by every member of the shadow Cabinet who has spoken on the subject.
I return to the issue of enlargement.
Mr. Tony Benn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook: Of course I shall give way to my right hon. Friend. However, I was about to say that the intervention of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) showed the true lack of commitment to enlargement on the Conservative Benches. No Government Members wished to intervene in relation to enlargement; they intervened in relation to a single currency.
Mr. Benn: Given what my hon. Friend said about better convergence criteria—including employment and a more successful economy under a Labour Government—when it is achieved, what role will the British people have in the decision? My colleagues on the Front Bench are in favour of a referendum on Scottish devolution, in favour of a referendum north and south in Ireland and in favour of a referendum on proportional representation. This decision is fundamental. Will my hon. Friend give us a clear assurance that such a decision could be taken only after the consent of the British people at a referendum?
Mr. Cook: Yes, I give my right hon. Friend that commitment—it has been repeatedly stated by our leader. We believe that Britain could enter a single currency only with the consent of the British people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] That is what my right hon. Friend asked, with the greatest of respect. If there is a general election in which there is a fair choice—choice would have to be available to the British public—that might be one way of establishing the consent of the British public for a single currency.
In the event that there is no such fair choice at a general election, a referendum would be one way to establish the consent of the British people. My right hon. Friend will know that Labour has an impressive track record on this point: after all, it was a Labour Government who gave the people of Britain a referendum on whether they should join the Common Market after a Conservative Government took them in, thus denying them that commitment.
Mr. Dykes rose—
Mr. Cook: I am addressing the issue of enlargement, and I am anxious that hon. Members should not lose sight of what is an important challenge to Europe.
Mr. Dykes: In respect of enlargement and of the other matter that we have just been discussing, will the hon. Gentleman try to answer the questions more accurately, as they are so important? Do not his evasive answers to interventions from his Labour colleagues show that the divisions in the Labour party on Europe are much greater than the divisions in the Conservative party?
Mr. Cook: There is no evasion in my replies. We are quite clear that Britain can join a single currency only with the consent of the British people; that that consent may be judged by a general election if it is fought on that issue and it is a fair choice for the British people —the hon. Gentleman would not dissent from that—and, if not, it could be established by a referendum. That is not an evasion: it is a perfectly clear statement of the position—and it is a much clearer statement of the position than he will get from his Front Bench on the issue.
Sir Michael Spicer rose—
Mr. Charles Kennedy rose—
Mr. Cook: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye.
Mr. Kennedy: I think the hon. Gentleman is characteristically trying to make a fair point, but will he clarify it a little more? If the next general election—at a time and in circumstances that none of us can predict—does not meet this pristine criteria of clarity of choice, will Labour, if it is in a position to so do, definitely offer a referendum? Would not that clarify it once and for all?
Mr. Cook: If the next general election does not provide a fair choice to the public, and if a subsequent Government join the single currency, a referendum would be a way of establishing that consent. Plainly, the decision on a referendum would follow a decision on whether we were joining the single currency.
I remind hon. Members that I am seeking to address an issue of immense importance to the countries of central and eastern Europe, the people of whom, were they listening to this debate, would be depressed by the little interest that is being shown in their application to join the European Union. I remind the Foreign Secretary that his enthusiasm for enlargement appeared to play no part in the position he has adopted on qualified majority voting—he has adopted a position of no surrender.
The Foreign Secretary was unfair to himself in saying that the Labour party had invented the idea that enlargement provides the case for expansion of qualified majority voting. It was not the Labour party, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In 1985—the last time the European Union was enlarged—he said to the House:
"With 10 member states it is not surprising that the Community takes a considerable time … to reach agreement … Clearly a Community of 12 member states will find it even more difficult to reach agreement on a wide range of issues.
The Government believe that it is desirable to encourage more majority voting within the Community."—[Official Report, 20 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 470.]
Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman were honest enough to read the rest of my speech, he would see that I was not suggesting that we should extend the area where qualified majority voting applies—I am positively against that. I said, as is quite clear from the speech, that where there is already QMV we will need to use it more often the larger the Community becomes.
Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman then sat in a Government who, at that very time, expanded qualified majority voting.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman might now have the decency to withdraw the original charge that he made, now that he recognises that—either deliberately or inadvertently—he was misleading the House.
Mr. Cook: I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I have nothing to withdraw, except his words. I quoted his words to the House of Commons in 1985, at the time Spain and Portugal joined the European Union. It may be embarrassing for him to be reminded of those comments now, but they were his words. The Government expanded qualified majority voting at that time.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also said during the course of his White Paper that we will have to amend the structural funds as part of the process of enlargement. He will know that voting on structural funds is a matter of unanimity. I put it to him that there is no prospect of getting
538
serious reform of the structural funds if Spain and other countries retain a veto on the structural changes that will be necessary. It is also unlikely that the other countries of the European Union will admit countries such as Malta—which has a population that is one tenth of 1 per cent. of the European Union—on the basis on which Malta gets the full present range of the veto.
The reality is that, as the negotiations proceed, the Foreign Secretary will have to choose—either he will have to shift his position on qualified majority voting or he will have to drop his support for enlargement. There is no prospect of enlargement happening without expansion of qualified majority voting.
I now turn to the third of the criteria by which we judge the White Paper. Will it restore public legitimacy for the European Union by reconnecting the solutions offered by the Union to the problems faced by the peoples of Europe? It would be wrong to accuse the White Paper of failing in its answer to the question—it does not attempt to answer it. The major problems facing the peoples of Europe at this time are high unemployment and low job security. The White Paper recognises those problems. It says that the need to create more jobs is one of the highest priorities of Europe. However, the sole practical measure it offers to create more jobs is to keep Britain out of the social chapter.
Mr. Llew Smith: What likely job losses and cuts in public expenditure would have to come about for us to meet the convergence criteria?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend anticipates a point to which I shall come. If he is patient, I shall give way to him again when I reach that point, and I assure him that he will not be disappointed.
As I am sure that my hon. Friend would not like me to let the Government off the hook by allowing them to say that they will keep Britain out of the social chapter, may I tell the Government that, for purely party reasons, I have a sneaking welcome for the fact that the Government do not intend to sign up to the social chapter?
The Conservative party is lining up to fight the next general election, telling workers in Britain that they will have less right to know the future strategy of their company, and parents in Britain that they will have less right to unpaid leave to be with their newborn children, than workers on the Continent. That suits us fine. We will offer to help with the leaflets to communicate the fact at every workplace. In case the Conservatives fail to produce the leaflets, we will do it ourselves.
I will go further: I will keep a place in my diary so that the Foreign Secretary and I can tour the workplaces of GKN, Coats Viyella, United Biscuits and Marks and Spencer—all companies that have ignored the Government's opt-out and set up works councils under the social chapter—so that he may explain to those work forces why the Government wanted to deny them a legal right to measures which they have found helpful, which allow them to participate in the future of their company.
Mr. MacShane: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook: I think my hon. Friend has already intervened, so, if I may, I shall continue.
At this late stage in the Parliament, I say to the Foreign Secretary, I would request the Conservative party to keep opposing the social chapter and keep opposing better rights

539
for working people, until working people have the chance to let the Conservatives know what they think of that position through the ballot box—but do spare us the humbug that deregulation is the only thing that creates jobs.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Cook/: I give way to the hon. Member for Dover.
Mr. David Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in Italy, non-wage labour costs are about £40 for every £100, that in Germany they are about £32 for every £100, but in Britain they are considerably less than that? Does he accept that every country in Europe that has higher non-wage labour costs than Britain has, as a result, higher unemployment?
Mr. Henry Bellingham: That is right. How does one answer that?
Mr. Cook: I will answer that by referring to the Government's record. Since the Conservative party came to power, employment creation in Britain has been 1 per cent.; in Italy, 6 per cent.; in Germany, 7 per cent.; and in the Netherlands, 36 per cent. After a decade of deregulation from the Conservatives, we have a bigger trade deficit with the rest of Europe than any country except Greece, we are bottom of the investment table and we are third from the bottom in the skills table. How can Conservative Members possibly claim that that validates their case that deregulation makes us more competitive?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Cook: I shall proceed, if I may.
Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: No.
If the authors of the White Paper had been able to lift their eyes above the Government's obsession with deregulation, they could have offered a positive response to initiatives in Europe to stimulate employment. They could have told us what the Government would do about dropping their opposition to the sale of Union bonds to finance major transport projects throughout Europe. They could have told us that they will not oppose President Santer's proposal to transfer surplus funds from the agricultural budget to spending on industry and on support for small and medium-sized enterprises—a proposal that will definitely be on the table in Turin. Or they could have told us how they reconcile the convergence criteria with the urgent need to create more employment in Europe.
I pick up the point made in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith). The gaping hole in the White Paper is the absence of any discussion of the single currency. Paragraph 17 does say that the single currency is a "notable omission" from the IGC. It is certainly a notable omission from the White Paper. I can conceive of no other Government in Europe who would present to their Parliament a White Paper on Europe without a discussion on where they stood on the single currency.
540
The Foreign Secretary may be unaware of it, but a debate is raging on the continent about the link between the convergence criteria and employment levels. An election is being fought in Baden-Wurttemberg on that issue. The result may well prompt new thinking, even in the German Government, on the convergence criteria.
I find it negligent of the Government, at this crucial moment in the debate, to miss the opportunity of saying what they believe to be the way out of the problems created by the convergence criteria. Of course, I realise the problem for them in doing so. Whatever reservations they may have about the single currency, they signed up in full to the convergence criteria at Maastricht.
In the light of all that has happened since to the economies of Europe, was it right to adopt convergence criteria that have obliged many of the economies of Europe to deflate at the same time as one another? Is not the lesson of the past three years that any progress to a common currency in Europe can be stable and secure only if it is based on convergence to common economic performance of output, jobs, investment and unit costs—precisely the tests of convergence for which we have argued for three years? Judged by that standard, the White Paper's massive failure is its failure to propose a single European measure to stimulate investment, boost skills, develop technology or create jobs.
I know that the Foreign Secretary could not do anything so positive, because to do so he would need to appear enthusiastic about Europe. The Foreign Secretary's dilemma, which will not have been lost on him, is that he is seeking to produce a negotiating strategy for an international conference that would be acceptable to a nationalist party.
While the rest of the world builds regional alliances and is coming to terms with a global economy in which we are more interdependent than we are independent, the Conservative party is living on a planet of its own, demanding repatriation of even those powers that we have shared with our own regional alliance.
Mrs. Currie: Not all of us.
Mr. Cook: Not all of them. Some Conservative Members are still on the same planet as the rest of us—I concede that. Nevertheless, the hon. Lady must face the fact that her party is gearing up to fight the next election on the slogan "Bring back King Canute!" and is adopting, in constituencies throughout Britain, candidates about whom all we can learn is that they are little King Canutes, whose views are modelled on the inspiration not of the hon. Lady but of the hon. Member for Stafford.
Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: As I mentioned the hon. Gentleman, I will give way.
Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman refers to regional alliances and makes a comparison with the European Community. He knows that he is talking rubbish, because regional alliances being constructed elsewhere in the world have nothing to do with the legal framework that has been set up in the European Community.
Mr. Cook: The advantage of that legal framework is that it gives Europe a single market which is the largest market

541
in the world. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand the strength that that offers Britain in the new global economy, he does not understand where the prosperity of his constituents will come from in the 21st century.
That is why a party with views increasingly modelled by the influence of the hon. Member for Stafford cannot successfully represent Britain's interests abroad—because it will not command respect abroad. Shortly before the White Paper, the chairman of the Europe committee of the Confederation of British Industry warned:
"There is no credibility attached to the current British position in Europe."
Since he said it, the grudging, querulous tone of the White Paper and the grudging, querulous welcome to it from Conservative Back Benchers have confirmed that the Government cannot command credibility in Europe. The failure of the White Paper and the hon. Gentleman's Government to rise to any of the major strategic issues facing Europe is one of the many reasons why they cannot, and will not, regain credibility in Britain.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I remind the House that there will now be a limit of 10 minutes on speeches.
5.58 pm
Sir Edward Heath: When Parliament debated this country's entry into the Community, it debated for 10 full days, and more than 360 of its Members took part in those debates. We are now about to begin what may be the most important conference since Messina—certainly the most important since Paris in 1972—which we are told may take a year and a half, two years or longer, and what do we have in a debate? Well, Back Benchers, if lucky, have three hours, at 10 minutes each.
Is that any way to handle something that everyone agrees is the most important point? How can the Leader of the House and the Foreign Secretary justify their actions? If their objective is to try to hide divisions in the party, it is—and will continue to be—a failure. Those who are prepared to support the Government must speak out and make their positions clear. We should not hold our peace in order to avoid the impression that there are differences inside the party.
I am interested in the whole White Paper, but an early sentence caught my eye. It says:
"it is crucial that national parliaments remain the central focus of democratic legitimacy".
Is "democratic legitimacy" what we have this evening: three hours in which to discuss a White Paper containing 10 vital subjects? It is not, and it is a disgrace to the House of Commons.
I must deal with a number of those important issues very quickly. The White Paper begins in a very positive way and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary also began his speech in a positive manner. However, the White Paper is riddled with schizophrenia—just as my right hon. and learned Friend has "schizophrenia" written all over him. He says something good in one paragraph and then cancels it out in the next paragraph.
542
There are those who say that it is a mistake to produce a White Paper of that kind, and I rather agree with them. It contradicts the Foreign Secretary's argument that he must have flexibility in negotiation. Each time he returns from a meeting and makes a statement to the House—if he is so foolish as to do that—people will say, "But that does not agree with what you said in paragraph X, Y, Z and in sentence so-and-so." I have lived through all of that: I lived through two years of it in 1961 and 1963 and through another 18 months of it in 1970–71.
If my right hon. and learned Friend tries to tie himself down to the specifics as to what he will or will not do, he may find that when negotiating he must have the flexibility to agree with others in the Union. The other member states are described in the White Paper as"our colleagues from the continent". It seems to have escaped the Foreign Office's notice that Britain is a part of Europe geographically: we are part of the European continent. However, the other countries of Europe are treated as being on the other side—which does not encourage them to be helpful to us.
We then turn to the question of qualified majority voting. I must give my right hon. and learned Friend another warning. The Government tried to change that system once: the Prime Minister took it in hand himself, and he was humiliated, because there was no support for his actions. I beg the Foreign Secretary not to advance down that path again unless he is sure of securing support to carry him through. If he does not have that support, he will face the most appalling humiliation.
We have heard a great deal about the remarks by the French Prime Minister. I am sure that he is an admirable fellow. However, President Chirac will stand with Germany through everything: France and Germany will stand together the whole time. If it meant President Chirac's sacrificing his Prime Minister, he would not mind. Therefore, I ask the Foreign Secretary to examine with the utmost care the many stories about those who want to support us.
We then turn to the problem of the smaller countries. The Community was successful in its early years because it gave a proper vote to the smaller countries—to Luxembourg in particular, but also to Belgium and Holland. The figures are cited in the White Paper. Other countries have followed the same route and they will not give up easily—they make that absolutely clear when one talks to their representatives. They made it plain at the earlier meetings when the proposal was first advanced that they feared that their position in the Union, their economic safety and their political future rests in their having a proper say. Therefore, my right hon. and learned Friend will change that arrangement only with the utmost difficulty.
That brings me to the other point of discussion: enlargement. The British have always placed an emphasis upon enlargement. It comes from that deep, hidden well of
"Wider still and wider shall thy bounds be set".
We have carried that attitude into the European Union. However, the plain fact is that the other members interpret it as being the British way of blocking any further development within the Union. That is why they oppose us so often.
The White Paper makes the point that people of Europe—using the general term—are dissatisfied with what the Community has done and that they want to see it do less. That is quite wrong: they are dissatisfied about

543
what has not been done to keep them in jobs and to deliver better living conditions and all of the things that they had to begin with and are expecting to have again.
When it comes to extension in Europe, I believe that we are quite wrong—and we are misleading the people in the countries concerned—to talk about membership. Association rights have always existed under section 4 of the treaty of Rome. Countries can be associated with the European Union and, through that association, can gain great advantages. Is the Foreign Secretary suggesting that countries in eastern Europe that were part of the Soviet system, that have a standard of living of only 20 per cent. of our own and that do not yet carry out their political activities democratically should be brought into the Union quickly? That is just not possible.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What about central Europe? The Visegrad countries should come in soon.
Sir Edward Heath: The countries of central Europe have not reached the same level as the present members of the Community. That is crucial in relationships between member states. We should not run the risk of allowing countries like that to join the European Union—not because they are evil, but because their current stage of development does not allow it. We can help them to develop as associate members of the Union. That is the line that we should take in order to assist the countries of central Europe and what is left of the Soviet Union.
I beg my right hon. and learned Friend to recognise those facts of life and to deal with them realistically. We shall not get anywhere by trying to overlook them or by listening to gossip in the Lobbies and so on. The problems are very real and very great.
We should have a separate debate about the common currency—it should not be discussed as part of the intergovernmental conference. There is an urgent need for such a debate. The people of this country are disillusioned because they are given no information about the issue. There has been no debate in this place about the single currency. The public do not understand the issue.
Opposition Members have called for a referendum on the single currency, but I cannot think of anything more remote. Perhaps the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) should remind his party that those Labour Members who demanded the last referendum never accepted the result—they still do not accept it. If there is a referendum on a common currency, people will vote according to their views about everything but a common currency because so few of them will understand the implications. They will base their votes on social and economic ills rather than on a common currency. I make those simple suggestions to my right hon. and learned Friend.
6.8 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: Given the awful time constraints, I must support the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) in his complaint about the lack of serious attention that the House is able to give to the issue. This debate should not be conducted under such restricted circumstances. We do
544
ourselves no good. It is not wholly the responsibility of the Government: my hon. Friends on the Front Bench must take the European issue much more seriously. They must ensure that time is found for a proper debate, with a motion and with an amendment. They may then press on with what they have tried to do previously.
I welcome this White Paper for one overwhelmingly good reason: it sets out what I believe are the real alternatives facing our people and the European Community. It also sets out clearly the option between advancing towards a centralised, supranational European state and a much more loosely agreed alliance with minimal treaty powers, which I think is favoured by the great majority of people in our country and by many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
We have to face clearly some very big problems. We have to accept and recognise that there is a most powerful drive towards the creation of a federal or quasi-federal state in Europe. It has rightly been pointed out that federal institutions such as the European Court of Justice, the European Parliament and, of course, the European Commission have been created under previous treaties. The weight of their influence is directed towards developing a centralised and federal Europe.
Let us not, however, forget the strong declared purpose and will of many of the leaders of the nation states of Europe. No one who has followed the statements made by Chancellor Kohl in recent weeks and months can have the slightest doubt that he is committed wholly and passionately to a political union, in which he sees economic and monetary union and a single currency as merely a stepping stone. He has almost conceded that a single currency does not make much sense economically, but it makes every sense politically, because it takes a giant step towards the federal political union that he wants.
Let us not ignore the fact that the leaders of the Benelux countries are also clearly pointing towards a federal Europe, as are those of Italy—or what is left of them after the collapse of its classe politique—because they believe that they are better governed in Brussels than they are in Rome.
Those are very powerful forces, and we have to face the fact that we will be isolated, virtually on our own, although we shall look for what allies we can find in the intergovernmental conference. I must tell my hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench that, when they form the next Government, they will find themselves in virtually the same situation, because the real differences between Labour Front Benchers and Ministers are by no means as great as has been suggested. They have said that they will keep the veto on the crucial spheres of treaty change, taxation and budget contribution, and that is very important. They have also said that we will not abandon unanimity in pillars 2 or 3 of the treaty. They cannot, therefore, easily be pushed along in the direction that most European Governments wish to go.
If Labour Front Benchers mean what they say about economic and monetary union—that real convergence would be necessary, in the terms spelled out by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—then, quite frankly, we can rest in our beds at night because we know very well that there will never be that convergence. Some of us will rejoice at that, because it means that we shall not become members of an economic and monetary union or a single currency.

545
A very interesting and most unusual test of opinion in Britain was conducted only a year ago. It was a very respectable survey, commissioned by the BBC and carried out by NOP. The people of our country, in weighted samples, were asked:
"How 'European' do you feel?"
That is basically a question on how much one feels part of a community and what is one's sense of national identity. The answers to the question are fascinating. People felt "European" as follows: "a great deal", 8 per cent.; "a fair amount", 15 per cent.; "a little", 25 per cent.; and "not at all", 49 per cent.
The reality is that the people of this country do not feel that the European Community is a community in the same sense that we are a community within the United Kingdom. Until that perception has changed, it is no good trying to force the British people into an arranged relationship with Europe that is fundamentally against their instincts and judgment.
One other question was asked that is worth reporting. People were asked:
"With which of these countries do you feel you have most in common?"
The responses to the European countries were as follows: France, 9 per cent.; Germany, 7 per cent.; and Spain, 5 per cent. When asked about three non-European countries, the responses were: the United States, 23 per cent.; Canada, 14 per cent.; and Australia, 15 per cent.
The majority of the British people feel that they are closer to the countries of the English-speaking world than they feel politically close to our geographical neighbours across the channel. That is another of the great realities of British life, and it should be part of the realities of British politics. I hope very much that we will sharpen up our views and our objections to the course of conduct that has been pursued in Europe towards the convergence of their currencies. That conduct is doing dreadful damage to Europe: virtually 20 million people are unemployed, and cuts in public expenditure and reductions in public borrowing are occurring all over Europe.
It is no good Labour Front Benchers hoping that, because the Swedes will make an attempt to insert something into the Maastricht treaty, first, that they will succeed or, secondly, that it will be in quantitative terms, because it will not. I have spoken to the Swedes, and I know that it will be purely declaratory. So long as the existing convergence criteria remain—they are flatly deflationary—there is no chance at all of European countries and the European Union pursuing a different policy.
No mention is made in the existing Maastricht treaty of employment and unemployment, yet the treaty was signed when the majority of European Union Governments had a socialist complexion. It was signed by Mitterrand, Gonzalez and Craxi, and it had the imprimatur of that wonderful ex-socialist, Mr. Delors. That is no longer the situation. We have no major allies of the Labour, social democratic persuasion left in Europe with any real weight, apart from the Swedes.
There is no point in wishful thinking. The Council of Ministers will not change at the IGC when a Labour Government arrive, and it will not add to or change the treaty. The time has come when we must face up to the truth about these matters and not continue to exist in a cloud-cuckoo-land.
546
I shall quote one last remark. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin)—for whom I have great affection—has put out a little document. In it, she says:
"We want to see a successful EMU which helps to promote general European prosperity and does not have a deflationary or negative effect on economic performance."
I should tell my hon. Friend that one would have to rip up the Maastricht treaty completely to achieve that end, and there is not a hope of doing so.
6.17 pm
Mr. Douglas Hurd: This is an admirable White Paper and the Foreign Secretary has spoken admirably. I should love to follow the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), but I can make only three brisk three-minute points: referendum, court and foreign policy.
It is obviously much easier to be clear about the referendum from the Back Benches. I am not in favour of referendums as a general rule, but, for about 18 months now, I have made it clear that the question of a single currency, if it came about it, would be such a massive change—more massive than anything that Britain was committed to at the treaty of Maastricht—that it would require a referendum. That would be the case only if a British Government of the day decided that it was in British interests to join a single currency.
My view is that that would happen only if the single currency had gone ahead with other countries, including France and Germany, and we had begun to find that our economy was suffering, inward investment was falling away and jobs were being destroyed. Then, a British Government might come to that conclusion. They would need to have a referendum, but they would certainly need to hold to the doctrine of collective responsibility.
What happened in 1975, which the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) held up as an impressive track record, was a disastrous example of weakness. I hope that we never see Conservative Ministers meandering up and down the country, from platform to platform, contradicting each other night after night. A Government have to decide, seek to persuade and then act if they are successful in persuading.
Secondly, as regards the European Court of Justice, I think that the White Paper has the balance right. I see no contradiction between the analysis in paragraph 36 and the proposals in paragraph 37. It is right about quota hopping. We have national quotas for fish—we do not have quotas for anything else that we produce or grow—and that is a special case. It is nonsense to apply to a policy of national quotas the general directive of a single market.
Britain uses the court and we often win in it. Lately, there have been three significant cases in which the court has followed the British Government's analysis of the treaty, although, of course, we never read about them.
Mr. Giles Radice: They are not reported.
Mr. Hurd: Indeed; they are not reported.
At the moment, four major British companies are involved in actions before the Court, trying to resist protectionism and encourage competition—British

547
Petroleum, British Steel, British Airways and Ladbroke. I have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who has left the Chamber, that if those companies win, they expect the judgments to stick. They do not expect their opponents to follow the lawless advice that my hon. Friend gave a few minutes ago.
Finally, in negotiations before Maastricht and in public, I have always strongly opposed the idea of majority voting on substantial matters of foreign and common policy. From my experience, it is clear to me that it would not work. We do not need majority voting or endless arguments about procedure; what is needed is agreement among Europeans, when and where it can be found.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary pushed forward excellent ideas in Paris—some are in the White Paper—on how the chances of agreement can be improved. Agreement on eastern Europe and Russia is needed now, not later, once the IGC has been ratified. It would be vain for Germany, for example, to suppose that it can pursue a German foreign policy towards Russia that we opposed or that we could pursue a British foreign policy towards Russia that the Germans opposed. That is nugatory.
My worry—my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned this—is that he will be compelled to scratch around on secondary matters, month after month, while the scene in eastern Europe and Russian darkens this year. My right hon. and learned Friend has always been strong and wise on this particular subject, as well as on others. I hope that he will ensure that the work in hand in Europe on these matters is completed and that we soon have a clear, agreed policy so that we can be valid partners with the United States on the most important foreign policy issue of the day.
6.22 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: If there is one issue on which there has been broad agreement—there has not been agreement on much else—it is the point raised by the former Prime Minister: that to shoehorn this debate into one Thursday evening, following a very important statement on Northern Ireland, is a ludicrous way to go about our business.
It was interesting that, under pressure from some of his Back Benchers, and in a way that had perhaps not been considered by the Leader of the House or the Foreign Office, the Foreign Secretary buckled and promised that he would give us a full account of the negotiations as they proceeded. That might be disastrous for him from a political point of view and as a negotiating tactic, but, now that he has made that concession, I hope that we shall hear from the Minister of State when he winds up what shape and form that reporting back will take—whether there will be an oral statement every so often in the House or whether there will be a Government-initiated debate such as this to take note of progress in the negotiations. From a personal point of view, he may live to regret the commitment he gave, but, since he has given it, the House will be eager to take advantage of it, no matter from which side of the argument we approach the issue.
The Harold Wilson phrase about a week being a long time in politics is certainly true for the Government's IGC White Paper. It was Janus-faced when it was produced,
548
and it has been exposed as Janus-faced in this debate. As we know from the Chancellor, who is about as far away from the Government as he can physically get at the moment, discussions inside the Cabinet are no happier than the debate within the broader parliamentary Conservative party itself.
To sum up the Foreign Secretary's strategy as outlined this afternoon, it seems to be a case of, "Goodbye Helmut, hello Jacques". The former Prime Minister is correct—the Foreign Secretary will find that, when the chips are down, the President of France will stand shoulder to shoulder with Germany on key constitutional aspects relating to the development of Europe, and that we will be isolated. I have to say that I would be slightly worried if I were a Tory Back Bencher watching the Foreign Secretary this afternoon. He buckled under a bit of constructive pressure when asked to what extent he was willing to be accountable to the House in the next 18 months. If he buckles to the same extent in the IGC negotiations, the White Paper will not be worth the paper on which it is printed in terms of the assurances that it seeks to offer.
The Foreign Secretary used the word "disingenuous". If ever a word could be applied to the Government's performance, that is it. It is surely disingenuous to erect these Aunt Sallies and proceed to knock them down when they are not seriously on the negotiating table. For example, there is in fact agreement among the three political parties about the type of issues to which a national veto should pertain and on which it should be maintained—troop deployment, immigration policy, own resources and tax.
Mr. Radice: As the reflection group said.
Mr. Kennedy: As the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, the reflection group made that clear.
There is a broad consensus on these issues across the political divide in this country and among member states. It is frankly disingenuous of the Foreign Secretary to say that he will be battling against such things when they are not on the agenda and not up for discussion. He will find that echoed in the Labour party's policy document and in the policy document that we produced last week.
It would improve the tenor of the debate if, instead of creating myths to tilt against for the purpose of assuaging those from his own side who, I fear, from his point of view, are not to be bought off, the Secretary of State was honest and constructive and dealt with the agenda that is before the IGC rather than with a mythical one, which is doing no good in the eyes of his own Back Benchers and doing no good for this country's credibility in the rest of Europe.
The Foreign Secretary's strategic objectives, of which there appear to be two in the White Paper, are ones with which no one would disagree. He wants a better deal for animal rights and he wants enlargement. He does not want social or human rights for workers in this country, but he wants a better deal on animal rights, something with which no one would seriously disagree. Nor would anyone seriously disagree with enlargement, but I doubt that his aim to deliver enlargement is going to be achieved by his apparently setting his face against any extension of qualified majority voting.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is surely right. Can the Foreign Secretary provide some clarification? He appeared to avoid it in the "Newsnight"

549
interview that he gave last week after he had made a statement to the House. Is he saying that there is to be no extension whatsoever of QMV? Is he willing to sacrifice the cause of enlargement for a compromise on QMV over, for example, research and development? Is that the position? Is he saying that, if enlargement goes to the wall, so be it—if QMV did not apply in any other sphere?
Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman reads the report of what I said in my opening speech today, he will find that I explained fully why I believe that enlargement does not depend on an extension of QMV, and that the arguments that suggest it does are bogus. I went into some detail as to why I believe that to be the case.
Mr. Kennedy: The right hon. and learned Gentleman did indeed do so, but that does not answer the question. He may well believe that, but he has to negotiate with a number of other member states. If his interpretation does not hold sway, he will have to make a decision at some point down the track about what the trade-off between QMV and enlargement is going to be. That is the issue that he will not face and to which he did not respond in that intervention.
Secondly, the confusion of the White Paper is best summed up by one quotation, which is supposed to be a ringing statement of the British Government's position with regard to the approaching set of crucial discussions. The Foreign Secretary says, in the White Paper:
"As the European Union matures it needs a clearer sense of what it is, and of what it should never aspire to be."
That is hardly the visionary stuff of politics, if ever we heard it.
The Government are trapped in the headlights of the views of their Back Benchers on this subject. They cannot give leadership or enunciate a vision, because whatever they do will deepen the chasm behind them. That will be bad news for this country, not just for our contribution to the IGC but for what comes out of the IGC and what should be a more democratic and decentralised European Union. Ultimately, I fear, we will have to have a referendum on these matters, and it would be better if the Government endorsed that position now and got on with an honest and open negotiation.
Mr. Julian Brazier: What question would you ask?
Mr. Kennedy: I would ask, first and foremost, for a public endorsement of the outcome of the IGC, if it has constitutional implications, in the same way as I voted for a referendum on the outcome of Maastricht. We could have had a referendum on that, too. There will have to be a referendum and it would be better if the Government were to embrace one positively now rather than being forced into that position later. We could then get on with a more vigorous debate outside this place, because it is clear that the Government will not give us an opportunity for one inside.
6.30 pm
Mr. Norman Lamont: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on the skill with which he handled so many questions, but the number of questions indicated how
550
strongly my right hon. and hon. Friends feel about the issues. I am sure that those questions reflect public opinion in this country. I wish my right hon. and learned Friend well. I, of all people, know how difficult his task will be.
The test of the White Paper is not what it says. Its tone is, dare I say it, Euro-sceptical. It certainly strikes the right notes, but that is not the real test. The real test is whether it provides an effective bulwark against the federalist ambitions of other European countries.
The Prime Minister stated the Government's position on page 1:
"The bedrock of the European Union is the independent, democratic nation state."
However, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) pointed out, that is simply not compatible with the view of the German Chancellor, who told us last month at Louvain:
"However much some European politicians may regret it, the day of the nation state is over."
The threat of creeping federalism is not something that exists only in the fevered imagination of a few Euro-sceptics. A few years ago, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister wrote:
"We have federalism by stealth, whether because national electorates cannot be told the truth, or not trusted to understand it, or because their elected leaders have failed to comprehend … There is no escaping the fact that a fledgling federalism is emerging".
I agree with every word of that. So can we believe that other countries in Europe will settle for a partnership of nation states?
The whole idea of a directly elected European Parliament might be thought to be inconsistent with the idea of a Europe of nation states. We have already sold the pass there. If we had wanted a Europe in touch with public opinion and politics in individual countries, we would have continued with an indirectly elected assembly, not a Parliament.
The White Paper takes a minimalist approach. In a section to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) referred, it suggests that, if we do not press hard for Britain's agenda, others might not try to impose an integrationist agenda on us. That is wishful thinking. Whatever we say or do, others will push for the next great leap forward.
In the whole long year of the Maastricht negotiations, it became clearer and clearer to me that our partners have and always will have a completely different view of the future of Europe from ours. They mean what they say when they express their wish for European unification. This is not windy Euro-rhetoric. Too often, British politicians are whistling in the wind when they say that we are winning the argument in Europe.
One can quibble about definitions, but Europe is amassing powers that will soon give it the characteristics of a state. At that point, Britain will cease to be an independent, self-governing country. The people in this country have not been consulted about that. The Europe of today has little resemblance to the Europe for which people voted in the referendum of 1975. They do not want to live in a European state, but that is the way we are going. It must be right to hold a referendum if the Government want to move to monetary union, but there is also a case for a wider referendum, not just on the single currency but on the whole future of Europe and the question of political integration in Europe.

551
We are creating a monster machine that is remote, insensitive and pushing out a mass of unwanted, often ludicrous, paper. Mr. Andrew Roberts, the distinguished historian, recently wrote a novel, set in the next century, called "The Aachen Memorandum", in which he described a situation in which civil unrest started in this country when the people found that they were unable to change the laws of this country in their own interests. That is fiction and perhaps fanciful, but I believe it is a warning.
Democracy should not be a one-way street. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) and others have pointed out, the whole principle of the acquis communautaire is that once something becomes a European responsibility it should remain a European responsibility permanently. In this country, in our elections, citizens can choose whether they want bigger government or smaller government, but once power is transferred to the centre in Europe it is transferred, if not permanently, at least until the rather improbable event of 15 Governments unanimously deciding to repatriate it.
The answer to the problem should be subsidiarity. I was one of its strongest supporters, but what I had in mind in 1990 was very different from how it has turned out. Subsidiarity should be about the repatriation of the common fisheries policy, not about zoos. We all know that subsidiarity has been a complete failure.
The White Paper takes comfort from Chancellor Kohl's assurances that his country does not seek a centralised state. It is a limited comfort, because the Germans do not consider their state a centralised one. It is, after all, a federal republic. In Chancellor Kohl's mind, Britain's place in Europe should be similar to that of Bavaria in Germany.
No one in Europe is seriously interested in whether money achieves the objectives for which it has been voted or whether it gives value for money. Any money the Community can get its hands on is used to expand the influence of Europe and to buy loyalty to the European idea. Money is spent wastefully and as conspicuously as possible in the regions to weaken ties with national Governments and to increase loyalty to the European idea. It would be an outrage, but all too typical, if the European Union were to use taxpayers' money to launch a campaign to explain the alleged benefits of a single currency.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary wants more powers for the European Parliament to supervise the spending of money. Unfortunately, the European Parliament is itself a propaganda vehicle for the European idea. It would be much better if the equivalent of the Public Accounts Select Committee in every national Parliament examined how European money was spent in each and every country. Then we would have a real check on the effectiveness of money.
Public opinion is moving and the debate is moving. A recent poll in the Sunday Times showed that a majority of people in this country think that European Union membership has been bad for Britain. Some 37 per cent. thought it had been good for other countries. Perhaps the 37 per cent. is the surprise.
Europe's obsession with a single currency has made the continent the high unemployment zone of the world. What a strange obsession it is. Far from increasing trade, the
552
drive to a single currency will slow down growth and thus reduce trade between European countries. It is nonsense to say that EMU is necessary for the single market. No one suggests that Canada, Mexico and the United States have to merge their currencies to complete the North American Free Trade Agreement.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the European Union played a role in liberalising world trade, but today its importance has been overtaken by the general agreement on tariffs and trade. One does not need to be a member of the EU to gain access to European industrial markets or to attract inward investment to sell into Europe. It is neither in Europe's power nor in its interests to shut us off from its markets. Switzerland, Japan and the United States have all increased trade quickly with the EU. The economic benefits of our membership are finely balanced, but the political price is high and rising.
Do we need this political integration? We do not need it. It is for advocates of our continued membership to demonstrate that membership is compatible with being an independent, self-governing nation state, able to make our own laws and administer our own justice.
My right hon. and learned Friend has a very difficult task. It seems to me that Britain is heading for a clash with Europe. We have fundamentally different views, and if they cannot be reconciled the time will eventually come when Britain has to consider much more radical alternatives.
6.39 pm
Mr. Giles Radice: By no stretch of the imagination can the White Paper on Britain's approach to the IGC be called a great state paper. At best, it is a holding statement designed mainly for internal party reasons. I accept that it says nice things about Britain's membership of the European Union, although that is not music to the ears of some Conservative Members. Unfortunately, however, a positive introduction is contradicted and undermined by the detailed proposals set out later in the document.
In particular, paragraph 27 says that the Government will oppose any further extension of qualified majority voting. I believe that to be a great mistake, because, as the White Paper admits, the creation of a single market needed qualified majority voting to work. Indeed, the second banking directive was passed against German opposition by QMV.
So those who go on about the need to retain the United Kingdom's veto in all remaining aspects of policy forget that what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. The vetoes of other countries can block the progress of EU policies that are in Britain's interests—a point that those who oppose the extension of QMV seem to ignore. Action against fraud, progress on the environment, structural funds, research and development and the extension of membership are all cases in point.
Similarly, the White Paper says that Britain will block any new powers for the European Parliament, apparently on the basis that that Parliament has used the Maastricht co-decision powers irresponsibly. That is plain wrong. The fact is that the European Parliament has agreed with the Council of Ministers 48 times out of 50 under its co-decision powers. Perhaps the White Paper should have pointed that out.

553
There is now a grave danger that Britain will be isolated and excluded from some of the major decisions taken in Europe. By opposing the extension of majority voting and any increase in powers for the European Parliament, Britain is putting a lock on our European partners which they will not in the end accept. They are already opening the way for France and Germany to go it alone—hence the talk in France and Germany about a so-called flexibility clause allowing countries that want to go ahead on certain issues to do so. The White Paper is too inflexible; it creates the danger that a hard core of countries will want to go ahead if they believe that we are blocking their progress.
If my party wins the next election, it will face a grave responsibility. Certain of my hon. Friends might care to reflect on the fact that our party conference unanimously passed an excellent document called "The Future of the European Union". It proposed extensions of qualified majority voting where that is in the British interest—on industrial and regional matters, and on the environment and social policy too. At the same time, it argued for an extension of the powers of the European Parliament where decisions on legislation are taken by QMV. That seems only logical.
I believe that this general approach is supported not just by the vast majority of Labour Members but also by members of the other Opposition parties—and by Conservative Members.
Mrs. Currie: Some of them.
Mr. Radice: It all adds up to a majority in this House that is perhaps not reflected in the attendance at this debate.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Why not?
Mr. Radice: We shall have to see.
If Britain is not to be isolated or excluded from these decisions, and is to play a leading and constructive role in Europe, we shall need to mobilise that majority in this House, across party lines if need be. That is one reason why I happen to believe that the European Movement is important. I am fortunate enough to be its chair, and the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) is a vice-chair, as is the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). Our views represent a majority in this Parliament, and, I believe, in the country at large.
We are arguing for sensible, moderate proposals for future integration where that is in Britain's and Europe's interests. That approach ought to commend itself to the House.
6.45 pm
Mr. Tim Renton: I like the general thrust of the White Paper—the partnership of nations is a good phrase, and I have heard it echoed in France, Germany and Italy on my recent travels.
But I would ask the House to think a generation ahead, and to consider the likely vitality and strength of the Chinese and Indian economies at that time. We should also consider the ambitions for international investment of Argentina and Brazil and the high technology pouring out of the south-east Asian tigers of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) often speaks.
554
We should think of the many options available to Japanese and American capital as to where, internationally, they build their large new factories. Will we look back with pride at these years when we decided not to be a part of the further integration of European markets and institutions? I very much doubt that we will.
Will we look back with pride if we are determined to build a Europe that suits only our national prejudices and neuroses, a la William Rees-Mogg? Or will we be reminded of Sam Brittan's words in the Financial Times of 29 January 1996:
"The whole record of Britain's dealing with the European Union is first to stay out at each stage, and then to complain about the rules when it tries to join later".
We must not repeat the procrastinations and mistakes of the past.
We know very well—the Foreign Secretary said it this afternoon—that a host of decisions face the European Union between now and the year 2000. The IGC is just one of them—not even one of the most important. Those decisions will lay out the future course of the EU. I am sure that Britain has to play a leading role in them, and this Conservative Government are well placed to do just that.
But we must be a team player; we must not go on keeping the ball in the scrum when everyone else wants to pass it out to the three-quarters. In doing so, our responsibility in this House is to convince the British people of the wisdom of what we are doing. That requires wise leadership, not just listening to every silly tale about European directives—of the "Snails have to be moisturised in transit" sort and so on. Usually those tales turn out later to be incorrect.
If we do not take this line, and if Europe does not integrate further to provide greater economies of scale, more efficient decision making and more jobs at reasonable wages, we and other Europeans will pay a harsh economic and social price.
Every European country wishes to preserve its national identity; I can find no country in Europe that does not want to do that. But we seem to be the only country that thinks that, by accepting more integration to make Europe work more efficiently—perhaps more powers for the European Parliament and more QMV—we would be "giving away our country", in the extraordinary hyperbolic phrase that is used by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
This year, Austria celebrates its 1,000th year as a country. France is an older country than ours. Spain, which goes back to the kingdoms of Aragon and Castile, is just about as old as us. None of those countries wishes to give up its national identity.
Mr. Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Renton: No, I have only a few minutes.
Not long ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton), my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) and I—between the three of us, our views on Europe could be quite different—went to Paris at the invitation of some members of Mr. Chirac's party, the RPR, or Rassemblement pour la République. We had a day of discussion.

555
During that day, we were told by all but one of those members—Gaullists—that they wanted to see the monnaie unique, the single currency, come about. They wanted closer integration of defence forces, and talked about moves towards a common foreign policy. At the end of the day, as we left, we were all given a medal, which I have with me, on which is the profile of de Gaulle. Written on the reverse are the words, of which I shall give a loose translation:
"To all men and women this coin is dedicated whose foremost wish is to see to it that France remains true to herself."
Many of us would see an extraordinary paradox in that Gaullist combination of coin and philosophy, but other European nations do not. We should look at our neighbours and ask ourselves why it is such a problem for us when it is not such a problem for other proud, independent nations that intend to stay independent within the European Union. Perhaps geography helps them to feel more European than we do. They accept that retaining their nationhood while giving up some sovereignty for a shared European sovereignty is worth while, particularly for long-term economic benefit. That is a lesson that we must learn.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) took the view that we should accept the fact that most Britons do not feel European, and that we should, as it were, then run away from the problem. I say that the challenge is entirely the opposite, because it is in the European Union that so much of our trade, our future, lies, and therefore there is surely a responsibility on us to put over to our constituents the virtues not only of what is happening in the European Union but the fact that, ineluctably, it is where our economic and trade future lies.
One point of difference between myself and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is that I think that, without an extension of qualified majority voting, we will not get the enlargement or the institutional change about which the White Paper speaks, both of which I very much favour. Surely the Luxembourg compromise showed that a system based on unanimity cannot make progress. The single financial services market, which would have been of great benefit to this country, was vetoed by Germany. There would have been no single market in trade without qualified majority voting.
My right hon. and learned Friend said that there is already QMV in agriculture, but, of course, it is rarely if ever used, because a blocking minority is not available. But surely that makes the point that we do not have to be that frightened of an extension of QMV. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie), who asked whether we would really be happy if plans, for example, for the control of environmental pollution were blocked by a veto of Cyprus or Slovenia because of some other deal that they wanted to make.
Sir Francis Drake once said—I remember quoting these words at a Conservative conference on the European Common Market more than 20 years ago—
"It is not in the beginning of a great adventure but in the continuation thereof that the true glory lies."
He said those words when he was about to go out and defeat the Spanish armada, but we still have to remember them in this immensely difficult task of promoting a partnership of nations in Europe.
6.54 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: We are, of course, having the oldest discussion in our history. Julius Caesar came and established a single currency, which we still use. The iron lady, then known as Boadicea, led the men of Essex, who were called the Iceni, to try to stop it.
This story will go on long after the Prime Minister has taken his seat in the House of Lords as Lord Huntingdon, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, after a long period as Prime Minister, has taken his seat as Lord Sedgefield. I shall be 100 then, and shall try to absent myself from the current political argument. But please, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), do not tell the public that there is unanimity in the Labour party on this matter, because that is not true.
It is not an argument between those who love Europe and those who hate it. We are all Europeans. I lost an uncle in the first world war and a brother and many friends in the second. I understand the speeches of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) in battling for peace in Europe, but there are other ways of looking at it. There are other views about the future of Europe that we should keep in mind.
The truth is that hardly any reference whatever has been made to the relationship between the House and the people who sent us here. It has all been experts on currency and trade. That is the weakness, because we are the stewards of the people's rights. That is the other question that has to be addressed. There is the idea that we would feel a bit different if we were part of a single currency. Every individual has his or her own identity. It is not about identity; it is about democracy, and it is to that question that I want to turn.
I do not believe that any Member of Parliament has any moral or legal authority to hand to others powers that have been lent to him or her by his or her constituents on polling day. It is no good me going back to Chesterfield and saying, "You voted for me, but I'm awfully sorry: I've handed over your powers to somebody else in Frankfurt, who will decide whether you can have schools, jobs or a home."
If we do not confront that argument, we would not be talking about the real future of Europe, because if I were a German or Italian I would feel the same. If I were a Spaniard, I would not want to be governed from Frankfurt; I would want to be governed from Madrid. It is absurd to suggest that this means being pro or anti-Europe.
Mrs. Currie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn: No.
We have to remember that the history of this country is not only about the history of our relations with Europe—Julius Caesar, William the Conqueror, William of Orange and so on. It is about the struggle of people in this country to have any control over the Government of their country. It is vital that we maintain a democratic link between a grievance and a remedy. That is what democracy is about.
If people have a grievance, they can do something about it at the polling station and the ballot box. They can go to the polling station and remove a Chancellor,

557
get another one and hope to get a better deal. If we broke the link between the ballot box and the statute book, we would betray our trust and would destroy this House.
I am amazed at the House. We pride ourselves on being the mother of Parliaments, but many hon. Members seem to be content with signing an early-day motion, raising a point of order or going over to No. 4 Millbank for a soundbite, by courtesy of Jim Naughtie, and not recognise that we were elected to safeguard the interests of the people who sent us to this place. It would subvert democracy.
Once the link between the ballot box and the statute book has been destroyed, why bother to vote? Indeed, why not take more direct action? Our history books never like to remind us of it, but throughout our history, when people have been disfranchised, those with a grievance have drawn attention to it by rioting, and rioting is not the best way of handling problems. It leads to a lot of trouble.
Mr. Dykes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn: No. I have only 10 minutes in which to speak. It is disgraceful that the debate should be curtailed in this way; 25 years ago, we had a 10-day debate on Europe, in which I spoke from the Front Bench.
Once people are allowed to see a quicker and better way of putting things right than voting, democracy will have been destroyed in Britain—and democracy cannot be built in Europe on the basis of the destruction of democracy in this country.
Perhaps the most important point of all relates to globalisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston speaks as if it were a requirement for us to fit in with globalisation, but globalisation means that the world is run by that very powerful Welshman. Everyone knows who I mean: Mr. Dow Jones. When we are in bed, Mr. Dow Jones's industrial averages are giving marching orders to every Government in the world. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer meets the Governor of the Bank of England, the Governor says that he thinks that unemployment is not quite high enough, and that he wants interest rates to be high; the Chancellor wants them to be lowered again; and Mr. Dow Jones arbitrates.
Are we really going to accept a world in which we are required to do what the global gamblers want us to do? The ballot box is a rival to wealth as a way of controlling power. I think that globalism will stimulate the very nationalism that it was supposed to end.
I believe that the moment will come when this European Union will mean that, instead of blaming the Maastricht treaty and the treaty of Rome, we may blame the Germans. Indeed, there is already a good deal of anti-German feeling around. I am not anti-German: I think that the German people suffered under Hitler more than we did, and, with 4 million unemployed, they are suffering under the present arrangements. That is not what The Sun will say, however. After all, it was The Sun that said "Up yours, Delors", demonstrating the intellectual strength that we expect of it.
If we hand over power to determine our own laws, before we know where we are people will look to the Spanish fishermen, or to the French farmers who will not have our beef, rather than recognising that we have given up the right to govern ourselves. Let me put it more simply still: communism run by commissars from
558
Moscow did not work, and nor will capitalism run by Commissioners in Brussels. Both deny people their right to develop in their own way.
We should have a new vision of Europe. The other day, I introduced a Bill, the Commonwealth of Europe Bill, in which I listed all the 47 countries. We should co-operate and harmonise, but at our own pace and with the consent of our individual Parliaments. That should include the countries of eastern Europe which were dismissed by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. If the former Yugoslavia had been part of a commonwealth of Europe, the Bosnian war might never have developed: there would have been a framework in which that country could have lived.
I believe that, given the importance of this issue, there must be a referendum on it. People say that we are a representative democracy, but we shall not be if we go into a single currency under a central bank. The case for a referendum is that it would preserve representative democracy. We have so many rules. One is that no Parliament can bind its successor, but that would be abandoned if we joined a single currency. Tom Paine said that the dead could not bind the living, and he was right.
All that I can do now—for I do not expect to have any impact on the thinking of those who take a contrary view—is repeat what I said a few days ago at a meeting in my constituency which dealt with this subject. I said:
"I want tonight to give a clear personal and solemn pledge to my constituents here in Chesterfield that while I remain a Member of Parliament for this town I will never vote in Parliament to take Britain into a federal European Union and will oppose it in every way I can by speaking and voting against."
Even if I were in favour of such a Union, I would have no right to vote for it. As I said some years ago, it would be a theft of public rights. We have no right to do that. We shall see how to resolve the problem when we discuss it.
I suspect that the White Paper was drafted to cater for those who are described as Euro-sceptics—those with doubts. If there were a Conservative Government after the next election, however, I think that the pressure of international business would take that Government into a federal Union, and I think that the same would apply to a Labour Government. I have seen it happen before. We would be told, "You cannot be left out." We would be told that the pound would fall, and that all sorts of other things would happen.
In a sense, both Front-Bench speeches were pre-election cautionary exercises in a bid not to lose support. We would do better to take a principled stand, and to talk about a Europe that we could really believe in—a Europe that would work, develop and co-operate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.
7.4 pm
Sir Michael Spicer: Like others who have spoken, I do not accept for a moment that the federal process is cracking up. On the contrary—with the exception of public opinion—all the forces are moving in the other direction, as has been said several times.
There are two obvious forces. Following the Maastricht treaty—as those who opposed it tried to point out at the time—there is now a set date for monetary union,

559
1 January 1999, towards which all concerned are working. We are not gathered here to discuss monetary union, but it is clearly a massive force, which has the backing of the treaty of Rome, which is moving us in a federalist direction.
The second major force, which has been mentioned tonight and which is very much on our agenda, is the role of the European Court of Justice. It has four specific federalist features. Since the Defreme case of 1976, the Court has been able to make law; since the Factortame case of 1991, that law has had the makings of being superior to the law passed by the House of Commons. Because of the principle of direct applicability, the European Court's law may bypass the national institutions of each country and directly affect its citizens. Because of the fourth principle of acquis communautaire, that superior law compounds itself and occupies territory from which it cannot be dislodged: there is a compounding one-way process towards federalism.
The problem is that a Government who no longer control their law and who no longer control their money are no longer in control of the nation. That is why whether we join the single currency is not just a matter of expediency to be determined, as the phrase goes, "in the light of events"; it is a matter of the profoundest possible principle. That is one of the reasons why I do not agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the issue.
What is to be done to turn the rhetoric in the White Paper—which, on balance, is in the right direction—into practical reality? We must, of course, reject the idea of joining a single currency as a matter of principle, but if that is not on offer, a commitment to holding a referendum on the issue is a second, albeit poor, alternative. It is certainly inconceivable that any British Government would give up control over our money, and hence control of our taxation policy, without directly consulting the people.
I was interested to hear what Labour's position would be. If Labour Members are saying that the issue would be determined by a general election, logic suggests that they must also be saying that anyone who opposes the single currency—including the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—should vote Conservative to put the matter properly to the test, and that everyone who is in favour of the currency should vote Labour.
The Government's recent pronouncements of intent in regard to the European Court—especially those of the Foreign Secretary today and those of the Prime Minister earlier this week—are, in themselves, admirable. In particular, the Government have accepted that henceforth the Court shall be stopped from making law. There is only one way in which to do that: re-establishing in the treaty the supremacy of national Parliaments.
The tactics and the means of achieving that are now important. Some Conservative Members have said that they think negotiation on such matters is impossible. I do not agree. What is involved is the bartering between what we want and what other countries apparently require. We want a retrieval of powers. Apparently, other countries want more federalism—usually, nowadays, against the interests and wishes of their people. Let them have it. Under article N, they need unanimous support to
560
change the treaty. Give it to them, but, in return, they must give back to this Parliament sovereignty over all key matters of national policy.
The Government must make up their mind on that important point. Do they really believe in what has come to be called variable geometry, as they say they do in the White Paper? If so, why does my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary fear a hard core of other countries going ahead with federalism, as was stated earlier? The Government cannot have it both ways. They must develop a clear position and a firm, positive and coherent negotiating stance. Just to say no to what others propose, for instance, about the removal of the pillars on defence and foreign affairs, however important that intrinsically is, is not publicly attractive.
A positive position must be adopted at an early stage in the negotiation. Its aim, above all, must be to reclaim powers for this Parliament that have been progressively eroded since the debacle of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. The powers must be enshrined not only in the treaty, but in statute in this Parliament.
Mr. Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is why it is so important that the Government admit that there are certain irreducible demands on which they will insist, if necessary via legislation in this Parliament? The alternative is to tell our partners in advance that, ultimately, if they overrule us, we will accept it.
Sir Michael Spicer: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. There must be a clear statement of those demands. The only matter on which I take issue with the Government is that the demands are couched in terms of saying no to matters that they think will arise at the intergovernmental conference. The Government should make a positive statement that we want to retrieve powers, in return for which we are prepared to consider what others may do within the context of variable geometry. That would be a positive negotiating position.
In their White Paper, the Government make a good start—dare I say a "fresh start"? As my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) says, we now need detailed policies, confidently presented to back up the White Paper.
7.12 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: In the 10 minutes available to me, I intend to deal with the European Court of Justice, on which we are apparently to receive another memorandum, so the time has come to consider fundamental reform of its structures and procedures.
The court is 36 years old. It was set up as part of the authoritarian European Coal and Steel Community and it drew most of its procedures from the authoritarian and state-dominated French legal system. We have a European Community of 15 countries, and in a few years' time it will probably be more. Many of them—not just Britain—have legal systems that are different from the French system. The European Court is a state court which serves an increasingly centralised European state. It is a supreme court. From time to time, it has declared Acts of Parliament—not just of this Parliament, but of Parliaments throughout the 15 nation states—unconstitutional, and it will do so again.

561
We should not be surprised about that. We have signed a treaty which declares the ever closer union of European nation states and the submergence, in effect, of their sovereignty. Presumably that is why we have such a court, but the problem for this debate is that the European Court is not fair. Its structures and procedures mean that it cannot be even-handed in litigation between a nation state and a Community institution or when a party seeks to invoke treaties against the nation state. It cannot be even-handed, because its legal bureaucracy and structure is aimed towards ever closer union.
The European Court is not like courts in Britain. It is located in a large, impressive building in Luxembourg. It has 800 staff, many of whom are highly qualified lawyers, although they are described as legal secretaries. Each of the 15 judges has a highly qualified cabinet that would turn a United States supreme court justice green with envy.
One of the problems is that the European Court is bureaucratic. When a party hands in pleadings at Luxembourg, the first person he meets on the court house steps is the judge rapporteur—it is always a rapporteur. He is a proper judge. With other judges, he will decide the case. He takes the case over. After that, the case belongs not to the parties, but to the court of legal bureaucracy.
The judge rapporteur considers the pleadings. He decides what facts must be proved and, in secret, how those facts are to be proved. That is an enormous power. He decides on the procedures—within, of course, the general procedure of the court—and takes over the whole case.
After a few years of written pleadings going back and forth, before the oral hearing, which is perfunctory and lasts for only half an hour or an hour—most of the work is done in writing—the judge rapporteur writes a report about the case for all his fellow judges. It probably forms the basis of the first draft of the court's opinion. Apparently—so I am told—the judge rapporteur often writes the judgment as well. We therefore have a complete legal bureaucracy.
The judge rapporteur may be an important fellow, but the top cat is our friend the Advocate General. He is an extraordinary fellow. He is both a judge and an advocate. If any young lawyer wants to have it both ways, he should become an Advocate General. With his friend the judge rapporteur, the Advocate General also considers the case from the beginning. There is nothing in the British legal system—or, I suspect, in the legal systems of most other countries—to compare with the Advocate General. Again, the concept comes from the French legal system. There is a mirror image in the Conseil d'Etat—the French state court. If I may translate the French, he is known as the commissar of Government. The Advocate General is the commissar of the European Court, and he has enormous influence.
The Advocate General's moment comes at the end. He sits with the judges listening to the oral argument of the poor advocates, who get only half an hour each. Once they have finished, down from the judges' bench comes the Advocate General and he becomes an advocate. He addresses the court and reads out what he calls his opinion—we have heard about his notorious opinion on health and safety and the 48-hour week. It is his speech to the court. He is impressive and intellectually brilliant in many ways, reviewing the whole case because he is the Cerberus of the acquis communautaire—the guardian of the treaty.
562
That is the end of the matter. The Advocate General has the last word. Every advocate knows that the last word is precious. Some time ago, a silk to the chancery Bar apparently tried to ensure that he lost in the Court of Appeal 2–1 so that he could open in the House of Lords and have the last word. I do not know whether that is true, but the advocates in the European Court of Justice cannot reopen the case after the Advocate General. As we all know, the Advocate General's opinion, although it is not always followed, is influential with the court.
There are 15 judges in the court, but they deliver only one judgment. I do not know whether hon. Members have read such judgments, but they are a disgrace. Except to the aficionados who practise law, they are usually almost completely incomprehensible, even to most lawyers. Yet this is a court whose judgment can make an Act of Parliament unconstitutional. The judgment is merely a series of propositions with a conclusion: there is no attempt at reasoning—no attempt to make it flow so that people can read and understand it.
There is no dissenting judgment, of course, because no one can dissent in the European Union. People cannot dissent in the Commission—anyone who is against a single currency gets the sack. It should be remembered that in the United States supreme court, dissenting judgments have often been the most important judgments. So why in the Europe Union cannot there be one proper judgment from the judges and one—we are not asking for more—dissenting judgment? The current procedures do not allow that.
I want to offer the Minister a few suggestions to take with him when he goes back into that terrible room and finds that he is one against 14. First, there needs to be a fundamental review of the procedures of the court, the way it operates, the way evidence is called and the way facts are decided. Secondly, the judges should be told to write a proper opinion, which people can read and understand. One dissenting judgment should be allowed, if one is wanted. Finally, we should get rid of the Advocate General, because we do not need him.
The Minister, in his paper, should suggest abolishing the Advocate General. People may think that that is a radical suggestion, but it is already happening in the court of first instance, which deals with most anti-trust cases, competition and monopoly. I am told—although I have not seen it in writing—that the court of first instance is dispensing with the services of its extraordinary commissar, the Advocate General. The Minister now has a precedent—lawyers can always find a precedent if they are asked to do so. Proper judgments, dissenting judgments, reform of the procedure and abolition of the Advocate General might provide a better, more modern and less authoritarian European Court to suit the needs of 15 nation states.
7.22 pm
Sir Cranley Onslow: Since the Government published their White Paper, I have had one letter from my constituents on the subject. I do not know why I have not had more. I am sure that people are interested in Europe. Perhaps they hesitate to enter into a debate where such appalling terms as "subsidiarity", "variable geometry" and "acquis communautaire" are common change.

563
I want to leave all the technical stuff and quote from that one letter, which is of some interest. My constituent writes:
"I don't think that there should be a referendum on whether we join the EU single currency if one does come about. It is far too technical a subject for the man in the street to cope with. My wife says that if there is a referendum on the single currency the electorate need to be told far more about the pros and cons. What we both feel very strongly about is the dreadful way the EU interferes in the general running of our country. They are succeeding in doing something that the Kaiser, Mussolini and Hitler failed to do in this century, as did all others in the seven previous centuries, namely conquer us, overrule our Parliament and the judiciary, laws, fishing rights. etc. etc. Give us a referendum on this and we will gladly let you know where we stand."
I note that some of my hon. Friends are nodding in agreement with that letter. I received it with some regret because it shows the extent to which the problems are not understood and the extent to which we need to move forward. It would not be a misleading summary to say that many people in this country feel about the EC like someone who has bought a fine new car, found that it has four good forward gears that work well, that the brakes are a bit dodgy, that neutral is all right, but that there is no reverse gear—so when he finds himself in a position where he does not want to be, there is no way to get out of it. That is something that we cannot ignore.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who has left the Chamber, that the one issue that the intergovernmental conference should address is the grievance that many people feel. Without any evidence that something is being done about that, confidence in the EC as an institution and in the treaties that we have signed will continue to wither on the vine. There is a job to be done, which is to deal with areas that we find so unsatisfactory—such as the common fisheries policy. We do not have to be Euro-sceptics to be furious about the way that the Spaniards get away with things; we do not have to be Euro-sceptics to boil over when we learn how other countries cheat on the enforcement of their quotas; we do not have to be Euro-sceptics to be infuriated by the European Court of Justice and the extraordinary conclusions it reaches. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made his feeling clear on that.
I and my constituents feel that Britain did not join the European Union to be saddled with Eurojudge-made law. Something must be done about that and the IGC provides an opportunity to do it. The Government's approach in the White Paper is commendable and we hope that real results come from that. Most of our constituents will welcome the Government's pledge on qualified majority voting, the number of Commissioners and the powers and procedures of the European Parliament—a body which, though elected, still has a serious credibility problem which it might do something to solve if it actually began to use the powers that the Maastricht treaty gave it. I find it difficult to understand why that has not happened already. It may have something to do with the in-built socialist majority in that so-called democratic body.
The Government's line on foreign and defence policies is also right. NATO must be the bulwark of our defence. Our vital national interests cannot be overridden. It is absolutely unthinkable that British forces could be committed to operations in or out of Europe against the will of this House. It is equally unacceptable that, while
564
recruitment to our armed forces is voluntary, another European Court should be able to degrade the efficiency of our fighting services by compelling them to retain homosexuals in uniform. People want to be assured that, at the IGC, Britain will try to redress grievances rather than plough on blindly.
I wholly agree with what the Government say in the White Paper about the social chapter, especially in paragraph 60. We hear a great deal about conditions in Germany. Anyone with a close relative working in a German firm will know at first hand how extraordinary the loss of work ethic has been in German society, how the German work force has saddled itself through self-indulgence with social benefits to an extent that has made it so uncompetitive that even in high-tech industries such as the automobile industry jobs are leaching from Germany to Britain—and a good thing, too, for us. I do not mind BMW, Mercedes or Bosch coming here; but let us not hear those on the Opposition Front Bench saying that it has nothing to do with the fact that we have not saddled ourselves and our workers with the burdens of the social chapter in the way that the Germans have done.
I want finally to refer to the question of a referendum on a single currency, which my constituent opposed in his letter. I believe that there must be a referendum, as there is no other way of obtaining the consent of the British electorate. It should be based on a question set by the Government of the day, which will not be this Government, on a question decided by the Parliament of the day, which will not be this Parliament, with everyone given an opportunity to show how far they have confidence in the system, how much they believe that the EU works to our advantage, and how much they believe that it is genuinely a democratic body.
I was somewhat depressed by the equivocating responses of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) when he was pressed on that point. It was clear that, in effect, he was saying that, if the Labour party should gain a sufficient majority to form a Government, there would not be any nonsense like a referendum. That will not stand Labour in good stead when the general election comes and I hope that we will make more of that.
If there is to be a referendum, it follows that it must be mandatory—the Government of the day must be bound by the result or go to the country with a general election on the single issue of what should happen. We cannot lump in that issue with all the other issues at a general election. However, there has been no reassurance on that matter and I hope that the House will take note of that.
I hope that at the intergovernmental conference the Government will carry through the determination that they have shown in their White Paper. I wish my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues the best of luck.
7.29 pm
Mr. Terry Davis: The right hon. Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) began his speech by expressing surprise that his constituents had so little interest in the intergovernmental conference and our proceedings on the matter. He answered his own point. People are not interested in the IGC, or indeed the European Union, because they do not feel that the EU has any relevance to their personal and pressing problems. The EU is not seen as being relevant to problems of

565
unemployment, standards of living, or the quality of life of people in any of our constituencies. The European Union's answer to that has been to spend money on propaganda to try to convince people in some mysterious way that it is relevant rather than tackling the bread and butter issues.
The right hon. Member for Woking went on to give a quite misleading description of the position taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). My hon. Friend did not say that a Labour Government with a large majority would not hold a referendum. He said—I have some reservations about the position taken by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench—that the question would be put in either a general election or a referendum.
I want a referendum. Unlike the right hon. Member for Woking, I have always voted for a referendum. I am not sure that I have ever seen him in the Lobby voting for a referendum. Some Conservative Members—I see them here tonight—joined us in the Lobby when we voted on an amendment calling for a referendum on the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty, but I did not see the right hon. Gentleman on either of those occasions. Perhaps I have done him an injustice, and if I have, perhaps he will correct me.
Other misleading points have been made, particularly by Conservative Members. The right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) made a misleading point at some length when he described his discussion with the French Gaullists. He said that other nations in Europe were different from the British and that they were wholehearted—he did not use that word, but that was the impression that he gave—in their acceptance that there was no inconsistency between, on the one hand, a sense of identity, and on the other, integration in the EU. He is clearly wrong.
Several other countries held referendums on the Maastricht treaty. It was very clear, especially in France, that substantial numbers of people did not agree with integration in the EU. I say especially in France because a majority there were narrowly in favour of the Maastricht treaty, and because leading figures in the campaign against the Maastricht treaty were leading figures in the French Gaullist party. The right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex misled the House—I am sure unintentionally—on that point.
That was not the only misleading point made by Conservative Members. There has been a tendency in the debate to suggest that the options are either integration or isolation, but there is a third option, which the Government are not expressing clearly, and certainly not with any enthusiasm. That is because the debate—it was very clear from the Foreign Secretary's speech—is seen by the Government as a debate within their own party. That was apparent from the Foreign Secretary's unwillingness to give way to my hon. Friends when they wanted to intervene, and the fact that he gave way to every one of his hon. Friends.
The whole business of isolation or integration is very misleading. There is an alternative vision for Europe: co-operation, partnership and working together. Of course we must work with neighbouring countries and people in other political parties in other countries. There is nothing weak or wet about that approach. It takes self-confidence to work in partnership with other people. Such a vision does not come through in the White Paper, which is a mistake and an omission—but not the only omission.
566
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston pointed out the virtual total omission of any reference to the single currency. I would have liked the White Paper to begin with recognition of the fact that for the first time in the history of Europe, there is not a single dictatorship. In the past 60 years, we have seen off the fascist dictatorships of Germany, Austria and Italy; we have seen come and go the colonels in Greece; we have seen the fascists of Spain and Portugal disappear in the 1970s; and, more recently, in the 1980s and 1990s, we have seen the countries of eastern and central Europe become democracies. Some recognition of the fact that democracy has swept like a tide through Europe would have been very welcome in the White Paper as a background to the idea of partnership, co-operation and working together.
Another glaring omission in the White Paper is that there is no reference to other European institutions. If only by implication, the IGC will affect the working arrangements of the Council of Europe. The White Paper refers to the European convention on human rights, but makes no reference to the Council of Europe. The White Paper refers to the European Court of Human Rights, but makes no reference to the Council of Europe. That glaring omission is significant since the whole basis of the Council of Europe is co-operation and the idea of working together, which is what many of my hon. Friends, and I think many Conservative Members too, would advocate. We are not anti-European; we are part of Europe. We are not averse to other countries. We are not hostile to Germans or French and people in other countries; we want to work with them. That means working together—co-operation not integration.
When the Foreign Secretary said that no other Government in Europe favoured integration, he too was—undoubtedly unintentionally—misleading the House of Commons. The Belgian Government believe in integration, the Netherlands Government believe in integration, and so do the Luxembourg Government. Luxembourg might be only a small country, but its Government have a vote almost equivalent to that of the United Kingdom's. The German Government clearly believe in integration. One has only to read the comments of Chancellor Kohl to realise that. The Italian Government believe in integration—and such a belief does not stop there. Not only do Members of the European Parliament believe in integration; from my experience, many Members of Parliaments in other countries believe in it too. The question that we should face is what to do about it.
I do not understand the Foreign Secretary's distinction between multi-track and multi-speed. He said that he was opposed to multi-speed because it implied that everyone would arrive at the same terminus but at different times, and then said that he was in favour of multi-track. I do not know whether he envisages multi-tracks going in different directions. I thought that the whole point of multi-tracks was that they went to the same destination. I could not understand his ruling out multi-track any more than I could understand him ruling out outer and inner circles. I find such language slightly offensive.
If Parliaments of other countries want to integrate, we should not say no to that desire. We should accept that they are entitled to their point of view. We should not try to veto or stop them; we should make it clear that, although we do not want to be part of such integration, we are willing to co-operate with them in partnership and

567
peace to achieve common objectives and ends. We should not try to sabotage their wishes. Such lack of vision and clarity damages us in Europe.
7.37 pm
Mr. William Cash: The Maastricht treaty did not work and is not working. It is a complete failure and the problem that we have tonight is assessing what the White Paper does to redress the problems with which the Maastricht treaty presented us.
For me, the White Paper is more like a whited sepulchre than a White Paper. It is attractive on the outside in tone, but dead on the inside. The issues themselves have been buried by the procedural device of a one-line Whip, agreed between the two Front-Bench teams, in order to ensure that the issues will not receive the appropriate attention, and Members will not be given the opportunity to exploit them.
In my pamphlet, "Blue Paper", which I published yesterday, I replied to the White Paper. It was published by the European Foundation. I very much hope that a number of Members on both sides of the argument will be good enough to consider its contents, because it would certainly take me a lot longer to describe all my complaints. They are all set out, line by line, for anybody to read if they wish to do so.
I was intrigued by the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), because he was of course the Foreign Secretary when the Maastricht treaty went through the House. He was good enough to ask me in those heady days when I was chairman of the Back-Bench committee on European affairs if I would write the paper on the future of Europe for the Conservative manifesto committee. I offered my observations, since published in a book called "Visions of Europe", and clearly said that, if we did not veto monetary union then, we would end up in a German-dominated Europe in which we would be marginalised because we would be on the outer rim of a two-tier arrangement.
The present Foreign Secretary addressed that point in his speech, and emphatically ruled out a two-tier Europe, but the problem is that the concentric circles plan and the hard core arrangement—the very developments that I had advised the previous Foreign Secretary to ensure did not happen—did come about, through the Maastricht treaty.
We are indeed trapped in a two-tier Europe, unless we have and use the political will to remove that problem from the British people. How do we do it? We must reduce the powers that have been conferred on the European institutions and return them to the United Kingdom. That means that at the summit we must take on in forceful debate, person to person, if necessary, the Germans and the French, and explain to them exactly why we will not accept the bullying and hectoring tone of so many of their recent speeches. I am thinking in particular of Chancellor Kohl's speech in Louvain on 2 February.
To deal with the question we shall also have to produce some legislation to enforce our parliamentary supremacy. I raised the matter with Madam Speaker on 7 March, when I asked her for a ruling on the Court of Justice's judgment on the fishing issue. Right at the heart of that judgment lay another question—not on fishing alone,
568
but having to do with the system of the treaty. If member states were to contravene the system of the treaty, they would be acting illegally.
As soon as I read the judgment, it immediately raised in my mind the question of the European Communities Act 1972. Could we amend it? In a nutshell, the answer is that we must. Madam Speaker declined to rule from the Chair on my question, but she has written to me saying that she realises and appreciates the seriousness of the point that I made, although she says that it is primarily a political question.
That political question will have to be resolved by legislation. The House will have to assert that Parliament retains the right and the authority to enact provisions that have full effect, notwithstanding anything in the 1972 Act or the treaties mentioned in it.
In the White Paper, how do the Government address those thorny questions, that cul-de-sac and trap to which they have referred? They do not tackle them at all. Indeed, they do not even want to tackle them. They say:
"If we were to press ideas which stand no chance of general acceptance, some others would seek to impose an integrationist agenda which would be equally unacceptable from our point of view".
As I said in an intervention, that is nothing short of appeasement. That is defeatism. We are not even to consider whether to give the House the opportunity to retrieve the powers that have been given away and prevent the slide further down the glacier. We shall not even allow the other member states to consider and discuss the question of monetary union in the intergovernmental conference. If we are not even to discuss those issues, by any standards that must be utter irresponsibility.
The Conservative party can win the next general election if we take a sufficiently robust, realistic, down-to-earth view on the matters that we are discussing today. If we unbundle the European Union policies, and use the fact that those on the Labour Front Bench have committed themselves to managed exchange rates and monetary union, we can turn it against them, because we know that they will not be able to deliver their promises on health, education, public expenditure or jobs.
When the Labour party is confronted with that, we shall be able to explain to the British people why our credibility, which we lost over the exchange rate mechanism, has been restored and reinvigorated as a result of our more Euro-realistic position.
Mr. Stuart Randall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cash: No, I have only a few minutes left.
In order to achieve that position we must renegotiate the treaty, and say that we shall not accept monetary union. Not merely on the opt-out, but during the intergovernmental conference and before the general election—in other words, in our manifesto—we must state that we shall not go down the route of monetary union. That is the logic of the position. And in doing that we shall be able to wrong-foot the Labour party in the general election.
We have been trampled on by the European institutions, and we shall not tolerate it. Our sense of pride and our nationhood have been infringed over and over again, and we shall put up with it no longer. It is time for the House and for the Conservative party, which, as Disraeli said,

569
"is a national party or it is nothing",
to put an end to the dishonour heaped upon us by the federalism that is permeating throughout the European Union.
7.46 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: Anyone walking into the Chamber and seeing the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) on his feet would know precisely what issue is being discussed. I suspect that, regrettably, anyone who came in here and saw the usual suspects lining up on either side would know what subject we were debating.
If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that the issues surrounding the European Union will win the election for the Conservative party, he deceives himself. I do not want to sound complacent, but frankly, I doubt whether even if the Archangel Gabriel declared for the Conservative cause at the moment it would assist the Tories much in saving the general election—but be that as it may.
The debate has been fascinating, for several reasons, one of which is the fact that we seem to be driving everyone out. If we cannot even raise enough interest in the House in discussing the issue, how on earth are we to arouse people's interest outside in the country? Both sides have locked horns over the issue and the area has become sterile, as has the whole debate. Indeed, one could hardly describe it as a debate in the true sense.
I find the debate fascinating, partly because of the attendance levels. There are more Members on the Government Benches than on the Opposition Benches, and it is clear—the way in which the Foreign Secretary dealt with interventions showed that he recognises it too—that the European Union is revealing the deepest divisions that I have ever seen in the Conservative party.
The interesting thing is that the divisions are ideological—not simply matters of opinion, but ideological. The right wing opposes the Government's policy on the EU, and the left wing of the Conservative party is attempting to support the Government, although, if I may say so, not very vocally or successfully. That is the Conservative party's fundamental problem. Most Conservatives who oppose the Government's policies on the European Union are also politically opposed to the Prime Minister. That adds to the problems. The Tory party is deeply divided. If the European Union is going to influence the general election, it will not be through discussion, or its absence, of the issue but through the divisions in the Conservative party, which people will recognise.
Of course, Labour has its differences of opinion. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) laughs, but our differences are more like differences of opinion. They are not ideological divisions.
Mr. Redwood indicated dissent.
Mr. Banks: The right hon. Gentleman must allow that I know far more about the ideology and divisions of my party than him. If he honestly thinks that there is an ideological linkage between Bolsover, Chesterfield, Stepney and Newham, South he is an idiot and does not at all understand ideology. Our divisions are more generational than ideological. Our discussions do not pose any problems for the Labour party, either in opposition or in government.
570
I listened to the Secretary of State with great care when he said that the days of the nation state are not over. I agree—but they are numbered. Nationalism and religion have together been responsible for nearly every war in Europe and the rest of the world, and that remains so.
Mr. Cash: What absolute nonsense.
Mr. Banks: I defer to the hon. Gentleman because he is an expert on nonsense. Perhaps he could consider my speech, write to me and identify all the wars through history that have not had nationalism or religion as their root cause. That will remain so in future. The break-up of Yugoslavia was the result of a combination of nationalism and religion. The purpose of supranational bodies such as the European Union is to move us away from the narrow nationalism that has been the cause of so much suffering in Europe over the generations.
The Secretary of State also gave us his vision of three ways in which Europe could develop. First, he said that it could be a free association of nation states—the market concept. That is what the Conservative right wants—a loose market association of free nation states coming together to carve up the markets between them, with no further economic or monetary union or integration.
The rest of Europe is not prepared to accept that model. The Government can carry on whistling in the dark. They can wish, but it will not happen. Wishing is no way to achieve things. We are being left out of developments in Europe and they are laughing at us. We are becoming immaterial and insignificant in respect of events in Europe. It is the fault of the Conservative Government that we are not punching our weight in the European Union.
The Foreign Secretary talked about the federal Europe, which is the big bogey of the Conservative party. The definition of federalism in the Tory party lexicon is totally different from that in German politics. After all, federal Germany has a strong central state Government and strong local government though its lander. Britain is the most centralised state in Europe. I go further: we are the last fully functioning mediaeval state in Europe. We do not need lectures from the Conservative party, which has centralised our Government, criticising Germany or France and saying that they want a federal Europe that means more centralisation. We have centralisation: it is called the British state and it needs to be broken up. We need the sort of freedoms that they have in Germany through regional government and devolution. We do not have that and we desperately need it.
The last possibility mentioned by the Foreign Secretary was that of a multi-track Europe. Again that is nonsense, like our opt-outs, which are being proved to be nonsense. They were the fig leaves that the Prime Minister brought back to try to cover his embarrassment and the divisions in the Conservative party, and everyone knows that they are not working. They are not worth a bucket of cold spit or the paper on which they happen to be written. Most sensible people understand that.
A multi-track Europe cannot avoid being a two-tier, first and second class Europe. That is exactly what will happen. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) summed it up. When France, Germany and the Benelux countries start to decide, we can either go with them or stand outside wringing our

571
hands. Those are our only options. We have lost our sovereignty, but we are not prepared to acknowledge it and try to do something about the institutions of the European Union, where we can claim back sovereignty through the international bodies.
Conservative Members talk about the European Union as if it were imposed on us from Mars. Throughout their speeches, they denigrate the directly elected, accountable European Parliament. We try weakly, stupidly and ineffectively to defend our fast-disappearing parliamentary sovereignty. At the same time, we refuse to allow the European Parliament the power to exercise democratic control and influence over European Union institutions. It is the French and the Germans that want to give more power to the democratically elected European Parliament. While we in this Parliament complain that we are losing our powers, we are not prepared to give any additional powers to the European Union to try to claim back democratic accountability over European Union institutions. It is self-defeating nonsense.
I have a specific request that I had hoped to make to the Minister. He is not here and I will have to address my remarks to the Whip, the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). I am sure that he will communicate them to the Minister. Can we use the IGC to secure a change in the treaty of Rome to give a new status to animals? At present, animals are classified as goods or agricultural products. If they were recognised as sentient beings, they could be accepted as living creatures capable of feeling pain and suffering. That change would enable us to extend animal welfare provisions throughout the European Union. Animal lovers and animal welfare movements want that. Will it be possible to get such changes at the IGC?
7.47 pm
Sir Terence Higgins: I welcome the White Paper, which, in its way, is an interesting and helpful document, but I join those who have complained, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), about the lack of time for debate. Several hon. Members have abandoned hope of being called. On the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), with television being relayed to Members' rooms, attendance has steadily declined. Members come up to one after a speech and say that they agreed or disagreed with it when the Chamber appeared to be empty.
I would have liked to have sufficient time to address in detail the points made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who, in a way, epitomised the arguments on a referendum. I can only refer hon. Members to column 702 of Hansard on 13 February 1995, when I sought to rebut his arguments.
As I have other matters to cover, I shall make only three brief points on a referendum. First, the position that the Government have taken hitherto—that the question of a single currency will not arise for a long time and that, while there may or may not be a case for a referendum, the issue can be appropriately addressed at that time—is entirely sensible. Although I am fundamentally opposed to referendums, I was prepared to go along with it. I hope that, following the consideration that Cabinet is giving to the issue, they none the less will maintain that commonsense point of view.
572
I disagree with the views of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. Fundamentally, we are in a representative democracy. A crucial element of that democracy is the right of our constituents to express to us their views on the single currency or anything else. They have every opportunity to do so, be it on an interview night, or whatever. It is then up to us, having heard all the arguments put to us and read those in the press, to weigh them up and vote accordingly on the extremely complex issue of the single currency. The referendum is the antithesis of that system of representative democracy.
Some European countries do not even have constituencies, let alone constituents. One can then see that there might be a case for holding a referendum. That is not the case here and it would be unfortunate if we were to opt for a referendum.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Terence Higgins: No. I have only 10 minutes.
I should like to pick up on one of the arguments used last week by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who is in favour of holding a referendum. It is inevitable that such a referendum would be preceded by a major campaign on the issue. The result cannot be binding on the House, because, at the end of the day, it will decide what happens, whatever the result of that referendum. The crucial point is that the result will be binding on the Government, who will have analysed carefully all the arguments, discussed them in great depth and put forward their case.
What happens if the result of the referendum goes against their views? If I understood my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham correctly, he suggested that the Government would simply have to accept the result of the referendum. That seems completely absurd. The Government could not campaign on one argument, lose the referendum and then say, "We have suddenly decided that all the arguments we put forward were wrong. We will change our mind." In the circumstances, the Government could do only one possible thing—resign. That is what would happen. Before opting for a referendum we need to consider carefully the implications. I could deploy other arguments against the use of the referendum, but I do not have time.
I should like to dwell on the single currency, about which I am extremely sceptical. I do not think a single currency will be introduced even across the existing European Union by the next general election, the one after that or even the one after that. What may happen is that a core currency will be created, effectively a deutschmark bloc. If a referendum were held, the relevant question would not be, "Do you want to join a single currency?" but, "Do you want to join a deutschmark bloc?" I am very doubtful whether it would be in the interests of this country to join such a bloc. It would create a situation in which the Union would cease to be a Union because in an essential respect there would be a difference between the inner core and the others. In that sense, the Union would be fragmented.
It is not just the single currency and the possible fragmentation of the Union that are dangerous, but the speed and passion with which other EU countries and this country are pushing forward on the convergence criteria.

573
The fundamental aim is to reduce Government deficits, and that policy is deflationary. What we are witnessing across Europe is a conspiracy to deflate. That policy has not been dictated by any normal reason of economic management given the state of the economic cycle in this country or another.
It appears that countries are determined to rush forward, according to a tight timetable, to meet a requirement to reduce their deficits. The welfare and unemployment implications would be extremely serious. That needs to be taken into account.
I noticed a short time ago that Mr. Lamfalussy, the president of the European Monetary Institute, was reported as rejecting
"the idea that Europe is heading for a recession that would jeopardise the European monetary union."
I believe that the drive for European monetary union is in danger of causing a Europe-wide recession. That is an extremely dangerous situation, which one should consider carefully.
The urge is to meet the criteria at a specific moment in time. The idea is that we will say, "Goodness, we have managed to meet the convergence criteria. 'Snap!' We will join." Total disregard will be paid to whether the country is in any sense in economic equilibrium. If a country joined the single currency, it would give up for all time the major means of adjusting for differential movements in prices and costs. That would have the consequence of endemic unemployment, and the need for subsidies across national boundaries within the Community. It may be that a country would be totally unconverged; all that it would have managed to achieve would be a false convergence at a particular moment in time.
If that happens and two or three countries or more were to join a single currency, the danger to the future economic prosperity of Europe would be great. Whatever the jargon—two-tier, two-speed—a drive towards a single currency would certainly not create a European Union. One would have the "ins" and the "outs". I believe it may be better to be out rather than in the inner core.
About four months ago, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research published a good report on that very problem in its journal. It is a complicated issue, and the idea that the public understands it is just not so. That is why any such decision on a single currency should be taken in the House of Commons. We need to analyse all the factors involved and, in particular, the Select Committees need to analyse them before we move forward on the single currency.
Many proposals in the White Paper deserve comment, but in the time available, I shall refer to one. On page 11, it proposes
"the automatic withdrawal of Commission proposals if not adopted within a certain deadline."
I am glad that Ministers have taken on board the importance of that point. The problem for British industry has not been that proposals become time-expired but that we implement them before anyone else does. That has a damaging effect on British industry. Not only do we often implement such proposals well before anyone else, but often in a more extreme form than that set down in the requirements. We should establish a system under which no directive becomes operational until all the countries are ready to sign up to it.
8.7 pm
Mr. Roger Berry: I am one of those who supports many European proposals. I support action to protect the environment, to tackle discrimination at work and to improve employment practices. I am, however, opposed to the deflationary economics of Maastricht. For some people that appears to be an odd position to take. There are those who think that, if one is pro-Europe, one must support the Maastricht road to the single currency. That is bit like saying that, if one appreciates stand-up comedy, one must like Bernard Manning. The opposite is the case. Such confusion often arises on European issues, not least because they represent a wide range of issues. I should like to deal specifically with the economic element of the debate.
Last week the Secretary of State said in his statement that the IGC will not consider economic matters. The White Paper has confirmed, however, that nothing is off the agenda. Recently, the President of the Commission, Jacques Santer, said that he would put forward a specific proposal at the meeting in Turin next week on how to use the savings from the common agricultural policy to support investment in Europe.
With respect to those right hon. and hon. Members who have already spoken, the one issue above all about which most people are concerned is that which affects them most directly—the crucial economic issue of unemployment and job insecurity. That is the issue on which people want Europe to deliver. That is the issue on which people will judge whether the European Union is doing useful things or doing unhelpful things.
In Europe, 18 million people are officially unemployed and many more are seeking paid employment but cannot secure it; more than half of those people are long-term unemployed—that is, they have been unemployed for more than 12 months; and 5 million people under the age of 25 are unemployed. All hon. Members would agree that unemployment is the most serious issue for the European Union and for its member states to address. Talk about some of the niceties of constitutional arrangements pales into insignificance when compared with the issue of what we in Europe are going to do about unemployment.
We cannot talk about political arrangements at the IGC without some kind of economic context. Unless we know clearly how economic policy in Europe will develop, we cannot sensibly determine the appropriate political institutions to deal with it. For example, the question whether there will be a single currency influences the kinds of political arrangements that we might wish to put in place. It is my view that the Maastricht road to a single currency is so deflationary and will increase unemployment so significantly in Europe that it will put the very existence of the European Union at risk, as other hon. Members have said.
There is a political cost involved with economic policy, as well as potential benefits. Therefore, for the IGC to say that it is simply going to talk about so-called political matters—and to leave the difficult economics of the single currency and of deflation or reflation off the agenda—is not very sensible. Unemployment is the European problem. I reject the view of those who suggest that there is little that national Governments can do to tackle unemployment—because there is a lot that national governments can do—but it is clear that there are European initiatives to create jobs that have significant advantages.

575
The case for co-ordinated reflation in Europe, given the high degree of economic integration, is overwhelming. That would be the most effective way of reducing unemployment. However, the tragedy is that, at the moment, the economic agenda on Europe is not co-ordinated reflation but is co-ordinated deflation. That is explicit in the Maastricht approach to a single currency. My complaint in this context is not that the fiscal constraints are arbitrary and they have no economic basis whatsoever—although both those statements are true—but that that package is, beyond a shadow of doubt, severely deflationary.
I am genuinely delighted that Conservative Members of Parliament—who on other occasions have not been too enthusiastic about demand management and who have not felt that macro-economic policy had a significant effect on jobs—are now, because they are opposed to Maastricht or opposed to Europe, saying that Maastricht is terrible because it is deflationary and that deflation creates unemployment. I think that they are right when they say that deflation creates unemployment, but I wish that they would apply that argument to Government economic policy in this country as well.
If we were to introduce a single currency in Europe, the Maastricht approach is a good example of how not to do it. If we were to go down the deflationary road to a single currency, if we were to reject—as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) indicated this afternoon—the notion of real convergence, and to simply concentrate on the Maastricht criteria, I have no doubt that the evidence that we are already seeing in Europe of increased social division, and of growing nationalism and racism, would be exacerbated. Unemployment is a breeding ground for social division and racism.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: So would be accession to the single currency.
Mr. Berry: Indeed.
There is much evidence that those parts of the European Union where unemployment is high are precisely the parts of the Union where extreme right political organisations are gaining electoral support. All hon. Members, not least given the history of Europe, should be mindful of the effect of inflicting deflationary economics on the European Community and of the impact that has in unemployment and social division. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that the Maastricht road to single currency could put the existence of the European Union in jeopardy.
We desperately need a new economic agenda for Europe, and we have to be clear that it cannot be the economic agenda as laid down in the Maastricht treaty. We must have an economic agenda that gives priority to jobs.
Mr. Dykes: I agree entirely with the hon. Member. Was it not a pity that the Delors plan for jobs, growth and employment was all too small and modest in terms of the investment money injected into the system because they were all worried about the existing deficit?
Mr. Berry: Yes, indeed. There is a delightful irony here that the Delors White Paper was put forward not least
576
because it was appreciated that the Maastricht strategy was deflationary. I hope that there are other Government Members who, like us in the Labour party, would support Delors-type programmes for economic expansion. That is the only effective way to tackle the problem of unemployment in Europe.
We desperately need the kinds of measures that were in the Delors White Paper. We need a European recovery fund that will invest in economic recovery. We need to develop trans-European networks, which Jacques Santer spoke about again yesterday. It is this kind of investment across Europe that will tackle the unemployment nightmare—it is a nightmare and it is a social disaster.
I very much regret that it appears that a lot of the talk at the IGC will not be about unemployment. Frankly, most of the talk will be about constitutional minutiae that most people in this country and in the rest of Europe will regard as not addressing their key problem: job insecurity.
8.16 pm
Mr. John Redwood: I welcome the aims of the Government's White Paper. Like the Government, I wish to see a partnership of nations, I believe that we have strong interests in Europe and I believe that we must influence it for the better. I wish us to be in Europe, to trade there, to have friends there, to co-operate where we can and where it is in our interests to do so. We are European—that is an accident of geography and a fact of history, and one with which we must live. We must influence Europe for the better.
Where I find the analysis of the White Paper less convincing is where the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would have us believe that the German Chancellor is now an advocate of just such a Europe of nations. That is a serious misreading of the German intentions. It is also a misreading of the intentions of the all-too-powerful Franco-German alliance, which is driving the federal scheme that is insisting that we go ever deeper into a federal union.
The German Chancellor wants a Europe with one passport, one anthem, one supreme court, one currency, one interest rate, one common foreign policy, one common defence policy, and one common home and justice policy. What is that if it is not one state called Europe with one government? I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government to take the Franco-German scheme very seriously.
I urge them to offer Europe a choice: to put Britain at the forefront of the debate, to say that Britain is going to offer Europe a better way—a way that works, a way that brings us more jobs, a way that brings us friendship and peace, and a way that does not intrude on our ways of life as individual nations—with our own languages, histories, cultures, flags and passports, of which we are rightly proud.
I understand why some people do not take France and Germany seriously. When we look for the arguments of substance that might support this historic task on which they are embarked, we find little there. Instead of big arguments and well thought through blueprints, we see a series of tired metaphors.

577
The latest tired metaphor telling us why we must go ever deeper into European Union is that of the bicycle. We are told that the 15 member states are all pedalling on the same bike. I do not understand why we cannot each afford our own bike and go cycling together when we wish. We are told that, if we do not carry on pedalling, we shall fall off and that would be a disaster.
I confess I do not cycle very much these days, but I do remember a little about bicycling, and when I wanted to pause or stop pedalling, all I did was put my foot down. I urge the Government now to put their foot down in Europe and say that we do not have to pedal restlessly in the way that our partners are saying. It is time we offered Europe the chance to go to the pub, have a drink, rest and enjoy the club.
I do not want to belong to a club where all we do is discuss the club rules. I want us to be in a club where we trade together, we are friends together and we do things together when we feel like it, but we do not have to closet ourselves in darkened rooms and argue the toss about how many more rules we shall change and be told that we are bad boys in the club if we do not consent to all those rule changes.
The big issue, which has rightly been highlighted in this debate, concerns the powers of the European Court of Justice—a little-loved institution in a faraway place, whose powers have become excessive and whose powers now need to be cut back if this high court of Parliament is to do its job and is to speak for the British people. I do not urge my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government to do anything that the German state has not already done, but I do urge them to take immediate action to roll back the excessive powers of the ECJ.
The German Federal Constitutional Court has said that there are occasions when things that the ECJ does are against the German constitution. It rules accordingly, and German law will prevail.
We have the advantage of an unwritten constitution; a constitution fashioned over many centuries through struggles and debates; a constitution that does uphold the liberties of the British people, because they elect Members to this place and we speak for them unless and until they decide that we no longer speak well enough, in which case they choose other representatives. That is what we must do in this case; we must assert the right of Parliament above the European Court where that court conflicts with our constitution.
Two clear constitutional principles of the United Kingdom are these. First, we believe that an Act of Parliament is sovereign; the only thing that can change an Act of Parliament is another Act of Parliament or an amendment or repeal of that Act of Parliament. So by what right does the European Court overturn an Act of Parliament, and when will this great Parliament assert its right that those Acts will be supreme? By all means let the ECJ advise us if it believes that one of our Acts is ill-judged; by all means let us debate that or vote again on it, but we should not let the ECJ have the right to overturn an Act of Parliament.
The second constitutional principle that we hold dear is that the House does not usually invent a new law applying five or 10 years ago and then condemn people for not obeying it. That, however, is exactly what the European Court of Justice is now doing—changing the law that prevailed some years ago and then imposing compensation on us.
578
If we look in our constitutional history, we shall see that there have been occasions when this High Court of Parliament has had to assert our rights. There has been a direct parallel with the question of a foreign court. In 1533, this Parliament passed an Act that meant that the Roman courts no longer had jurisdiction in England and Wales. That was a bold move. It did, I confess, result in a papal bull. I am delighted that our predecessors were not scared of that papal bull. I am delighted that they took that papal bull by the horns and as a result created our sovereign jurisprudence through our court system in this country.
There is another parallel for what is going on in the case of compensation for Spanish fishermen. It is almost unbelievable—it is a sketch that Jeffrey Archer would never have dared to write—that a European court can now say not merely that Spanish fishing boats can come and plunder our waters, but that those boats that did not come and plunder our waters should then have money from British taxpayers.
In the 1630s, this Parliament had to assert its right against the Crown when the Crown tried to levy ship money when it was not approved by Parliament. The European Court is now trying to levy its own type of ship money on the British people, and this Parliament must say no. The Government must take action; the Government must assert our constitutional rights.
The issue of the single currency has been much debated, although, as the Government point out, it is not yet formally part of the agenda of the conference. I am quite sure that, either at the conference or in parallel, it will be a very important item discussed with our partners. It will be important because the Madrid conclusions left the single currency in an uncertain position. We are told that the ecu is to be abolished and the euro is to be invented, but many loose ends have been left, which business men and the markets need tied up or answered quickly.
I am certain that the European Community will have to introduce new legislation—indeed, it should undertake treaty amendment—to make the euro legal. It is by no means clear that it is possible, simply by agreement among the member states without formal treaty amendment, to move from the ecu, a currency which exists in the form of bank accounts and bond instruments and which has a quoted value, to the euro, a currency which does not exist at all and whose composition or characteristics will be determined at a later date by people as yet unknown, and certainly unelected. I therefore trust that our Government will say no to the automatic transfer from ecu to euro and will insist on the strict interpretation of the Maastricht treaty for the progress to monetary union.
It will come as no surprise to Members of the House to know that I am not entirely enamoured of the idea of the single currency anyway, but I believe that Britain's contribution to the debate, for our partners' sake, should be to say that those treaty conditions were well meant at the time but that they are the bare minimum that should be insisted on to give any participating economy or currency a chance of getting it right or making progress. We should strengthen the position by saying to our partners and friends in Europe that, if we were they, we should have more restrictions than the treaty suggests.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
8.26 pm
Mr. Stuart Randall: I have a feeling that tonight's debate and this period in our parliamentary history will be remembered as a dark age of nationalism. We have heard many speeches tonight, and it is frightening that there is still such strong nationalistic feeling in the country.
The people of this country are not as Euro-sceptic as the press—certainly this Parliament—suggests. Last week, when I spoke at a townswomen's guilds conference in Sheffield, we conducted a poll, whose results accurately mirrored those of national polls. It showed that people are not Euro-sceptic. They feel ignorant about Europe and its future development but, most important, they want to learn about Europe.
This debate, the White Paper and the IGC are all about change. We have been going through the change from empire to Commonwealth and from Commonwealth to Europe. That is the path we are on. In addition, we have been experiencing an immense change in our industrial, commercial and economic structures.
The word "globalisation" was used several times earlier. Before I came to the House, I was in business and industry for 25 years. I have witnessed some of those developments, and they are extraordinary. Businesses are restructuring in Europe at a high rate. They do not even recognise national boundaries any more. We must follow the example of the banking industry, trade associations and trade unions, which, like other institutions, are becoming global. The governance of Europe must become global—I cannot conceive of its being out of touch with current economic structures and developments.
In addition to those changes—which I believe we must address as politicians—there is the matter of peace, because peace and prosperity go hand in hand. There is a great prize to be gained from European union and co-operation. In the next 10 years, I believe that we shall see the European Union develop into the most powerful bloc in the world. It will be probably twice the size of America, and I believe that the World bank will be forced to relocate from that country to Europe.
We have no alternative but to respond to the irresistible globalising forces. The Government have prepared a White Paper for the Turin intergovernmental conference which I would call a standstill paper: it does nothing other than bind the Conservative party together. I do not believe for a moment—I am not pleased to say it—that the paper will be taken seriously by our fellow European Union members.
The Foreign Secretary referred today to the strong link between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government, but I do not believe that it exists. Hours after the White Paper was published, the French Prime Minister, Alain Juppé, attended a conference in Paris and told the 40 right-wing parties in attendance that he expected to see a two-speed Europe that was dominated by a restricted circle of member states who supported the French-German position on future directions and developments in Europe. He raised the same point in the French National Assembly, where France's policy enjoys a broad consensus.
The paradox is that the French and German position presents the Government with two options: either they must move away from their static position as stated in the White Paper or they must become more progressive.
580
If they do not do that, the Government will be left behind in a two-speed Europe. I cannot conceive how that would be in the national interest, and I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government do not want that to occur.
I want Britain to take the lead in the IGC. We have heard about the relationship between France and Germany; I believe that we should get in between and play a stronger role in the interests of Europe and of this nation. Germany's prime concern is to set in concrete the timetable for a single currency. Germany is facing rising unemployment—the figure is approaching 5 million—and Helmut Kohl views the single currency, which will bring great benefits, as a way of reducing unemployment considerably: there is talk of a 2 million decrease by the end of the decade. The deutschmark is a haven for speculators, which increases its value and makes it difficult for Germany to export easily.
I want to raise a few points about the single currency in the short time left. I believe that the single market—the relevant legislation was introduced by the Conservative Government in 1986—has proved very successful. The growth rates are quite staggering. In 1992 the growth rate was 6 per cent.—I have only rough figures—the year after it was 9 or 10 per cent., and now it is 16 per cent. I refer hon. Members to the survey conducted by Andersen Consulting, which found immense support for the single currency in the business community. They are the people who will generate the growth in this country to finance our social policy. The funding of social policies is a key issue for all western Governments—it was the cause of the unrest in France in December.
As to making the EU work better, we must address the problem of ignorance and ensure that people are far more informed about and involved in the process. That did not occur with Maastricht. I believe that the European institutions should work better and that the Commission should become more accountable. I am happy for more powers to go to the European Parliament. We need to work on the Council of Ministers, but I believe that there is a joint role for the European and national Parliaments.
The IGC must address the jobs issue and I ask the Minister to respond on that point. In the next three years, the common agricultural policy will produce a surplus of £3.6 billion as a result of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, steps taken by the EU and world prices. Will the Minister suggest to the IGC that that money should be spent creating jobs rather than funding tax cuts?
8.36 pm
Mr. Michael Carttiss: I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). The White Paper devotes only 11 lines to the common fisheries policy. As the only Conservative Member who voted in December against accepting the European Commission's quota document—the Government lost that vote—I believe that it will be no surprise to hon. Members to learn that, although I wish to talk about a number of issues in the White Paper, I shall focus upon those lines in the document about quota hopping.
The White Paper states:
"'Quota-hopping' has been a particular problem, not least because it prevents fishing communities from enjoying a secure benefit from national quotas, thereby undermining the whole intention of the quotas".

581
Hon. Members referred to that statement earlier in the debate, and I agree with it 100 per cent. It concludes:
"If Treaty changes are needed, we shall seek them".
What does it mean by that? Of course the treaty should be changed in order to reform the common fisheries policy. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was reduced—perhaps that is not a very nice word to use—to the level of the average saloon bar commentator—perhaps such commentators would not like me to use the word "reduced" either—when he described the decision of the European Court of Justice on the Spanish quota hoppers as "ludicrous". What will the Prime Minister do about it? What can he do, unless there are changes to the treaty?
The White Paper is deficient in several respects, but particularly when it says:
"If Treaty changes are needed, we shall seek them".
Those changes must occur. It is not simply a matter for the European Court of Justice. Many hon. Members have referred to that body, and the Government have stated their intention to seek some changes to it. If they succeed, I am sure that those changes would be very welcome.
I do not agree with some of my Eurosceptic colleagues who suggest that the decisions of the European Court of Justice should be ignored in this country.
No one can stand up in this Parliament and suggest that we should ignore laws that have been implemented as a result of international obligations into which we have entered. This Parliament, however, should decide that the treaties and our laws must be changed to enable us to avoid implementing decisions that we find have not been reached in accordance with what has been determined by the Council of Ministers. That is the point at issue, as the Minister of State knows only too well.
An hon. Member said that he did not take this White Paper seriously.
Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: Is it not correct that the people of this country should be governed by laws passed in this House, the other place and the Queen in Council? If the European Court's laws infringe on those laws, the sovereignty of Parliament should take precedence.
Mr. Carttiss: As I said, that is a matter that we must deal with in making changes in the treaties that have imposed those responsibilities on us. People talk as if the European Court of Justice existed of its own accord, but hon. Members have agreed in this Parliament to its jurisdiction. We are now discovering that the court is interpreting its jurisdiction in a manner that we never thought it would. That issue needs to be debated at length, but, at the end of it, I do not think that my hon. Friend and I would find ourselves far apart on the issues.
It is not for this Parliament to connive and acquiesce in a decision to let the European Court of Justice continue but to ignore its decisions. We must take action, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) said, by passing a one-line Bill to change it.
Let us not forget the European Commission's adjudication on how the other European countries have failed to implement the fisheries policy. The European Commission report on fisheries policy says that Spain
"does not yet appear capable of meeting the challenges it should and will face in terms of enforcement."
582
The monitoring of trawlers and catch sizes presents
"considerable long-running difficulties"
and direct checks on catches
"have not always been Spain's strong point."
The report says of France:
"Strict enforcement of community rules is not perceived to be a priority of all the agencies involved."
Reporting on Greece and Italy's application of the fishing policy, the European Commission said that they do not appear to have
"fully integrated into the control system".
This country is held up as the one that obeys the rules according to the standards of the European Commission.
What will the Government do in Turin to address those problems? I have no confidence in statements in the report that seek to identify a problem and then say:
"If Treaty changes are needed, we shall seek them."
Treaty changes are needed, and they must be sought.
There has been a lot of depression on this side of the House, and also among Opposition Members who do not share the view that we want an integrated Europe. The depression is related to the power of Germany and France.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that the French Government do not want to limit the powers of the European Parliament, but my understanding is that they are quite unequivocal in joining the British Government in limiting the powers of the European Parliament, letting it deal with the Commission, and preventing it from interfering with matters that should be dealt with in national Parliaments. I agree with the Government on that matter, and I have been convinced by my friends in the Gaullist party—who campaigned to vote no to Maastricht, incidentally—that France takes the same line on that issue as we do.
I am not too depressed, because, although we must not express an opinion on an election in a friendly country—but the European Union is becoming more integrated, and the partnership of our countries is becoming stronger—I feel able to express a view on the outcome of elections in member states, and to campaign in those countries for the election of candidates who hold views about their country's position in Europe that are similar to my views about the United Kingdom's position.
I look forward very much to the success of Mr. Lafontaine's Social Democrat party this weekend, when a quarter of the German population vote in regional elections. It appears that Mr. Lafontaine's party has captured a strain of opinion by which people are increasingly sceptical of the single currency, and Chancellor Kohl's determination to integrate us all in his vision of Europe. He is entitled to his opinion. He is entitled to express the view that Germany's future will be better—in terms of controlling the elements that in past times have been a focus for nationalism—if they are integrated into Europe.
That has not been our problem. We have not had the problem of a nationalism that has dictated that we go to war with our neighbours, but we are being told what to do by Brussels. We now have to show speed limits in kilometres, for example, on the Norfolk broads. That should not matter to Brussels. There are a hundred and one matters on which we ought not to be told what to do by Europe, but this Government slavishly follow those directions.

583
I think it was the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) who said that there is not much difference between Ministers and Labour Front Benchers. To me, there is not enough difference between hon. Members sitting on the two Front Benches.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): No, it was not him.
Mr. Carttiss: He did not? My time is up, so I cannot pursue that point. I wish the Government well in their endeavours, but I look for more action and less rhetoric when they get to Turin.
8.46 pm
Mr. Ray Whitney: I shall not pursue the thoughts of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss), except to say that I hope that he will spare a thought, in his enthusiasm for taking part in elections in other European countries, for the prospects of a certain Anglo-French billionaire who is taking an active interest in our politics.
I welcome the thrust of the White Paper, particularly the Prime Minister's forward, in which he reminds us that the United Kingdom has to be
"at the heart of the debate".
In paragraph 11, we are told:
"The United Kingdom's role as a leading member of the European Union is vital to our national interests."
We are then told—it is very important for some hon. Members on both sides of the House:
"If we were to press ideas which stand no chance of general acceptance, some others would seek to impose an integrationist agenda which would be equally unacceptable from our point of view. We would do better, therefore, to concentrate on achieving sensible amendments in the areas which have been identified for review."
I think that that is extremely important, and I hope that my hon. Friends, in particular, will bear that admirable objective in mind.
Finally, just to mention the remaining bones of the White Paper that I think deserve approval, we are reminded that the IGC is
"expected to last many months. It would plainly be wrong in such an exercise for any Government to tie its hands rigidly at the outset. Rather, we shall form a considered view, as the negotiations progress, of what outcome would best serve the overall interests of the United Kingdom."
That "considered view" causes concern to those of us who are conscious that Britain must play a constructive part in Europe, because considered views—the cold, honest intellectual approach to this issue—have, sadly, for two or three years been singularly absent from our debates.
Those of us who are old stagers feel that this matter is like a classical Japanese Noh play, in which we all play our symbolic roles. Several of my hon. Friends and I play a symbolic role as the voice of reason and moderation, while the voice we hear from below the gangway is, sadly, not a clear one.
In politics, it is important to use words frankly and honestly. To me and to most people, the word "sceptic" implies doubt, uncertainty and questioning. From what we
584
have heard today and from similar previous jousts, there seems to be no doubt at all, only a determination that Europe is not for us. Of course, I reject that point of view. The vast majority of hon. Members reject it, and I believe that the vast majority of the population will reject it, as and when and if it is put to them fairly. I ask my colleagues to face up to the implications of what they are saying.
I am sure that it was inadvertent, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) misled the House on at least one point, if not many more. He referred to the speech made by Chancellor Kohl of West Germany at the university of Louvain on 2 February. My right hon. Friend quoted the Chancellor as saying:
"the day of the nation state is over."
I searched through the English text—I do not have the German text, and my German is not that good—but there is nothing in the statement that coincides in any way with the quotation attributed to the Chancellor by my right hon. Friend.
In fact, the German Chancellor, according to the English translation—said:
"No one wants a centralised superstate. It does not and never will exist."
We might not believe what Chancellor Kohl says, but he says it in virtually every speech he makes. He is deeply conscious of the dangers of nationalism—who should not and would not be?
Chancellor Kohl has a point when he says that we should not take it for granted that the peace that has obtained in Europe for 50 years will last for ever. The example of Yugoslavia ought to remind us of the potential dangers. We too glibly accept the wonderful blessing that we have enjoyed since 1945 and, increasingly, since the European Community was created.
There are many points at which German and British interests coincide. Likewise, there are points at which French and British interests coincide. My right hon. and learned Friend the foreign Secretary and others referred to what Alain Juppe said. They said that it represented only one French position and that it could change, but the point is that, essentially, the French approach in many important spheres coincides with the instinctive British approach.
For example, in his speech last week, Mr. Jupp6 emphasised that the nation state was the basis on which the European Union should proceed. That coincides entirely with the title of the White Paper, "A Partnership of Nations". I therefore appeal to the anti-Europeans—not the Euro-sceptics—to have much more courage. There are many more points of view on the continent of Europe which echo and respond to our natural instincts than they seem to believe. That is certainly the case in the newer member countries such as Sweden. My message to the anti-Europeans is, "Trust yourselves, and trust us."
Buried just under the surface of what the right hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), and what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), said is a fear of Germany and a belief that we can never live with Germany, never look it in the eye and never compete with it, and that only by devaluation can we live in the same ball park. I reject that, and our economic success over the past 10 or 15 years shows that we can have faith in ourselves.

585
There is work to be done, and there are huge gains to be made. For centuries, the essence of Europe has been, and it will continue to be, the balance between the three nations of Germany, France and Britain. Who could deny that there is a collaboration between Germany and France, but, if we have enough faith and belief in ourselves, the British can get in the ring. There will be times when Bonn or Berlin and London are together, and there will be times when London and Paris are together, but we can and should be involved. We owe it to our people to be there. The Prime Minister was right to say:
"The United Kingdom has to be at the heart of the debate".
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham made a powerful but deeply misguided speech as far as the question of a single currency is concerned. Everyone knows that the decision on a single currency is not to be taken yet. We can argue about whether it will be taken in two years or five years, although I think that it will be sooner rather than later. We do not have to take the decision yet, but we have to stay in the ring so that British interests are protected.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham told the Daily Mail that there will be a
".£10 billion tax bill for a single currency".
That claim is wholly unjustified by any studies that have been undertaken, because the savings to the European nations as a whole will be in the order of $20 billion or $30 billion, and we shall benefit from lower interest rates. Above all, our own currency will not be vulnerable to raids from Mr. George Soros and other international financiers. Such stability will be of enormous benefit to our nation.
I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak, and I am grateful for having had the opportunity to do so. Let us have done with the painful two years of sloganising—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.
8.56 pm
Mr. Denis MacShane: This debate has been marked by perhaps the worst outburst of nationalism—from both sides of the House, let it be said—that I have heard in my two years as a Member of Parliament. It is a reflection of the tone set, alas, by the Government. If one reads the White Paper carefully, the verb that continually springs from the page is "oppose". If we are to play any part in any international body, a responsible British Government must have a positive, constructive agenda to offer. But, in a sense, a country that faces the problems that Britain faces—unemployment, social exclusion and great insecurity in so many sectors of its society and economy—will always produce that tinge of xenophobic or nationalist reaction. It has existed for hundreds of years. Daniel Defoe acknowledged it at the beginning of the 18th century when he said:
"These are the Heroes who despise the Dutch, And rail at new-come Foreigners so much."
Exactly that language, from 300 years ago, is to be heard from Conservative Members today.
The problem that Britain faces is that it is not ready to acknowledge fully the modernisation that its institutions, economy and society require. The only positive
586
suggestion that I could find in the entire White Paper was that of a clause that would enhance protection for animals. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is not in his place, but I support his suggestion that we should have more protection for animals in any future European treaty. I would also like—and I am clear about this—more protection for workers. The 20 million unemployed, who have had hardly a look-in in this debate, need some consideration. If Britain in the past 15 years had been a model country for employment, social justice and economic growth, the anti-Europeans would have a better case, but they and their ex-Ministers have presided over so much wanton destruction and have caused discord and disharmony in our society.
I was pleased that we heard the beginning of some honesty today. The right hon. Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken), when he greeted the Foreign Secretary's White Paper last week, used the "W" word—withdrawal. I also detected at the end of the speech of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) the suggestion that he thought that other arrangements might have to be made. I would respect those who are anti-European if they came out of the closet and said, "Let's get out of Europe." They would find some elderly support—rhetorical and powerfully vocal support—from two or three Labour Members. That case can be made and I can make it intellectually, but I would like the British people to judge it. I invite the Europhobes and xenophobes on the Conservative Benches to make that case much more clearly.
The only four-letter word in the White Paper is "veto". A foreign policy based on a veto is not a foreign policy worthy of Britain or likely to have any real impact in international affairs. Last September, the Foreign Secretary made a speech at Chatham house to the Royal Institute of International Affairs. He said:
"occasionally, it may be appropriate to accept a loss of influence if that is the only way we can protect our interests".
That is a new doctrine emerging from the Foreign Office. In the past, the task of a Foreign Secretary was to protect British influence and safeguard British interests. Indeed, the one followed consequentially from the other. A loss of influence meant a threat to British interests. If that doctrine, which I believe still holds true, is now overturned by the Administration, we need a new Foreign Secretary able to restore British influence and to protect British interests in Europe and in the heart of the world.
Germany has been the Banquo of the debate tonight. I am concerned because I know Germany. I like the country and its people, and I know something of its history. If that new super-nation state—with a gross domestic product twice that of Britain's and a population 20 per cent. bigger, with its satellite states and its maquiladoras in the cheap-labour countries to the east—is not fully integrated with Britain, France and the other member states of the European Union, it will go it alone. Germany is a democracy and the men who write about the fourth Reich in The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail should be ashamed of themselves. But Germany is also a nation state with its own economic, trade and foreign policy and, in due course, may have its own defence policy. I put it to the House that a state of that size and power, alone and disconnected in Europe, would be a danger.

587
British interest for 300 or 400 years has been based on having a stake in Europe. We have called it a balance of power. After 1815, we had a concert of nations and we have had other alliances. But we have never isolated ourselves from Europe—except, of course, in the 1920s and 1930s, and the descendants of those Tory politics of isolationism are, alas, growing in strength in the Conservative party today. That is why I feel passionately about this issue. The new isolationism is just another form of political protectionism, and there is one ineluctable consequence of political protectionism: economic protectionism.
There are voices in Europe saying that Britain is simply an offshore assembly plant for Japanese and Asian goods made by companies which come here thanks to our devalued pound, our very low wages and our nine laws which have taken away trade union rights. Why, those voices ask, should their jobs and economic interests be threatened? In the past two weeks, Korean and Taiwanese plants have opened in my constituency—I am glad of that connection between Rotherham and Asia—and those plants are there to sell to Europe.
Britain is continually obstructive and negative and has nothing constructive to offer Europe. I enjoyed the speeches of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) and the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), but the dominant voice in the Conservative party continues to be that of nationalism and anti-Europeanism.
It is not so much a question of Britain's role in Europe as of Europe's impact and influence on Britain. Let those who want to cut this country off from Europe come out and say so. Let them have the intellectual honesty to advance their arguments. I believe that they are wrong. The British people will think they are wrong, too, while remaining profoundly British and proud of this Parliament. They know, however, that it is only by pooling, co-operating and sharing sovereignty, economies and the rule of law that we shall secure justice and jobs and safeguard democracy for people here and on the rest of the continent.
9.6 pm
Mr. Michael Lord: It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) talking about Conservative extremists since he is clearly a man of great extremes himself. He seems to think that one can only be either a federalist or in favour of leaving Europe all together. Federalism was implicit in everything he said; he agreed with the two Conservative speakers who agree with him.
There is another course between the two extremes. There is no doubt that what I would call the European experiment is failing and beginning to disintegrate. Its total disintegration may not be far away. That does not surprise me, as one who campaigned and voted against Europe in 1975. I did not understand in those days how there could be one set of rules for so many different nations, temperaments, cultures and climates. So I shall not be surprised if the experiment does not ultimately succeed.
The question really is how Europe will change. If it is going to break up, will it break up chaotically or in an orderly fashion? The great difficulty is in persuading the
588
people who are determined to press on towards a federal Europe that the game is finally up. Until now, this country and this Government have not quite known how to cope with Europe. We have tried a war of attrition to get our way; at other times we have been like Mr. Micawber, hoping that something would turn up.
The problem is hugely exacerbated by the fact that while we talk about reining in some of the European institutions and about subsidiarity, the truth is that the whole mad machine of federalism is grinding on as fast as ever. We really must distinguish between fact and fantasy, between reality and wishful thinking, between what we would like Europe to look like and what is actually happening to our constituents.
The common fisheries policy is a running sore. The common agricultural policy makes less sense every day. Only last week we learned that 2.5 million tonnes of fresh vegetables had been destroyed to keep prices artificially high. In our constituencies our work is continually frustrated by the interventions of Brussels. Nitrate-vulnerable zones are being forced on my farmers by a Brussels directive, although I do not have time to go into that this evening. Heavy goods vehicle drivers who wear glasses are told that they must lose their licences. I was amazed to get a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London—if anyone would call a spade a shovel, he would—telling me that the effect of this measure has been somewhat overestimated and that it will cost only 3,000 jobs.
The House might be interested to hear that I tabled a question the other day to my hon. Friend the Minister who is on the Front Bench tonight. I said to him, "You would think, would you not, that the countries which normally have embassies or missions in different countries would be nation states." I asked him how many embassies and missions the European Union had established to date. The House will be intrigued to know that the European Union has established 118 embassies or missions throughout the world. I have the list here, which I shall read into Hansard. From Bangladesh to Barbados, from Brazil to Cape Verde, on and on it goes, and it costs about £151 million a year—about £60 million in salaries and about £90 million in non-staff-related costs.
If that is not evidence of an organisation that believes that it is already a state, I do not know what is. I do not know who sanctioned all those embassies and all that spending. I trust that it was not my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, whose views I suspect are not far removed from my own, and who I am sure will find it difficult to respond to today's debate in the way that I would wish.
More seriously, Chancellor Kohl warns of war if he does not get his own way. Yet most people now know that his federal dream is as dead as the dodo. Most people in this country are fed up to the back teeth with European interference. The challenge is to decide where we go now. The question, "If you don't want a federal Europe, what kind of Europe do you want?" is fair, and we should address it.
I welcome the White Paper, although I do not think that it goes far enough. I believe that it is an opportunity missed. I believe that the United Kingdom should now take the lead and spell out the Europe that we want for the future. There is no time for me to deal with all of that tonight, even if I knew all the answers—which I do not.

589
Many suggestions have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for South Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) talked about the European research group and its ideas. Opposition Members talked about the Council of Europe with variations. I believe that there is a way to share trade and to have a common market without binding ourselves politically in the way in which we are starting to do.
Hon. Members will agree that calls in their constituencies for total withdrawal are growing. If those calls are not to become irresistible, we have to do something about it. We talk about being at the heart of Europe, but this country has never been at the heart of Europe in the way in which some people mean. We have always been on the fringe, not just geographically but in other ways. Caring for Europe? Yes. I am very anxious for its future. In a sense, we are looking after it. We have had to help it from time to time. I do not believe that we are part of Europe in the way in which some people pretend, but this is a golden opportunity, from our relatively separate position, to take a lead and to say that this is the way in which we should go—not federal, not out, but a new way with which we can all be comfortable.
I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I agreed with every word that he said about our responsibilities to our constituents and how important—I believe that it is almost sacred—that relationship is and how it cannot be given away without a referendum to ask the people whether that is the right thing to do.
Hon. Members say that we cannot do this or we cannot do that because the issues are hugely complex. I have come to the conclusion that almost all the great issues that the House faces are probably very simple at the end of the day, but we make them complicated, I suspect, simply because we do not want—or do not have the courage—to face them. This issue is all about the sovereignty of the House of Commons, about who governs this country and about the role that Back Benchers play on behalf of the constituents whom we look after.
As other hon. Members have said, I believe that it is high time, in whatever form, that the House of Commons reasserted its authority and right to look after the people of this country. If that means that we have to tackle the European institutions head on in a tough but fair way, I hope that we shall have the courage to do so.
9.14 pm
Mr. kin Duncan Smith: I did not expect to speak in the debate, and I assure both Front-Bench spokesmen that I will stick to the agreed time. I have only a few points to make.
The debate is supposed to be about the White Paper, but much of it has involved not the White Paper but the bandying of prejudices across the Chamber. One example is the speech of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), whose speeches I normally enjoy—but I shall not be tempted to follow him.
I welcome the principle of producing a White Paper. I think that those who say, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) that the White Paper was a mistake are wrong. After all, what is democracy if it is not discussing what Governments plan, and then discussing what they do after attempting to implement their plans? I congratulate the Government on seeing this through.
590
Although I enjoyed the main rhetorical thrust of the White Paper, however, I feel that what is not in it may be more important than what is. The section dealing with home affairs includes a lengthy restatement of the intergovernmentalism that was supposedly established by the Maastricht treaty. The Government set great store by that, but nothing in the White Paper leads me to believe that the border controls declaration of exemption from the Single European Act will be sorted out and bound into the treaty at the intergovernmental conference to give it some force of law.
I think that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept that that is vital, given some of the propositions advanced by the European Parliament and even the Commission in connection with getting rid of the declaration. Perhaps, as the White Paper suggests, we fear that our proposal would
"stand no chance of … acceptance".
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to stand a bit straighter, and to approach the IGC with determination.
As for foreign affairs, we have again stressed the intergovernmentalism of the whole approach; yet quietly, almost subliminally, we are told that there is to be a spokesman on European common foreign policy. I understand why the Germans might ask for that: their position has been clear and explicit. I only ask why we have agreed to it. It strikes me as yet another ratchet towards the institutions gaining control over much of the decision-making. Why have we gone first in one direction and then in another?
The fishing issue is interesting. We have had a big row about that, and much concern was caused by the judgment of the European Court. Incidentally, I do not know why hon. Members were surprised; we have known that the judgment was on its way for the past few years. We say that we will adopt a robust stance—that we will take on our partners—but we do not say what we will do if they tell us that they do not agree with us. It seems that we are not going to send a message saying that we mean business, although I suspect that France and Germany might do just that.
Why do we not enact a two-clause Bill restating the position, and stating our belief that the judgment will lead to a waste of taxpayers' money? Why do we not say that we are politically determined to sort the matter out at the IGC but that, until then, the European Court should not implement its judgment under direct applicability, because the matter is political and we will deal with it politically? Such a message would be understood by the Germans and the French, and respected, because they understand the force of argument backed up by their own institutions.
The White Paper does not deal properly with two important issues. The first is the whole issue of European law and the European Court of Justice, which runs through the body of the European Union like a backbone. The second, which hangs there like a shadow, is the issue of European currency union and the eventual single currency. It is strange that a White Paper presenting a Government position for which we hoped does not specify the Government's real approach, or set out what they hope for in regard to the rest of Europe, which will be advanced at the IGC. We are often accused of standing back or of being negative, but we have an opportunity to be positive and to say that there is an alternative to what is clearly not working. If we do not take that opportunity, we shall have wasted it.

591
The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), as always, set out the position fluently and clearly with regard to the European Court of Justice and I commend him for that. I made a similar speech on 24 March 1993 and on 20 January 1993, in which I pointed out that the social chapter opt-out was non-existent because the treaty contains all the social chapter provisions to implement everything that the European Court would wish. Right hon. and hon. Members have been surprised at the recent decision on the working time directive, but I am not surprised, because that is an inevitable progression. The court will always find in that direction.
We ask ourselves what we can do about it and we seem to agree, somehow, that we can resolve this matter at the IGC. Yet as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) said, we gave the European Court the powers. We agreed the competences under successive treaty amendments, so we have acquiesced in that. We should not be surprised about it, but we should understand it. The court legislates on the move—we accepted that fact when we joined in 1972—and it is political because it takes a view on the political intentions of treaties and their amendments. It will always let one phrase ride when there is doubt: ever closer union between the peoples of Europe. It will always read things in that direction.
We cannot deal with that by saying simply that we will take the court on or ignore its judgments. We should not ignore them: if we believe in the rule of law, that would be wrong. We are saying that Parliament should reassert its position with regard to this country's courts and to the way in which divisional courts strike down Acts of Parliament without even a referral to the court. We need an Act of Parliament.
Most of all, clearly, if we pass to the European Union competences on which the European Court of Justice will rule, what are we to expect? It will rule on them and widen the breadth of its rulings. The only answer, therefore, is to withdraw those competences so that the court will not be able make such rulings, It is quite simple, but it will take a heck of an amount of political will from Ministers at the IGC. I wish them luck. Without the will, there will be no scope to curtail the court's powers.
The single currency issue hangs over us. Unemployment is rising across Europe because of the timetabled drive towards currency union. Chancellor Kohl is a man in a hurry and with a view of his destiny. His own bank and people do not agree with him, but he does not care, because he has a dream and a vision and we must all march to that vision. In the wake of that vision, however, will come the one thing that he seeks to avoid: the destruction and chaos caused by the kind of government that he experienced in his country.
He is about to create that here. He will set nations against nations. Germany will be unnecessarily criticised roundly in all the various conferences and discussions. We have heard many such criticisms tonight. I do not fear Germany and I wish that it would not fear itself, but I recognise that it is powerful. We must deal with it, but we will not do so according to Chancellor Kohl's agenda, because that will lead only to fear and unhappiness.
I welcome the White Paper's rhetoric, but we must take to the Counsels of Europe a clear British agenda for a looser, more free market approach to Europe. Europe
592
must recognise that the global network of trade is already breaking external European barriers. We insist on having agreements and regulations in certain areas, but we do not wish them to be extended. If we wish Europe to succeed—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Ms Joyce Quin.
9.24 pm
Ms Joyce Quin: For many hon. Members on both sides of the House, this has been a frustrating debate—in particular because of the lack of time available to discuss the many issues that are raised in the Government's White Paper and that are likely to be raised at the intergovernmental conference. Sadly, an already short day was curtailed even further by the admittedly important Government statement on Northern Ireland. I strongly regret the Government's retreat behind the device of an Adjournment debate to avoid dealing with a substantive motion. However, we will seek and, I hope, win other opportunities to bring these matters before the House so that a vote can be taken on the issues.
I want to puncture one myth that Ministers frequently peddle, including the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), who will reply to the debate. He has claimed that Labour is criticising the Government's White Paper because it does not have any ideas of its own. However, as he should be prepared to admit—and as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—Labour published a White Paper on the issues many months ago and it has been unanimously adopted. It contains many details that I commend to Conservative Members. It is even in a white cover, unlike the Government's White Paper which, intriguingly, alone among European countries has Britain coloured red on the front cover—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends think that it is a sign of things to come.
This is our second debate on the Government's White Paper because the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) introduced an Adjournment debate on it last Wednesday. The Minister made a rather odd statement when he replied to that debate, which he might be able to explain tonight. First, he said:
"Labour policy is partly a lame shadowing of our policy when the Labour party is too afraid to have a view of its own."
I punctured that claim by pointing to Labour's White Paper. However, the hon. Gentleman then said:
"It is a pathetic wriggling on hooks that the Labour leader has impaled the hon. Lady on in moments of Europhoria."—[Official Report, 13 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 914–15.]
I am not sure what on earth that means, but I am sure that we cannot be following Government policy on the one hand and being impaled on various hooks of Europhoria on the other. Perhaps the Minister will explain his mysterious remarks.
What is clear from this debate and from the White Paper is that the document is wholly inconsistent. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) put it well when he said that it was riddled with schizophrenia. The Government are trying to have it both ways. During the Adjournment debate last week, the Government appeared to have been partly successful in getting a welcome for the White Paper from both Euro-sceptics and Europhiles in the Conservative party.

593
However, a different picture has emerged tonight. It is now clear that the Euro-sceptics very much reject the White Paper. They feel that it does not go anywhere near as far as they had hoped. Indeed, they have been fiercely critical of it during this debate. The Foreign Secretary had to deal with a large number of interventions from Conservative Members. At one point, it was suggested that the sitting be suspended so that a meeting of the 1992 Committee could be convened to sort out some of the huge divisions appearing before us.
The White Paper is inconsistent on many issues. That is especially true in the section that deals with the European Court of Justice. The Government say that they want to strengthen the court and they acknowledge the importance of its strong and independent role, yet at the same time they suggest various ways to weaken its powers, including some rather strange proposals such as damages being paid only in cases of serious or manifest breaches of obligations. That is a very curious principle and we would all be extremely surprised if the Government tried to apply it in our own national courts. Indeed, the way in which the Government say that the damages should be limited suggests that they are saying that there should be one rule for Governments and quite another rule to the disadvantage of individuals who have previously been protected by the court's rules.
In saying that the court should be liable only for damages in cases of a serious or manifest breach of obligations, the Government are presumably opening the way for the court to decide whether that breach has been serious or manifest. Paradoxically, therefore, what the Government are proposing could lead to greater interference by the European Court of Justice rather than less.
I should like to pay tribute to some of the judgments of the European Court of Justice, especially those that have protected the interests of many British women at work who had been treated unjustly by the Government and their employers. We should recognise that.
On working hours, it seems to be totally illogical for the Government to adopt a position that effectively means that even if one worked 24 hours a day, seven days a week, there would be absolutely no health and safety implications. That is totally untenable. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston was quite right to point out that we stand to benefit from the European Court of Justice applying rules uniformly across the European Union. Indeed, the figures that he quoted showed very clearly that Britain is a beneficiary of that system. It does not lose.
The section of the White Paper relating to the European Parliament is also full of inconsistencies. The Government criticise the European Parliament for lacking popular respect and affection. That seems a particularly ironic claim to be made by the Government at this time. They also criticise the use of powers of co-decision by the European Parliament, and say that it abuses its powers. In fact, the figures clearly show that the powers have been used very sparingly and that, in most cases where co-decision could have been used, the European Parliament and other EU institutions have managed to reach agreement well in advance.
It is also sad that Government are not prepared to consider any of the modest reforms that the Labour party proposes in its own White Paper for increasing the influence of the European Parliament. Labour Members
594
believe, especially if the scrutiny in national Parliaments is made more efficient, that, far from taking powers away from national Parliaments, our proposals can enhance the democratic structures and democratic accountability of the whole EU. It is again ironic that the Government are refusing to consider any of our proposals, when it is clear that they are treating our own Parliament with contempt in the way in which they deal with many aspects of European legislation.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have talked about their frustration at not being able to debate monetary union as they would have liked. Yet, at the same time, a proposal by the European Select Committee to debate a document on monetary union on the Floor of the House has so far been blocked by the Government. Conservative Members ought to direct some pressure on members of the Government so that such matters are brought into the full gaze of public scrutiny on the Floor of the House.
The White Paper also talks about bringing powers back to—presumably—this House, but it is very short on details of how that could be achieved. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he has any more specific proposals on the matter. The White Paper talks about the concept of subsidiarity, too. Once again today, the Foreign Secretary claimed that subsidiarity was some kind of uniquely British idea and an uniquely British success. That simply is not the case. Subsidiarity was mentioned before Maastricht, in article 130S of the Single European Act. It was also mentioned in the European Parliament, in a much earlier report by the Italian MEP, Altiero Spinelli. For the Government to claim that it was a British idea is false.
In the White Paper the Government also say that they are now considering proposals to improve the system of comitology. However, less then a year ago, in a written answer to one of my parliamentary questions, the Government said that they had no proposals to change the system of comitology. Perhaps the Minister of State will deal with that inconsistency, too.
The Government's aims in the White Paper are unrealistic. They talk again about trying to introduce a sunset clause into the revision of the treaty. The idea of a sunset Government trying to put forward a sunset clause made me smile. But what they are asking for is already there in the European institutions. It is already possible for the Commission to withdraw proposals, and it frequently does so. Moreover, if a sunset clause came into effect, the Commission could make new proposals to replace the sunset proposals when it wanted to. So that is another idea that is simply window-dressing, with no substance whatever.
Many of my hon. Friends talked about monetary union. I welcome the fact that in doing so they spoke eloquently about addressing the issue of employment at the IGC. It is wrong for the Government to claim that the only people interested in putting an employment chapter before the IGC and into the revision of the treaty are the Swedish Government. In fact, the Swedish proposals are gaining impressive support across the European Union.
I recently read a statement by the Austrian Government, part of their submission on the social compatibility of economic and monetary union. They say firmly that the goal of full employment should be anchored explicitly in the treaty. The Austrians also support the idea of an employment chapter and policies to tackle unemployment, especially the problems of social exclusion.
Sir Terence Higgins: Does the hon. Lady agree that the move towards the convergence criteria is having a deflationary effect, with an adverse effect on unemployment?
Ms Quin: Yes, there are difficulties with the convergence criteria, which were ably discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston.
However, we should look at the other parts of the treaty too. It is a bit of an ideological mix, and certain elements of it can be quoted against other elements. I commend to the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) article 2, which talks about
"a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment".
Interestingly, but probably not to the liking of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, it also refers to
"a high level of … social protection".
We must use all aspects of the treaty that can be to our benefit when we want the important issue of employment to be tackled within the IGC. I mentioned the proposals by the Austrian Government, and I have also seen some interesting proposals by the Irish Foreign Ministry in its submission on economic and monetary union, entitled "Social Cohesion and Employment". Those are very much on the same lines, but in some ways they go further, talking about not only an employment chapter but a stabilisation fund, a stability pact, and proposals to improve the employment intensity of economic growth.
Finally, another interesting submission has been made by Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg for consideration by the IGC. It talks about the importance of measures to tackle the European Union's high unemployment. Again, it stresses the importance of giving some hope to people on the margins of the labour market who have little chance of getting decent employment.
In the debate, certain matters that have been hidden up to now have come out into the open. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) was right to note the number of Conservative Members who raised the agenda of withdrawal from the European Union. That agenda has come out into the open more than in any other debate on this subject. 6
There were also some views on the social chapter that have not previously been so openly expressed as they were today. Rather than being the triumph that the Prime Minister claimed, many Conservative Members clearly think that the opt-out is not worth the paper that it is written on. Indeed, that form of words was used by a Conservative Member during Prime Minister's questions today and shows once and for all that, rather than being game, set and match, Maastricht was an ignominious defeat for the Government.
The Government's policy risks ending up with the worst of all worlds. They often take up postures in the EU that they are later forced to retract. The Home Secretary said that he was against any declaration on racism in the European Union. He has now at least partly caved in on that. Baroness Thatcher spoke out strongly against qualified majority voting but agreed to its massive extension in the Single European Act. The Prime Minister blocked Jean-Luc Dehaene's candidature for the presidency of the European Commission and leapt from the frying pan into the fire with the inauguration of Jacques Santer as President of the European Commission.
596
The Government's strategy seems designed to lose the maximum number of friends in Europe and win the minimum influence possible. Neither Britain nor the British people will have a good deal in the European Union with that approach. This debate has again shown that European co-operation, and a successful role for Britain in the European Union, can be promoted and achieved only under a Labour Government.
9.41 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): This has been a stimulating debate. Too many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have made excellent contributions for me to list them all. They have ranged from that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who I am sorry to see is not here, through my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), via Kingston and on to Wokingham. It has been an interesting range.
Mr. MacShane: What about Stafford?
Mr. Davis: As Labour Members want to join in, I have especially enjoyed the contributions of the right hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), if only as a corrective to the view of Europe of their Front-Bench spokesmen.
We also learned a little about the views of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). He clearly thinks that I should be allowed to negotiate for the country only when the moon is not full. I do not know whether he is trying to characterise me as the beast of Boothferry, but it would not be the first time that demonisation has been tried. We also learned that his grip of English history is not that good. He compared us to King Canute, forgetting that when Canute showed that he could not stop the tide, he was giving his courtiers a lesson in humility. That is a point to which I may return if I have time to discuss Labour's policy.
Mr. Tony Banks: Canute was Danish.
Mr. Davis: He also ruled much of England, including the part that I live in.
I welcome the fact that the House had the opportunity to debate the Government's vision of Europe, which is clearly and comprehensively set out in the White Paper. It is a vision of practical co-operation, not doctrinal Euro-theology. It seeks to harness diversity, not to impose conformity. It is a vision close to the citizen that does not ignore either national interest or public opinion in pursuit of political dreams. Success at the IGC, although by no means the only important negotiation in the next few years, is an important step in the process of delivering that vision.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary laid out the challenges and options for Europe at the beginning of the debate. Those challenges are clear. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Livingston to the first item with which I start—the need to enlarge Europe to ensure peace and stability. We need to cut the burdens of Europe to deliver competitiveness, prosperity and jobs. We need to reform Europe's policies and their financing to make enlargement and competitive success possible.

597
We need to shape Europe's institution to create a decentralised structure that recognises and works with the sovereignty of nation states and does not undermine or erode the powers of those states.
Mr. Cash: Can my hon. Friend tell me exactly how he proposes to achieve that objective specifically?
Mr. Davis: That takes up about two thirds of the rest of my speech, so I shall carry on.
That model of Europe is designed to maximise the success and minimise the strains of the Europe of the coming decades. I stress that it is one that is designed to deliver success for the people of Europe. I say that most particularly to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney). It is not a model that just suits our national prejudices; it is one that we think is best for Europe as a whole.
The hon. Member for Livingston said that he thought that what we were attempting in the negotiations was impossible and undeliverable. After eight months on the study group, I am the last to say that there are not, still, powerful forces for federalism in Europe—institutional and national forces. They have been discussed eloquently today by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I still do not agree with the hon. Member for Livingston, who said that our objectives in the White Paper were not capable of negotiation. Had he been standing at the Dispatch Box 15 years ago, he would have said that the United Kingdom rebate was not capable of negotiation, because, by definition, there was just one of us pursuing it and we had no allies to start off with. So Lady Thatcher would have had news for him.
Mr. Cash: Political will.
Mr. Davis: Had the hon. Member for Livingston been standing at the Dispatch Box five years ago—I also address this to my hon. Friend for Stafford (Mr. Cash), as he intervened—he would have said that the EMU opt-out and the social opt-out were not capable of negotiation. My hon. Friend would not want them, either.
Had the Labour party been in government, the United Kingdom's rebate and other issues would not have been capable of negotiation, because the Opposition are uncomfortable with standing alone for our interests in Europe.
Mr. MacShane: Does the Minister still believe that the United Kingdom has an opt-out from the social chapter in real terms, given that everything from which we are supposed to have opted out, whether it is the European works council or the 48-hour week, is coming in anyway?
Mr. Davis: Indeed I do, and I shall deal later in my speech with the institutions that have got around the opt-out and, nevertheless, the continuing importance of the opt-out.
I believe that the hon. Member for Livingston said that we do not take enlargement seriously enough. I reject that claim out of hand. It is unfortunate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup is not here, because I disagreed wholeheartedly with what he said about enlargement. It is clear to me that the generous
598
treatment of the new democracies of central and eastern Europe is the single most important contribution that we and other European countries can make towards the peace and stability in Europe in the next two decades. My right hon. Friend was quite wrong about enlargement, and I want to put our view on the record.
We must do a great deal more than just what is proposed at the IGC towards achieving peace and stability, most particularly in terms of policy reform. The United Kingdom has long championed the cause of reform of the CAP. That reform is inescapable. The CAP faces three major challenges: the likelihood of new food mountains early next century, further liberalisation of trade when new World Trade Organisation negotiations begin in 1999, and the unaffordability and unsustainability of the current CAP when the Union enlarges.
We must address these problems now—in parallel with the IGC—for the sake of our farmers, for the sake of the new democracies and, not least, for the sake of our consumers. Similar arguments apply to the reform of the structural cohesion funds. That reform is unavoidable. We must ensure that we do not face the doubling of those funds—as we would if we did not reform them—when we go to enlargement in the course of the new century.
I refer to the IGC. The United Kingdom strongly favours a Union that is more responsive to the needs of an increasingly diverse membership. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister led the way in his Leiden speech when he called for a more flexible development of Europe. We should be suspicious of conformity for its own sake. The creation of the pillared structure of Maastricht was welcome recognition that Community institutions and procedures are not appropriate to every area of policy—even the Liberals agreed with that at one point today.
The subsidiarity principle needs to be rigorously applied to encourage flexible development through action at the national level wherever possible. However, we must be clear-eyed about what we mean by flexibility. We must be clear about our aims and the short-term and long-term effects of the form of flexibility that we pursue. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for South Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) got that point right.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary have already outlined some of the most important conditions: the need to maintain a single market, the need for non-exclusivity, the need to avoid a hard core and the need for policies undertaken by less than full membership to be agreed by all. I wish to add two conditions to that, as there are other issues that we must address. While we would normally shoulder our share of institutional costs, it would be unacceptable to be obliged to give major funding for a policy with which we disagree and of which we are not a part.
Mr. Lord: I agree entirely with the Minister: it would be quite wrong for us to give money for a policy with which we disagree. I draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that there are now 118 embassies around the world. Who sanctioned that and who is paying for that?
Mr. Davis: As I have explained to my hon. Friend at another time, that is set up and organised by the Commission under the general financing, which comes out of accounts in the Parliament—a point that will not

599
be lost in the next year. The previous Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney—who, unfortunately, cannot be with us tonight—raised this issue last year.
In relation to flexibility, there should not be any obligation on those left outside core groups to join up at some future date. In this regard, the Government are wholly at odds with the Labour party commitment—which ruled out permanent opt-outs in its White Paper, as it termed it, of last year. Such a commitment is nothing less than a federalist ratchet—a formula that is, at best, a slow road to centralism, and we reject the concept out of hand.
The principle of subsidiarity is crucial to ensuring that the Community does less but better. We fought for the conclusion of this vital concept at Maastricht and we were successful. Many of our partners are now following our lead on that. We believe that more can and should be done to ensure greater clarity of this concept in the treaty. Action at the level of the nation state should be the rule and Community action should be the exception. The Community should act only where it has been given express competence and where action at the European level will bring clear benefits that cannot be achieved by member states acting alone.
Since Maastricht, European Councils have taken things forward. Their conclusions must now become part of the treaty, and the White Paper makes it clear that we intend to do that.
Mr. Nigel Forman rose—
Mr. Davis: We must—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I give way.
Mr. Forman: I sought to get into the debate earlier, but I was unsuccessful. The most significant thing that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said earlier in the debate is that, in relation to the ratchet, we will not simply try to repatriate competences within the European Union—which I think might be sensible—but will actually seek to erode the acquis communautaire. Will my hon. Friend tell me in which areas it is Her Majesty's objective to do that?
Mr. Davis: I shall come to that point in about one minute, when I discuss the European Court, if my hon. Friend will forgive me. Indeed, as he has used up one minute, I shall probably discuss it now.
Several of my hon. Friends have made important arguments about the European Court—most recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith). We must be clinical in our assessment of the balance of British interests with the court. The European Court should not seek to obstruct or redirect the objectives of Governments in the legislation that they have adopted. As the White Paper says, the Government will make proposals to act on those, and other, concerns about the court's functioning. We will consider with interest other proposals to tackle the problem of inappropriate judgments.
600
No doubt some will say—indeed, some have said—"You have no hope of achieving these changes. You have no support." My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary quoted the French Prime Minister saying with disapproval that the ECJ is
"becoming, little by little, a sort of European Supreme Court".
He made it clear that the French want to do something about that—as do we.
I should say en passant—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, it was appropriate to the ally involved. When I was questioned by one of our Scrutiny Committees on that matter, I was asked specifically whether we had support for our points on the court and, for reasons of diplomatic propriety, I told the Committee that I was unable to give it any names, but it was clear then, and it is now public, that the French are supporters on that issue.
Mr. Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Davis: No. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I do not have enough time.
The court should enforce the law that Governments have agreed—not make it, change it or add to it. That is the clear point of view of the British Government. Judgments should be sensible and proportionate and should not interfere in matters where they do not belong. Our strategy in dealing with the court has two strands: reform of the court and reform of the treaty articles that have been the principal source of the problem.
I now come to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) raised. The White Paper says that we seek to limit Community action, especially where that action has gone beyond that which was intended at the time we signed the treaty. The most notorious article in that respect is 118A, the health and safety article. There is a certain irony in that, as we have probably the best, or second best, health and safety record in Europe on the basis of our national legislation alone, and we should not forget that when we are arguing these cases.
Most recently, article 118A was used for the working time directive, with the unfortunate result in the court last week. That will impose a maximum 48-hour working week. In our judgment, that will harm jobs in this country and especially damage small businesses at the most fragile stage of their development, when they are under stress, and in that way deny people jobs. The 48-hour week will become zero hours a week.
Before that, we had the young workers directive, which, if we had not obtained a derogation, would have made youngsters' paper rounds and Saturday jobs illegal. Our view is that those are not properly health and safety matters. If our partners are determined to proceed along those lines, they should do so under the social chapter. I am about to discuss that point.
I am about to discuss the scope of qualified majority voting—another issue that is a point of the difference between the parties—but first I want to deal with something that the hon. Member for Livingston raised. Despite an intervention by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, the hon. Gentleman refused to correct a misleading partial quotation. He tried to give

601
the House the impression that my right hon. and learned Friend had called for more qualified majority voting. He omitted to say that my right hon. and learned Friend said:
"We should like to see more majority voting under those clauses of the treaty that already provide for majority voting … We do not wish to see a change in the treaty".—[Official Report, 20 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 470.]
I wanted to place that on the record to show that my right hon. and learned Friend had been unreasonably traduced in that manner.
The Government will oppose further centralisation of decision making that would make it easier to override national concerns; that means that we will oppose extension of majority voting. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has already demolished the fatuous claim that more QMV is needed to make enlargement possible. He highlighted why those changes were being made—to create forward momentum towards a more federal Europe.
The foolishness and the unnecessary nature of QMV extension are clear when we consider the areas where more majority voting is proposed. Let us look at some of them—I shall come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) as to why the Opposition are stuck on the hook where the Leader of the Opposition put them. In the Chatham house speech, the Leader of the Opposition called for the extension of qualified voting and the abolition of the veto in four areas.
The first of those was environmental policy. The areas of environmental policy that are currently subject to veto under article 130 include fiscal provisions and measures relating to town and country planning, land use, and energy sources and supply. The Government do not believe that Britain's vital interests lie in allowing our partners to outvote us on damaging fiscal measures, for example, under the guise of environmental policy; nor do we want our partners to be able to impose their models of land use and town and country planning. We are opposed to banning the veto in that area, and we are not alone in that view.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

National Lottery (West Suffolk)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
10 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity of introducing the Adjournment debate this evening. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister who will reply to it.
No one could have forecast the enormous popular appeal of the national lottery. It has truly caught the imagination of the British public. Unhappily for me, so far the extent of my personal winnings amounts to only £10—but who knows what the future will bring?
Various individuals and organisations have voiced concerns about the lottery. However, in the space of less than 18 months, good causes in my constituency have received sums approaching £2 million. Six months ago, I secured an Adjournment debate looking at the impact of the lottery on the horse-racing industry, and at prize money in particular. Simply put, some who would have had a flutter on the races are buying lottery tickets instead.
I have the honour to represent in this House the town of Newmarket—the world's horse-racing capital. That specific difficulty was taken on board, and general betting duty was cut in the last Budget. I express my profound gratitude, and that of my constituents, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General. The concerns of the horse-racing industry in general have been well understood and addressed by the Treasury in the past three years.
In 1605, King James I began the link between the royal family and horse racing in Newmarket. That was carried on by Charles I, who, while in Newmarket in 1642, received a parliamentary delegation demanding that he relinquish control of the country's armed forces. Charles II commissioned the construction of a palace in the town in 1668. He was the first to establish racing stables in the town—the first real training establishment in the world. One of Newmarket's two racecourses, the Rowley Mile, is named after the king's stallion, Old Rowley.
In the 19th century, the Palace House mansion was acquired by the Rothschild family. Macaroni, the winner of the Derby in 1863, was trained at the Palace House stables. In the second world war, the Rothschilds accommodated Jewish refugee families in the house, thereby adding to its extraordinary history.
In 1992, Forest Heath district council, with great foresight, acquired the by then much deteriorated buildings and made them wind and weather-tight. Shortly before Christmas, the heritage lottery fund announced grant aid totalling £500,000. The mansion will now be restored and made accessible to the public. It will comprise a tourism centre, display galleries and community facilities. Newmarket has a unique history as a town, yet somehow it has thus far hidden its light under a bushel. The restored mansion house will act as a focus for both tourism and renewed historical interest. The lottery has made all that possible.
In the autumn, I visited a 600-acre site on the fens near Lakenheath in my constituency as a guest of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The area comprises

603
arable land and poplars beside the Little Ouse river. Work had already commenced on a project to recreate the former fenland habitat of reed-beds with meres which existed before the fens were drained. This has come about because of grant aid from the lottery totalling £675,000. Only 20 male bitterns exist on our island at present, and the fen reserve will support up to five breeding pairs. In future, we can expect to see marsh harriers, reed warblers, water-rail and bearded tits, as well as wild fowl and waders, attracted by the wetlands. The RSPB has a considerable following in East Anglia. In Suffolk, there are 16,897 members, the highest number for any rural county in England.
The project will be of considerable environmental importance in a sparsely populated and unspoilt part of Suffolk. It will also benefit the economy of the nearby town of Lakenheath, which will enjoy a sizeable influx of tourists to what will be a unique fenland reserve. We shall be turning the clock back 300 years to when the fens were drained to expand agricultural activity. Such has been the interest in and support for the scheme that the public have subscribed £620,000 to reach the total sum required for the project. However, the lottery has made it a reality.
Just over a year ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Suffolk and met the people involved in the Bury St. Edmunds volunteer centre of which I have the honour to be a patron. The centre was founded in 1985 as a local focal point for many voluntary and statutory care organisations in the area. Projects include gardening and odd job schemes undertaken for the elderly and disabled.
In 1989, the volunteer centre acquired a minibus, which, by last year, had done 90,000 miles and was due to be replaced. The minibus, driven by volunteers, is available to any organisation. Thanks to the national lottery award of £20,000, a new community minibus should be delivered soon. The volunteer centre will then have four minibuses. The area covered will be extended from 100 square miles to 200 square miles around Bury St. Edmunds. The lottery has, in effect, thrown a useful lifeline to the volunteer centre whose work I applaud unreservedly.
In 1962, West Suffolk MIND was registered as a charity. Since then, it has developed three day centres, a housing project, a befriending scheme and a relative support scheme, and it offers advice and information to carers and individuals all over west Suffolk who are experiencing mental health problems. All hon. Members will be aware of the increase in mental health ailments in this country and across the industrialised world.
West Suffolk MIND predominantly supports those who, while living in the community, have long-term mental health problems. Given the demand for its services, it approached the National Lottery Charities Board to try to secure a day centre and adequate office accommodation. As the House can imagine, the allocation of £261,000 was warmly received. The organisation hopes to be fully operational in the new building by early 1997. Such a scheme would not otherwise have been realisable.
St. Louis Family Service is an inter-denominational organisation set up 10 years ago to initiate and co-ordinate pastoral work throughout west Suffolk. Its moving force has been, in particular, Sister Helena Moss. Its furniture
604
and recycling project has grown rapidly since 1990 and currently assists up to 1,000 families and single people each year. Donations of furniture, household goods and clothing are invited from the general public and are then passed on to families in need. Some people in difficulties will need beds or a cooker.
The project is currently leasing an industrial unit for use as a furniture store. Clients are referred by statutory authorities or voluntary organisations. They are not expected to pay for goods but to make a donation towards the cost of storage, collection and delivery. Warehousing, however, has been a physical, locational and financial problem. With a national lottery grant of £295,000, a new furniture store will be a reality and will offer services such as checking and refurbishing electrical equipment and laundry facilities.
The Bury St. Edmunds Women's Aid centre had sought money to enable it to demolish sheds, and to build a proper playroom and adequate storage space for emergency supplies of clothes and toiletries. The sum awarded of £32,000 will enable it to undertake that with the construction of a new extension incorporating those and other important needs. That organisation seeks to respond to emergencies for women threatened with violence or those who have had to leave home, and the money has been gratefully received.
Workwise is another Bury St. Edmunds organisation that seeks to help, with work-based rehabilitation, those adults recovering from mental illness. While many of those helped ultimately make a full recovery, some require special help to build confidence and experience on the way to full or part-time work. Some 60 people a week attend for differing lengths of time. The result is a wide variety of products and services ranging from woodwork items, magazines and newsletters for local groups, furniture, posters and business cards. The £32,000 grant received from the lottery last October will enable Workwise to upgrade its capital equipment to a level comparable to that of a small commercial business. That will enhance the employment prospects of its clients. Workwise has a record of success and this award recognises its achievements.
The lottery recognises good causes in a variety of ways. In Newmarket, the long-established NOMADS—the Newmarket Operatic, Musical and Dramatic Society—exists to further the interests of music and drama in the area and to support the youth section. The youth section meets each week and seven full productions are staged each year. as well as play-reading and workshops. The 123-seat theatre is regularly hired out to other groups of musicians and dancers. In 1990, a seven-year plan was drawn up to refurbish and re-equip the building, and to provide disabled facilities. The £60,000 lottery grant will breathe new life into the theatre and the important artistic services it provides to the people of Newmarket.
The Ormiston Charitable Trust is targeted at helping low-income families all over East Anglia, with five family centres, children's playgroups and individual care for children. In Newmarket, there is a permanent base offering services for toddler groups, play schemes and a lone-parent group and many others. Let us imagine what pleasure the 29 children from Newmarket had at the enormous Mildenhall air fete, put on by the US Air Force in my constituency. The trust is now the beneficiary of £105,000 from the lottery.

605
The West Suffolk Deaf Children's Society was founded 25 years ago. It is a group specifically for parents of deaf children and interested professionals, and offers advice and opportunities for people to meet in a social setting for mutual support and recreation. Its main activities involve the provision of information and equipment for deaf children and their families. The £15,000 awarded is to establish a resource library enabling a range of items to be made available. Research machine computers are being installed in the hearing impaired units at three Bury St. Edmunds schools. The balance of the grant will be used to acquire items such as vibrating alarm clocks, flashing doorbells and specially designed modems.
What I have sought to do this evening is put the flesh on the bones of those good causes which have received lottery money, to try to illustrate the truly excellent work that is being done in my constituency, and what a real boon those sums are proving to be.
In the 15th and 16th centuries, Suffolk—its economy based on the wool and cloth trades—became the richest county in England. The legacy of that is a multitude of glorious churches, even in small villages. At the heart of west Suffolk was the magnificent abbey in Bury St. Edmunds, the shrine of King Edmund, king of East Anglia. It was here that the barons met to plan the Magna Carta. It was a major pilgrimage destination in the middle ages.
It was, however, only in 1914 that the diocese of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich was established. The church of St. James, originally the pilgrims' church for the abbey, became the new cathedral. In the 1950s, the process of enlargement and enhancement began, and the persona of the architect, Stephen Dykes Bower, became indelibly associated with the project.
Suffolk, however, the county of so many inspiring parish churches, is without a completed cathedral. The cloister is cut short, the truncated tower extrudes unattractive metal rods, and visitors may be forgiven for not readily identifying the church as a cathedral at all. A tower and spire remain to be built, along with the north transept, the extension of the cloister, one chapel and the addition of wrought iron screens.
Stephen Dykes Bower died in 1994 and left his estate in trust to finance completion of St. Edmundsbury cathedral. But his will is highly conditional. In practice, this is a one-off opportunity that would otherwise be lost to contribute £2.2 million to the projected total cost of £8.5 million. An application for £4.2 million has been submitted to the Millennium Commission. The shortfall of some £2 million will be raised independently, if the bid is successful.
Of course I would not expect my hon. Friend to comment specifically on this application, but I may tell him that it is being made with the overwhelming support of the people of Suffolk. It would be marvellous to commemorate the new millennium with a completed cathedral that will be used and cherished by generations to come—to rank beside the great cathedrals of East Anglia. The project has my fullest possible backing.
As the effect of the national lottery is reflected on, so the flow and direction of the distribution of moneys will evolve. I particularly welcome the announcement in January by the Secretary of State that there will be a special focus on young people and on the continued revitalisation of the capital infrastructure of our arts, sports and heritage. I welcome the possibility of helping
606
promising young sportsmen directly. Equally, I applaud the possibility of successful applications from buildings preservation trusts, and the additional prospect of long-term financial stability for arts organisations.
The positive impact of the national lottery has in my view been insufficiently appreciated. This evening I have sought to express the profound pleasure it has given to so many of my constituents through its financing of good causes and worthy projects. Its success will give rise to further substantial funding in the years to come. Of course the Secretary of State and the Minister will rightly want to monitor carefully the lottery's impact and how the money is distributed. The national lottery, however, is clearly here to stay. It has thus far in a number of ways been of immense benefit to my constituency, and I am confident that it will continue to be so in the years to come.
10.17 pm
The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. lain Sproat): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) for raising this important topic. As he has demonstrated so well, the national lottery has been a tremendous success and is having a positive impact on the lives of people throughout the United Kingdom. Naturally enough, my hon. Friend is most interested in the county of Suffolk, where his constituency responsibilities lie, but before turning to Suffolk I should like to put the lottery in a national context.
Parliament's decision to put the promotion of the lottery in the hands of the private sector has been vindicated by ticket sales, which have exceeded the most optimistic forecast. About 30 million people play every week; 415 jackpot prizes have been won, including 178 prizes of £1 million or more. More importantly, perhaps, more than £1.7 billion has already been generated for good causes.
We have been able to build on the experiences of many other lotteries to create one of the best run and best regulated lotteries in the world. The British public expect nothing less than absolute integrity in the way in which the lottery is run. In addition to his duty to maximise the return given to good causes, the Director General of Oflot has a duty to protect the interests of all participants and to see that the lottery is run with all due propriety. He has fulfilled that responsibility.
Camelot has justified his decision to award it the licence to run the lottery. Camelot managed to get the lottery up and running within six months of winning the licence. Its sales figures have surpassed all expectations. Because its bid included the highest return for good causes and the lowest retention of operating costs and profits—something that a number of people outside the House who choose to criticise the decision should remember—the good causes have benefited to the fullest extent from these extra sales.
We would be concerned by any report that fund raising by charities had been affected by the lottery, but the evidence is mixed. Fund raising is always subject to innovative techniques, and I am pleased that a number of charities are piggy-backing on the success of the lottery with their own scratchcards. The Royal British Legion has a Poppy day scratchcard. UK Charity Lotteries has seen a fivefold increase in its turnover. Littlewoods recently

607
introduced a scratchcard to raise money for Scope, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Age Concern and the Cancer Research Campaign.
The Government have a long-standing commitment to keep charitable incomes under review. The Home Office is conducting a review of charitable income, which will cover the two years before the introduction of the lottery, the launch period and two years hence. The review is being carried out in conjunction with the voluntary sector. It will focus on the realities of charities' accounts rather than what people think that they have given to charity. When the first hard evidence is available, we shall take a long hard look at it.
Monitoring is also under way on the horse race betting levy to see whether the betting industry has suffered declining income since the lottery was introduced. Proposals for changes to the regulations governing casinos and bingo are under consultation; restrictions governing the sale of snacks and drinks in licensed bookmakers have been relaxed, and the further deregulation of the pools industry is under consideration.
It has to be said that many see the national lottery as a convenient scapegoat for any business seeing a decline in profitability. I am not convinced that theatres and cinemas have seen Saturday night business fall because their usual customers are staying in to watch the lottery draw, or that habitual savers have plundered their nest-eggs to buy lottery tickets. It is inordinately difficult to tell where money that is being spent on the lottery is coming from, and it may be a number of years before we can have any clear idea of its impact in both macro and micro-economic terms.
I move from whence the money comes to where it is going. Proceeds from the national lottery are split equally among five areas: the arts, sport, heritage, caring charities and projects that celebrate 2000, and the beginning of the new millennium. Initially, lottery proceeds for the arts, sport and heritage were restricted to capital projects to enhance the nation's stock of cultural and sporting facilities. These capital projects will go a long way to meeting a need for artistic and sporting provision throughout the United Kingdom, and lottery money is being spent throughout the United Kingdom. Attention has tended to focus on the large-scale flagship projects in London that have been awarded money. Such projects benefit the whole country by enhancing our status as a centre for tourism and cultural excellence.
Flagship projects, however, are not sited only in London. The recent awards by the Millennium Commission, the National Heritage Memorial Fund and the Arts Council to the Lowry centre in Salford demonstrate that as clearly as the six landmark projects already announced by the Millennium Commission. The Earth centre in Doncaster, the renaissance of Portsmouth harbour, the development of Cardiff Arms park, and the Hampden park development are all exciting flagship projects that will provide job and wealth-creation opportunities outside London.
More generally, 92 per cent. of awards so far have been made to organisations based outside London. Although some parts of the country may feel that lottery money has not been forthcoming in their region, it is important to remember that the distributors can make awards only on
608
the basis of the merits of the applications received. To get the message across that lottery funds are there for the taking, my right hon. Friend distributed 2 million leaflets that outlined the distribution process to voluntary groups, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and every school in the country. We are keeping an eye on the geographical spread of lottery awards, but we are confident that any early imbalances will even themselves out as more and more groups across the United Kingdom become aware of the availability of lottery help.
Partnership is central to the lottery. It allows lottery money to be spread more widely, but, more important, it provides evidence of support for the project at a local level. As far as the distributors are concerned, partnership can come from any number of local or central Government sources, from Europe and from the private and voluntary sectors. Contributions in kind—such as land donated—or voluntary support can also be counted as partnership in a project. Distributors are considering how they can be more flexible, and how the private sector can help in finding imaginative solutions.
In that context, the Sports Council has launched an initiative aimed at encouraging applications from areas of sporting and economic deprivation. That will soon be extended to rural areas, and means that the Sports Council will seek as little as 10 per cent. of project costs in partnership. Applicants from outside the designated areas are normally required to provide some 35 per cent. of partnership.
Let me now deal with the lottery's effects in west Suffolk. I know that my hon. Friend works extremely hard to ensure that his constituents' interests are always at the forefront of the House's attention, and his work in regard to the lottery is no exception. So far, Suffolk has received 45 awards worth some £3.6 million from lottery proceeds. The largest is the grant of £500,000 from the National Heritage Memorial Fund to develop the Palace House mansion in Newmarket, which my hon. Friend mentioned. At the other end of the scale is the £4,804 granted by the Sports Council to Stoke by Clare parish council towards the cost of resurfacing two grass tennis courts to make them available to the local community throughout the year.
My hon. Friend mentioned the marvellous project to fulfil the original promise of the cathedral. He also mentioned an unusual will. I hope that the distributing bodies will see fit to allow the legacy to be used in the way intended by the man who left it, and to ensure that the cathedral becomes as my hon. Friend wishes it to be. It is up to the distributing bodies, but my hon. Friend has done everything possible to make the project successful, and I wish him luck.
The two projects that I mentioned earlier—the redevelopment of the Palace House mansion and the resurfacing of Stoke by Clare parish council's grass tennis courts—encapsulate the principal aim of the national lottery: to encourage a greater sense of community, and to widen access to our cultural and sporting heritage. As the lottery develops, we want it to invest in people as well as buildings. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly issue new directions to the lottery distributors which will allow revenue funding for schemes that encourage the development of artistic or sporting abilities and talents, particularly among young people. I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomed that development. Revenue grants under the new directions

609
will support the continuing capital programme, which is widening access and encouraging participation in our cultural and sporting heritage.
I envisage the new directions being used to support elite athletes, to fund talent identification schemes and for coaching and leadership initiatives in sport. In the arts, lottery money could be used to support touring arts companies, and to fund artists in residence in local communities; it could be used by schools, and for access schemes enabling organised groups to attend events at subsidised costs. Those are just some examples; how the new directions will work in practice is something for the distributors to work out over the next few months.
The undoubted success of the lottery allows no room for complacency. We are keeping all its aspects under review, and constantly looking for ways in which to hone
610
and improve it. The new changes are one such step, which will enhance social cohesion and extend the lottery's benefits beyond buildings and equipment. Individuals will receive a helping hand in the form of direct financial support for their achievement of artistic and sporting ambitions.
Young people are the country's future. It is crucial for the lottery to be able to create opportunities for the young and talented, and to invest in their future just as it is already investing in the future of our physical assets.
I am glad to have had the opportunity to say what I have said, and wish my hon. Friend all the best in regard to future applications in Suffolk.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  House of Commons Notepaper
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 March,Official Report, column 692, if he will specify the nature and duration of the Wilprint contract. [22132]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The contract referred to in my answer of 18 March is for the provision of judge's stationery and envelopes. The Department places orders with HMSO. HMSO made its contractual arrangements with Wilprint independently of the Department. I have asked HMSO to inform the hon. Member directly of the details of its contract.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which(a) the Government are required to consult prior to legislative proposals and (b) the Government are required to publish their response to advice supplied by them. [21860]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Of the Lord Chancellor's Department's advisory bodies, the Insolvency Rules Committee and Land Registration Rule Committee have to be consulted about relevant rules and the Council on Tribunals must be consulted before procedural rules are made for any tribunal specified in schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 and on procedural rules made by the Chancellor or the Lord Advocate concerning statutory inquiries.

  The Government are not required to publish their response to advice from these bodies. Although there is no legal requirement to consult the Advisory Council on Public Bodies, it generally is consulted on legislation affecting public records. The County Court Rule Committee, Supreme Court Rule Committee, Family Proceedings Rule Committee and Crown Court Rule Committee actually make rules and the Lord Chancellor is a member of all but the first.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Public Interest Immunity Certificate
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Attorney-General if a public interest immunity certificate was issued in the case of R. v. Roche at Plymouth Crown Court in July-August 1991. [21692]

  The Attorney-General
  So far as I am aware, no public interest immunity certificate was issued in this case.

SCOTLAND

  Cairngorm Plateau
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when his Department first received a recommendation from his statutory advisers for the designation of the Cairngorm plateau as a special protection area under EC directive 79/409; when he expects to designate this area; and what consideration he has made in the intervening period. [20320]

  Mr. Kynoch
  An initial recommendation without supporting data was received from the former Nature Conservancy Council in 1987. SPA classification has significant long-term implications for both nature conservation and other legitimate land use interests. Officials have, therefore, been involved in detailed discussions with Scottish Natural Heritage on the scientific case for classification. SNH will be commencing consultations very shortly with owners and occupiers and other local interests. Subject to the outcome of these, I expect a decision on classification to be taken later this year.

  Poverty
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to reduce the levels of poverty in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [21101]

  Mr. Kynoch
  We shall continue our policies of promoting sustained economic growth and helping those in greatest need.

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 28 February,Official Report, column 878, if the women pursuing claims against the Argyll and Clyde health board in respect of the mis-reading of cervical smear slides at the Inverclyde Royal hospital have recourse to the newly instituted complaints procedure; and if he will make a statement. [21691]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The new complaints procedure to which I referred in my answer of 28 February will become operational on 1 April 1996. There will be a transitional period during which existing complaints procedures will run in parallel with the new procedure, and it has been decided that non-clinical complaints, such as those referred to by the hon. Gentleman, received before 1 April 1996 will be dealt with under the old procedures. The women pursuing claims against the Argyll and Clyde health board in respect of the mis-reading of cervical smear slides at the Inverclyde Royal hospital will not therefore have recourse to the new complaints procedure.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fire brigades failed to meet the statutory minimum standards for their rescue and firefighting role in 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [21577]
  253
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am satisfied that the fire brigades in Scotland are able to meet the nationally recommended standards of fire cover. Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services for Scotland draws attention to any localised exceptions in the course of its inspections of brigades. It is for the fire authority concerned to take the appropriate action in any such case.

  Departmental Contractors and Suppliers
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures his Department is taking to ensure that its contractors and suppliers(a) pay their employees a wage which ensures such employees do not need supplementary welfare payments via various state benefits and (b) meet workplace health and safety regulations; and if he will make a statement. [21463]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In procuring goods and services, the Department's prime objective is to obtain value for money from public expenditure. To this end, we encourage and use competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. Terms and conditions of employment, including wages, are a matter between the contractors or suppliers and their employees, subject of course to any relevant legal requirements. In the case of workplace health and safety, compliance with relevant regulations is a legal requirement for contractors or suppliers although in practice the Department draws the regulations to the attention of any contractors or suppliers whose staff will be working on our premises.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average cost of answering an(a) oral and (b) written parliamentary question from (i) Opposition and (ii) Conservative hon. Members in each Session since 1989–90. [21789]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This Department does not collect the information in the form requested.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what mechanisms exist in respect of a further education college becoming insolvent. [20589]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Provisions in the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 allow for my right hon. Friend to make an order for the closure and dissolution of boards of management. Such an order may include provision on the transfer and vesting of property, rights, liabilities and obligations.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland(a) which principals and (b) which boards of management of further education colleges have met his Department to discuss the finances of their colleges in the current year. [20590]

  Mr. Robertson
  Officials maintain regular contact with the principals and boards of management of further education colleges on financial and other matters. Meetings took place with North Glasgow and Clydebank colleges in 1995 to discuss their forward development plans.
  254
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which aspects of further education colleges' financial affairs are(a) open and (b) not open to public scrutiny. [20591]

  Mr. Robertson
  The Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 requires the agenda, minutes and papers of board of management proceedings to be available for public inspection, except where it appears to the board that matters should be treated as confidential because of their commercial nature or otherwise. Audited annual accounts are publicly available from colleges and annual reports with financial information are published.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which of the national health service bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base; and if he will list those bodies which(a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings and (b) hold open meetings for the public (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [21829]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  All national health service bodies in Scotland have a statutory basis. Health boards and special health boards are statutorily required to admit members of the public to their meetings, unless by resolution they exclude the public to all or part of their meetings for a specific reason, such as security considerations. NHS trusts are statutorily required to hold an annual public meeting and many trusts voluntarily admit the public to their board meetings. The Mental Welfare Commission, the Common Services Agency and the National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland are not required to hold any board meetings to which the public are admitted.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which of the national health service bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) minutes of meetings, (d) agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [21835]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There is a statutory obligation on national health service trusts to publish an annual report; all other NHS bodies are required to do so by the codes of conduct and accountability and the code of practice on openness in the NHS in Scotland. There is a statutory obligation on all NHS bodies to publish annual accounts but no obligation on them to publish minutes of their meetings, although many do. Health boards and special health boards are statutorily required to publish the agendas of their meetings. All NHS bodies are required by the codes of conduct and accountability to maintain a register of members' interests.

  Dunblane (Shootings)
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what basis the inquiry into the Dunblane shootings will be established; and what will be its terms of reference. [22729]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The inquiry will be established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. This procedure, which was followed in the case of the Aberfan inquiry, will enable evidence to be taken on oath,
  255
  as Lord Cullen wishes, and will attract the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. I propose that the inquiry's terms of reference should be:
  "To inquire into the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the events at Dunblane Primary School on Wednesday 13 March 1996, which resulted in the deaths of 18 people; to consider the issues arising therefrom; to make such interim and final recommendations as may seem appropriate; and to report as soon as practicable."

  It is important that adequate preparation time is allowed as this will enable the inquiry itself to be shorter and more focused. I anticipate that, after initial procedure, the inquiry will begin to take evidence in public in June with a view to reporting by about the end of September.

  Meanwhile, work will be carried forward within Government to review relevant aspects of firearms legislation, school security and the supervision of adults working with children so that we will be in a position to respond promptly to recommendations from the inquiry.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those rail track renewal and maintenance companies that have been sold to date indicating the sale price, the number of bidders and the successful purchaser. [21221]

  Mr. Watts
  The table lists those track renewal and infrastructure maintenance company sales which have been completed, or where sale contracts have been exchanged. It would be contrary to the commercial interests of the British Railways Board and the taxpayer to publish price and bidding details at this stage; this could prejudice sales still in progress.

  Company

  Purchaser

  Scotland Track Renewals Company Ltd.

  Relayfast Ltd.

  Scotland Infrastructure Maintenance Company Ltd.

  Track Action Ltd.

  Central Track Renewals Company Ltd.

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  Central Infrastructure Maintenance Company Ltd.

  GT Railway Maintenance Ltd.

  Western Infrastructure Maintenance Ltd.

  Amey Railways Ltd.

  Eastern Track Renewals Company Ltd.

  Fastline Rail Services Ltd.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the track renewal and maintenance companies whose sale is currently being negotiated and, in each case, the number of bidders; [21226]
  256
  (2) what is the timetable for the sale of the remaining rail track renewal and maintenance companies. [21224]

  Mr. Watts
  The British Railways Board is pursuing sales of the following businesses and expects to conclude them over the coming months:

  Western Track Renewals Company Ltd.

  Northern Infrastructure Maintenance Company Ltd.

  Northern Track Renewals Company Ltd.

  Eastern Infrastructure Maintenance Company Ltd.

  Southern Track Renewals Company Ltd.

  South West Infrastructure Maintenance Company Ltd.

  South East Infrastructure Maintenance Company Ltd.

  It would be contrary to the commercial interests of the British Railways Board and the taxpayer to give the number of bidders for each company at this stage.

  Royal Train
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 12 March, 1996,Official Report, column 572, on what basis he considers the period of the contract awarded to Wisconsin Central to operate the royal train to be commercially confidential. [21589]

  Mr. Watts
  The royal train is operated by Rail Express Systems Ltd. under a contract with Railtrack. Details of all Railtrack's contracts with private sector suppliers are a matter of commercial confidentiality between the parties.

  Doncaster, Selby and York Rail Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons there was no rail service between Doncaster and Selby and Selby and York on the morning of 12 March. [21730]

  Mr. Watts
  On the morning of 12 March, the 06.16 service from Selby to Doncaster and the 06.52 service from Selby to York were cancelled due to points failure.

TREASURY

  Executive Action
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those areas of executive action where he has discretion to act in respect of an individual without giving reasons for his decision. [20531]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Records are not kept in the form requested.

  Contracts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many contracts for goods or services have been awarded in each of the last three financial years by his Department and its executive agencies after competitive tendering; and what was the total combined value of these contracts. [21027]
  257
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The total number of contracts awarded by the Treasury after competitive tender for the years in question are shown in the table. It is Treasury policy that all contracts with a potential value of over £10,000 be the subject of competitive tender. The total value of orders over £10,000 placed in these years is also given. These relate not only to the contracts placed in the same year but to those continuing from previous years.

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96 (to date)

  Total number of contracts subject to competitive tender

  36

  32

  20

  Total value of orders of over £10,000 placed excluding VAT (£ million)

  6.8

  14.0

  7.3

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many questions were tabled to his Department in each Session since 1987–88; how many were not answered on the grounds of disproportionate cost; what percentage of the total number of questions this represented; how many were not answered on the grounds that the information was not centrally available; and what percentage of the total number of questions this represented. [21144]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The table gives the number of written and oral questions tabled to Treasury Ministers since 1987–88:

  Session

  Written

  Oral

  1987–88

  3,244

  464

  1988–89

  2,694

  330

  1989–90

  2,145

  338

  1990–91

  1,465

  251

  1991–92

  859

  148

  1992–93

  2,857

  402

  1993–94

  1,742

  217

  1994–95

  2,031

  246

  1995–961

  677

  143

  1 To 10 March.

  The analyses sought of questions not answered substantively are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on public services in Wales of measures necessary to meet the Budget deficit criteria for membership of the EMU. [19400]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 18 March 1996]: I have made no such estimates. The Government's plans for spending on public services in Wales reflect the importance they attach to controlling overall public expenditure while shifting more money towards hospitals, schools and the police. The plans help to keep the budget deficit on a clear downward path, so that the recovery will be sustained.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from Wirral-based housing associations about the Registrar of Friendly Societies having allowed the establishment of new housing associations with similar names to existing housing associations. [21237]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  None.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which(a) the Government are required to consult prior to legislative proposals and (b) the Government are required to publish their response to advice supplied to them. [21867]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  There are none.

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchquer if he will make a statement about his plans for the new Office for National Statistics. [22582]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The new Office for National Statistics will be created on 1 April. I am today placing in the Libraries of the House copies of its framework document, its first business plan and policy statements on confidentiality, pricing and dissemination and release of data.

  The creation of the new office is a significant milestone in the development of official statistics in the United Kingdom. These documents set out its constitution, key policies and future plans, including performance targets for the coming year. They will guide the office in meeting its aims to serve Government and the wider community. I am confident that rapid progress will be made both in the field of national statistics and in the registration activities to be undertaken by the office.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Cable Television (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the speed at which cable television will be introduced to Northern Ireland; if telephone services will be available via this cable network; and what assessment he has made of the effect on householders and businesses. [21433]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Cable Tel Northern Ireland Ltd., which was awarded the franchise for the whole of Northern Ireland in May 1995, has committed to offer service to at least 428,000 homes in the province by the end of 2003. The company is expected to build past some 60 per cent. of homes in the franchise by the end of 1999. I am pleased to confirm that telephone services will be available via this cable network, which means that domestic and commercial customers alike will be able to benefit from the choice and competitive prices which are already available to more than 6 million homes in mainland Britain where cable networks pass.

  Ministerial Visit (South Africa)
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list in the Official Report the names of the business men who accompanied his predecessor to South Africa in July 1994; and if he will list the companies represented by those business men. [21665]

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is as follows:

  Delegates accompanying the President of the Board of Trade to South Africa—July 1994

  Name

  Position

  Company/Organisation

  Mr. S. Wauchope

  Managing Director

  Acorn Computers Ltd.

  Mr. J. Cheesbrough

  Regional Director and General Manager (Africa)

  AMEC Process and Energy Ltd.

  Mr. C. R. Kemp

  Director General

  The Association of British Healthcare Industries

  Mr. G. Edington

  Chairman

  BAA International Ltd.

  Mr. R. Mabey

  Managing Director

  Bovis International Ltd.

  Mr. J. Weston

  Executive Director

  British Aerospace plc

  Mr. I. Alston

  Regional manager

  BT (Worldwide) Ltd.

  Mr. R. J. Petersen

  Chief Executive

  Bridon plc

  Mr. D. Savage

  Director

  British Educational Suppliers Association

  Mr. J. Carrington

  Director of Regional Businesses

  Cable and Wireless plc

  Mr. J. Caudwell

  Chairman

  Caudwell Communications Ltd.

  Mr. A. Boyd

  Advisor to CDC4

  Commonwealth Development Corporation

  Professor M. Brown

  Managing Director

  De Montfort University

  Mr. D. Probert

  Chairman

  Crown Agents

  Mr. A. Morrison

  Chairman

  Defence Systems Ltd.

  Mr. G. Cowen

  Managing Director

  Dewplan Ltd.

  Mr. P. Daubeney

  Chief Executive

  Electricity Association Ltd.

  Mr. H. J. Pearce

  Managing Director

  EMS Medical Group

  Mr. N. Gutteridge

  Marketing Director

  Fairey hydraulics Ltd.

  Mr. G. F. Page

  Chief Executive

  Flight Refuelling Ltd.

  Mr. J. Cronin

  Managing Director

  GEC Alsthom

  Mr. P. Turner

  Goddard Kay Rogers and Associates Ltd.

  Mr. B. F. Baldock

  Deputy Chairman

  Guinness plc

  Mr. J. First

  Director

  Henry Ansbacher and Co. Ltd.

  Mr. G. Gonszor

  Managing Director

  Hill Samuel Bank Ltd.

  260

  Delegates accompanying the President of the Board of Trade to South Africa—July 1994

  Name

  Position

  Company/Organisation

  Mr. D. Teague

  Managing Director

  ICL

  Mr. G. Cooper

  Managing Director

  Industrial Control Services plc

  Mr. H. A. Lyons

  Managing Director

  International Hospitals Group Ltd.

  Mr. J. Patterson

  Managing Director

  J C Sales Ltd.

  Mr. D. Spencer

  Director

  John Laing International Ltd.

  Mr. D. A. Piesold

  Chairman

  Knight Piesold and Partners

  Mr. S. C. Y. Parker

  Director

  Kleinwort Benson Ltd.

  Mr. P. G. Emmel

  Managing Director

  Johnson Matthey Ltd.

  Mr. B. Kennedy

  Deputy Chief Executive

  Longwall International Ltd.

  Mr. H. Johnston

  Managing Director

  MIVAN Overseas Ltd.

  Mr. M. Kingston

  Director

  Morgan Grenfell and Co. Ltd.

  Mr. D. Mansfield

  Chief Executive

  Nottingham Group Holdings plc

  Mr. R. M. Bostock

  Director

  Ove Arup Economics and Planning

  Mr. S. Lister

  Sales Director

  Pace Micro Technology Ltd.

  Mr. J. Foley

  Marketing Director

  Philip Harris Education and Scientific

  Mr. K. McDonald

  Chairman

  Polypipe plc

  Mr. A. Carnell

  Group Commercial Director

  Racal Electronics plc

  Dr. R. Davies

  Managing Director

  Rialech International

  Dr. T. Harrison

  Chief Executive

  Rolls-Royce plc

  Mr. P. Hills

  Managing Director

  Samuel Montagu and Co. Ltd.

  Mr. A. Platt

  Director Group Development

  Sedgwick Group plc

  Mr. G. Henderson

  Senior Partner

  Slaughter and May

  Mr. T Gould

  Chief Executive

  Structherm Ltd.

  Mr. R. A. Davies

  Chief Executive

  TecQuipment Ltd.

  Mr. B. Myers

  Chief Executive

  Trafalgar House plc

  Mr. J. Smith

  Group Chairman

  Turner and Townsend Group

  Mr. A. Hicks

  Chief Executive

  United Kingdom Southern Africa Business Association

  Mr. D. Henning

  Managing Director

  Vodafone Group plc

  Mr. D. Hastie

  Sales Director

  Vickers Defence Systems

  261

  Delegates accompanying the President of the Board of Trade to South Africa—July 1994

  Name

  Position

  Company/Organisation

  Mr. M. D. Willetts

  President (Development)

  Wade Adams Construction

  Mr. T. Quick

  Acting Sales and Marketing Director

  Westland Group plc

  Mr. D. G. Brant

  Executive Director

  George Wimpey plc

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average cost of answering an(a) oral and (b) written parliamentary question from (i) Opposition and (ii) Conservative hon. Members in each Session since 1989–90. [21791]

  Mr. Lang
  This Department does not collect information in the form requested.

  Trade Delegations
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list, with location and dates, all trade delegations which took place in(a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) 1996 to date, and those which are planned for the remainder of 1996. [21064]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 18 March 1996]: The number of trade delegations supported under the outward mission scheme were 151 in 1994, 184 in 1995 and 49 so far in 1996. In the remainder of 1996, it is anticipated that more than 190 additional supported missions will take place.

  I have arranged for a full list of the details of these mission giving locations and dates to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  AST Group, Aylesbury
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what investigative action he has initiated into the collapse of the AST Group of Aylesbury under the Companies Act. [21496]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 20 March 1996]: It is not the policy of the Department of Trade and Industry to comment on the affairs of individual companies.

  Electrical Goods Supply Industry
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 12 March 1996,Official Report, column 526, (1) what consultations his Department has had with the electrical goods supply industry on the extension of time for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to report on the supply of certain goods; [21233]

  (2) what were the reasons given by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for its application for an extension of time to report on the supply of certain electrical goods. [21232]
  262
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission requested an extension because of the complexity of the inquiry. The scale of the exercise is exceptional in terms of the number of referred markets—eight—and interested parties. It is important that all those with a significant interest are given the chance to give evidence to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Section 55 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 does not require the Secretary of State to consult on extensions given to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to complete reports and he did not do so.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Staff (Working Hours)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many persons in his Department worked in excess of 48 hours per week in any of the last 52 weeks; and what percentage of the staff employed this represents. [21513]

  Mr. Hanley
  Records of the number of hours worked by each employee are not kept centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which(a) the Government are required to consult prior to legislative proposals and (b) the Government are required to publish their response to advice supplied by them. [21857]

  Mr. Hanley
  None.

  European Commission Publications
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs through which directorate of the European Commission funds are allocated for the production of "Social Europe Magazine"; how much is spent annually upon this publication; upon what authority that money is allocated; upon what basis Mr. Padraig Flynn was appointed editor; if he is consulted about the content of that magazine; whether the statement in that publication relating to the AIDS campaign mounted by CSV Media constitutes European Union policy; and if he will make it his policy to ensure that in future the European Commission publishes only magazines which are essential to its core purpose. [20506]

  Mr. David Davis
  [holding answer 12 March 1996]: The Commission is responsible for the preparation and presentation of Community information and communication policy, for which it has a budget of 78 mecu—£65.6 million—in 1996.

  "Social Europe Magazine" is published by Directorate General V of the European Commission. I understand that the hon. Member has asked the European Commission separately about its cost and editorial content, and a reply is in preparation.

  I can confirm that it is European Union policy to promote AIDS awareness.
  263
  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those magazines, journals, periodicals, and leaflets which are published by each directorate of the European Commission, indicating for each the size of budget, the proportion of that budget which statistically would be represented by United Kingdom contributions and the specific steps which are taken to ensure that his Department is consulted in advance about the content of such publications. [20509]

  Mr. Davis
  [holding answer 12 March 1996]: A list of such publications and their costs will be placed in the Libraries of the House in due course.

  The Commission is responsible for the preparation and presentation of Community information and communication policy, for which it has a budget of 78 mecu—£65.6 million—in 1996.

  The UK contribution to the EC Budget is calculated on the basis of the whole of the budget and is not attributed to specific items.

  The UK gross contribution after abatement to the 1996 EC budget is expected to be 8.8 becu—£7.4 billion. The total 1996 EC budget is 81 becu.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Hampstead Garden Suburb Institute
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what grants were paid to the Hampstead Garden Suburb Institute in each of the last three financial years. [19653]

  Mr. Paice
  Funding of the Garden Suburb Institute by the Further Education Funding Council for the period from April 1993 to July 1995 was as shown in the answer of 2 November 1994,Official Report, column 1160. The institute's recurrent funding for the 1995–96 academic year has yet to be finalised, but core funding is expected to amount to £127,958.

  Capital Spending
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 7 March,Official Report, columns 343–47, on local education authority capital spending, what have been the Government (a) credit approvals and (b) announced total capital allocations to each local education authority in each of the years for which spending figures were given. [20551]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The data are contained in a number of tables, copies of which will be placed in the Library.

  Table 1(A) gives total education annual capital guidelines for the years 1990–91 to 1995–96 inclusive, while data for 1996–97, when several new local education authorities will exist, are given in table 1(B). Table 2 gives details of supplementary credit approvals from 1993–94 to 1995–96. A sum of approximately £42 million will be distributed as SCAs in 1996–97. Comparable data on SCAs for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  A-level Examinations
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students sat A-level examinations in the summer terms of 1994 and 1995 in each secondary school and further education college in England. [21524]

  Mr. Paice
  The school and college performance tables for the 16 to 18 age group for 1994 and 1995, published by the Department in November 1994 and 1995 respectively, give details of the numbers of students aged 16 to 18 who sat GCE A-AS examinations in each secondary school and further education college in England. They show separately the numbers who sat fewer than two GCE A-AS examinations and those that sat two or more.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list those of her Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which(a) the Government are required to consult prior to legislative proposals and (b) the Government are required to publish their response to advice supplied by them. [21855]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not available centrally other than in the relevant statutory provisions. A comprehensive list cannot, therefore, be assured. The Department is, however, aware of the following.

  In relation to the national curriculum, section 20 of the Education Reform Act 1988 requires the Secretary of State to refer certain proposals for regulations to the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, which then reports back to the Secretary of State. That report is published. There is a subsequent statutory consultation on the proposed order or regulations.

  In relation to certain procedural rules—for instance, for the special educational needs tribunal or appeal committees relating to admission to and exclusion from schools—the Secretary of State is required to consult the Council on Tribunals.

  Section 3(3) of the Activity Centres (Young Persons Safety) Act 1995 obliges the Secretary of State to consult the Health and Safety Commission in certain circumstances before making regulations.

  In a number of cases the Secretary of State is under a statutory obligation to consult before making regulations. Such consultation might involve one of the Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies but such consultation is not specified.

  Under section 80 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Secretary of State has power to amend certain sections of the Act by order subject to draft affirmative parliamentary procedure. Section 80(2) requires her to consult the Equal Opportunities Commission before laying any such draft order before Parliament.
  265
  Section 73 of the Race Relations Act 1976 makes similar provision in relation to that Act, requiring the Secretary of State to consult the Council for Racial Equality before laying a draft order before Parliament.

  Except to the extent described in relation to the national curriculum, the Department is not aware of any requirement placed on the Government to publish its response to advice supplied by the advisory body.

  Schools (Access Audit)
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will publish the results of the recent access audit on mainstream schools. [22530]

  Mr. Forth
  Nationally, some 46 per cent. of primary and secondary schools have wheelchair access to more than 50 per cent. of teaching accommodation. The following table shows the proportion of schools in each local education authority which do so. This information will be useful to local education authorities and schools in assessing where there is a particular need for greater access for disabled pupils. A more detailed analysis of the data collected will be placed in the Library.

  LEA

  Total number of schools

  Number with more than 50 per cent. access to teaching accommodation

  Percentage with more than 50 per cent. access to teaching accommodation

  Corporation of London

  1

  0

  0

  Camden

  52

  5

  10

  Greenwich

  89

  31

  35

  Hackney

  71

  12

  17

  Hammersmith

  46

  12

  26

  Islington

  66

  1

  2

  Kensington

  29

  7

  24

  Lewisham

  82

  36

  44

  Southwark

  80

  21

  26

  Tower Hamlets

  89

  31

  35

  Wandsworth

  67

  15

  22

  Westminster

  49

  8

  16

  Barking

  63

  41

  65

  Barnet

  108

  16

  15

  Bexley

  77

  31

  40

  Brent

  69

  20

  29

  Bromley

  95

  16

  17

  Croydon

  115

  50

  43

  Ealing

  74

  5

  7

  Enfield

  82

  17

  21

  Haringey

  85

  4

  5

  Harrow

  63

  19

  30

  Havering

  89

  35

  39

  Hillingdon

  86

  38

  44

  Hounslow

  76

  46

  61

  Kingston upon Thames

  45

  19

  42

  Merton

  60

  20

  33

  Newham

  79

  28

  35

  Redbridge

  68

  3

  4

  Richmond upon Thames

  47

  6

  13

  Sutton

  54

  22

  41

  Waltham Forest

  78

  45

  58

  Birmingham

  405

  141

  35

  Coventry

  108

  56

  52

  Dudley

  104

  54

  52

  Sandwell

  130

  44

  34

  Solihull

  82

  49

  60

  Walsall

  121

  58

  48

  Wolverhampton

  118

  53

  45

  Knowsley

  74

  19

  26

  266

  LEA

  Total number of schools

  Number with more than 50 per cent. access to teaching accommodation

  Percentage with more than 50 per cent. access to teaching accommodation

  Liverpool

  208

  6

  3

  St. Helens

  78

  49

  63

  Sefton

  115

  56

  49

  Wirral

  125

  73

  58

  Bolton

  120

  60

  50

  Bury

  84

  41

  49

  Manchester

  199

  79

  40

  Oldham

  117

  77

  66

  Rochdale

  84

  45

  54

  Salford

  105

  21

  20

  Stockport

  123

  69

  56

  Tameside

  98

  50

  51

  Trafford

  94

  54

  57

  Wigan

  142

  99

  70

  Barnsley

  106

  40

  38

  Doncaster

  144

  102

  71

  Rotherham

  132

  36

  27

  Sheffield

  169

  60

  36

  Bradford

  244

  87

  36

  Calderdale

  100

  59

  59

  Kirklees

  188

  90

  48

  Leeds

  291

  122

  42

  Wakefield

  160

  93

  58

  Gateshead

  93

  42

  45

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  100

  41

  41

  North Tyneside

  80

  44

  55

  South Tyneside

  69

  40

  58

  Sunderland

  117

  51

  44

  Isles of Scilly

  5

  0

  0

  Avon

  425

  190

  45

  Bedfordshire

  286

  175

  61

  Berkshire

  324

  166

  51

  Buckinghamshire

  322

  138

  43

  Cambridgeshire

  303

  182

  60

  Cheshire

  495

  218

  44

  Cleveland

  245

  109

  44

  Cornwall

  278

  156

  56

  Cumbria

  318

  133

  42

  Derbyshire

  501

  275

  55

  Devon

  495

  188

  38

  Dorset

  252

  144

  57

  Durham

  338

  173

  51

  East Sussex

  253

  100

  40

  Essex

  681

  385

  57

  Gloucestershire

  299

  72

  24

  Hampshire

  646

  292

  45

  Hereford and Worcester

  357

  239

  67

  Hertfordshire

  505

  186

  37

  Humberside

  409

  220

  54

  Isle of Wight

  67

  45

  67

  Kent

  672

  268

  40

  Lancashire

  693

  428

  62

  Leicestershire

  406

  210

  52

  Lincolnshire

  353

  215

  61

  Norfolk

  428

  265

  62

  North Yorkshire

  450

  226

  50

  Northamptonshire

  322

  192

  60

  Northumberland

  204

  136

  67

  Oxfordshire

  280

  159

  57

  Shropshire

  244

  48

  20

  Somerset

  261

  70

  27

  Staffordshire

  486

  74

  15

  Suffolk

  333

  241

  72

  Surrey

  366

  75

  20

  Warwickshire

  271

  157

  58

  West Sussex

  287

  172

  60

  Wiltshire

  322

  186

  58

  Total/average

  21,746

  10,052

  46

ENVIRONMENT

  Telecommunications Masts and Wind Turbines
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what planning restrictions there are on the number of telecommunications masts erected in a particular area. [21415]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The erection of masts by telecommunications code system operators is subject either to full planning control or the prior approval procedure under part 24 of schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, depending on the size and location of the mast. There are no specific limits on numbers.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received from(a) South Somerset council and (b) Ryedale council in Yorkshire about planning applications for telecommunications masts. [21416]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In the past two years, the Department has received one representation each from South Somerset district council and Ryedale district council.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the impact of (i) telecommunications masts and (ii) wind farms on the number of visitors to rural areas. [21410]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department has not commissioned or evaluated research of this nature.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the section of planning policy guidance note 8 dealing with the erection of telecommunications masts. [21406]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department has no plans for reviewing this guidance. However, we shall shortly be publishing a code of practice on the planning procedures for the erection of masts under permitted development rights. This has been prepared jointly with local authority associations and the major operators who erect masts.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what planning regulations apply to telecommunications masts which are under 15 ft high. [21413]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Part 24 of schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted development) Order 1995 gives permitted development rights for telecommunications code system operators' masts up to 15 m high, except in protected areas such as conservation areas, national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, where full planning control applies. These rights are subject to a prior approval procedure which enables a local planning authority to give or refuse approval for the siting or appearance of a mast within 28 days of receipt of an application from an operator.
  268
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what statutory protection is provided to areas on the outskirts of areas of outstanding natural beauty from(a) telecommunication masts and (b) telecommunications masts less than 100 ft high. [21417]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The erection of masts by telecommunications code system operators in these adjoining areas is subject to either to full planning control or the prior approval procedure under part 24 of schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, depending on the size and location of the mast. The fact that it is visible from a specially protected area could be a material consideration in a planning decision relating to a mast.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to require companies which erect telecommunications masts to share these masts with other companies. [21405]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department already encourages mast sharing in planning policy guidance note 8, "Telecommunications". It is also a condition of the licences granted by the Department of Trade and Industry to mobile operators that the possibility of sharing an existing radio site must be explored.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the extent to which satellite technology will supersede telecommunications masts and over what time scale. [21407]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department understands that, because radio frequencies are limited, satellite technology is unsuited to telephone systems which handle a great many calls simultaneously.

  Tree Felling
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals he has considered in each of the last five years under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against refusals of local authorities to grant consent to fell trees; how many of these appeals he has upheld; and how many of his Department's staff are involved in work on these appeals. [21573]

  Mr. Clappison
  Separate information on appeals relating to felling only is not readily available. However, the table shows all appeals on tree-related matters considered by the Secretary of State under the 1990 Act in each of the last five financial years, and those upheld by him in the years for which figures are available. Work on these appeals forms a part of the responsibilities of several staff in the Department, and especially in the Government offices for the regions. The total annual staff effort currently involved is about 10 person years.

  Year

  Appeals considered

  Appeals upheld

  1995–96 (to date)

  396

  141

  1994–95

  401

  120

  1993–94

  383

  not applicable

  1992–93

  349

  not applicable

  1991–92

  331

  not applicable

  Mining and Quarrying Waste
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what joint working groups he has established with the mining and quarrying industries on the subject of mining and quarrying waste. [21735]

  Mr. Clappison
  There have been two formal joint working groups in the past to look at disposal of quarrying spoil and underground stowage in North-East Leicestershire. Other mining and quarrying issues, including waste, are covered in less formal discussions between the Department, the mining and quarrying industries and other interested parties where necessary as they arise.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average cost of answering an(a) and (b) written parliamentary question form (i) Opposition and (ii) Conservative hon. Members to each Session since 1989–90. [21813]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This Department does not collect the information in the form requested.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to enable local authorities to(a) quantify the extent of rough sleeping in their areas, (b) examine the causes of rough sleeping in their areas, (c) analyse the extent to which the needs of the homeless are catered for and (d) review the effectiveness of existing local strategy and the role of the public, private and voluntary sectors. [20874]

  Mr. Clappison
  It is the responsibility of every local authority to consider the housing needs of all its residents. The current "Housing Strategies" guidance advises local authorities to assess the resources within their area for single homeless people, including authorities' own provision and the contribution being made by others, including the private sector, housing associations, and voluntary sector organisations. The guidance also advises that, to assist this assessment, local authorities may wish to consider undertaking a count of rough sleepers, involving street agencies as appropriate.

  The strategy paper "Rough Sleepers Initiative: The Next Challenge", issued by the Government on 4 March 1996 announced that the successful rough sleepers initiative would be extended outside central London to Bristol where a recent single night head count had found 84 people sleeping rough. Twenty-three other local authorities were invited to let my Department know if they would like assistance in undertaking a detailed evaluation of the number of people sleeping rough in their area, including an assessment of current services available. These counts will be undertaken in partnership with local agencies wherever possible.

  South Oxfordshire (Computing Services)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the cost to public funds of(a) South Oxfordshire district council's failed contract for computing services and (b) earlier development work by John McLintock's company; [21106]
  270
  (2) what reasons have been given by South Oxfordshire district council for terminating the contract for computing services; and what was the original expiry date; [21107]

  (3) what severance arrangements South Oxfordshire district council has made with the contractor for computing services; and what payment has been made to (a) the owner and (b) his company; [21108]

  (4) if the district auditor has been asked to report on the quality of computing services purchased by South Oxfordshire district council. [21109]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  These are matters for South Oxfordshire district council to whom these questions should be put in the first instance. If there are doubts about the propriety or value for money for the contract in question they should be raised with the authority's external auditor.

  Mrs. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the implications for the privatisation of local government services of the contracting out of computing services by South Oxfordshire district council. [21105]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Authorities are free to contract out elements of their computer services subject to their obligations under EU and domestic legislation. As from 1 April 1999, South Oxfordshire district council will be required to subject part of its information technology services to compulsory competitive tendering.

  Rateable Values
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on linking rateable value of property to changing house prices. [21281]

  Mr. Clappison
  I take it that the hon. Member is referring to the banding of dwellings for council tax. The bandings reflect the relativities between the values of dwellings, based on 1991 property values. These relativities are not necessarily affected by subsequent changes in absolute house prices, and the Government have no current plans to review the bandings.

  Water Bills
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from individuals and organisations on the payment of water bills by pensioners and low-income households. [21282]

  Mr. Clappison
  Over the past 18 months my right hon. Friend has received representations on the payment of water bills by pensioners and low-income families from individuals, consumer groups, charities, pensioners' associations and local authorities.

  Severn Trent Water (Salaries)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from residents in Conventry concerning Severn Trent Water and the salaries paid to the company directors. [21283]
  271
  Mr. Clappison
  My right hon. Friend has not received any representations from residents of Coventry about the salaries paid to directors of Severn Trent Water.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with Severn Trent Water regarding the level of salaries of the company's directors. [21284]

  Mr. Clappison
  My right hon. Friend has not held any discussions with Severn Trent Water about the salary levels of its directors. This is a matter for the company and its shareholders.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give figures for the highest paid employee of Severn Trent Water from 1979 until privatisation(a) in real terms and (b) percentage change from the previous year. [21285]

  Mr. Clappison
  Information about the salary levels of Severn Trent water authority's board members for the years 1984 to 1989 is given in the annual editions of "Public Bodies", published by the Cabinet Office (Office of Public Service and Science). Salary levels of the authority's chairmen only are given in the 1982 and 1983 editions of this report. Copies of these publications are available in the Library. Comparable information for the period 1979 to 1981 is not available.

  Leicester City Council (Home Improvements)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much Leicester city council has received towards home improvements for each year since 1986; and how much its bid for each year was since 1986. [22068]

  Mr. Clappison
  Since 1986–87, Leicester city has received the following housing investment programme allocations to spend on the whole of its housing programme, a substantial amount of which would have been spent on improvements to both the public and private sector stock. These allocations have been supplemented by expenditure from the council's capital receipts.

  £ million

  HIP received

  HIP bid

  1986–87

  13.375

  47.735

  1987–88

  12.909

  52.091

  1988–89

  12.407

  57.369

  1989–90

  9.165

  62.037

  1990–91

  18.320

  54.392

  1991–92

  18.300

  54.035

  1992–93

  19.830

  49.416

  1993–94

  21.545

  29.393

  1994–95

  14.998

  22.500

  1995–96

  9.345

  17.400

  In addition, the city has benefited from the following additional resources to improve housing stock under the following three programmes:

  The estate action programme

  1986–87: £0.226 million

  1987–88: £0.650 million

  1988–89: £1.979 million

  1989–90: £2.549 million

  1990–91: £1.773 million

  1991–92: £3.455 million

  272

  1992–93: £2.779 million

  1993–94: £1.257 million

  1994–95: £2.599 million

  1995–96: £5.309 million.

  City challenge

  1993–94: £1.608 million

  1994–95: £0.836 million

  1995–96: £0.897 million.

  Housing association grant for new rehab units

  1986–87: not available

  1987–88: £6.062 million

  1988–89: £5.809 million

  1989–90: £2.713 million

  1990–91: £1.512 million

  1991–92: £2.348 million

  1992–93: £4.362 million

  1993–94: £5.078 million

  1994–95: £4.051 million

  1995–96: £2.051 million.

  Information on how these resources relate to the bids for each of the three programmes is not readily available.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what schemes for home improvements have been in receipt of housing grant in the City of Leicester since 1986. [22067]

  Mr. Clappison
  It is primarily for the city council to determine what schemes grant resources are spent on and the council should be able to provide full information. In the main, these resources will have funded the repurchase of defective dwellings, enveloping, group repair, homes insulation, environmental and other general improvements to the private sector stock in five housing action areas, 10 general improvement areas, and six renewal areas.

  Departmental Staff (Salaries)
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff in his Department earn salaries in each band of £10,000 above £40,000 per annum where salary is defined on the same basis as the draft accounts and audit regulations require of local authorities; and if that definition when applied to his Department's staff includes an element for the non-contributory civil service pension. [21880]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The number of staff in my Department—excluding Ordnance Survey, PSA Services and the Health and Safety Executive—in each salary band above £40,00 is as follows:

  Salary band

  Number of staff

  £40,000 to £50,000

  252

  £50,000 to £60,000

  90

  £60,000 to £70,000

  22

  £70,000 to £80,000

  5

  £80,000 to £90,000

  1

  £90,000 to £100,000

  1

  Salaries do not include sums due by way of expense allowances, nor any element for the non-contributory civil service pension.

  Leicester City Council (Housing Grant)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amounts of housing grant were received by Leicester city council in each year since 1986 as(a) in cash terms, and (b) in 1986. [22066]

  Mr. Clappison
  In the four years from 1986–87 to 1989–90 the following housing grant was given at the rates of 75 per cent. or 90 per cent. against loan charges for improvements to private sector dwellings in Leicester:

  £ million

  (a) In cash terms

  (b) In 1986 terms

  1986–87

  6.782

  6.782

  1987–88

  7.938

  7.536

  1988–89

  8.954

  7.968

  1989–90

  11.284

  9.386

  From 1990–91 a new financial control system was introduced under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, and for the first time a separate allocation, known as the SCG or specified capital grant allocation, was given for improvements to private sector dwellings as follows:

  £ million

  (a) In cash terms

  (b) In 1986 Terms

  1990–91

  4.502

  3,466

  1991–92

  3.198

  2.318

  1992–93

  4.732

  3.296

  1993–94

  4.300

  2.910

  1994–95

  3.089

  2.052

  1995–96

  2.325

  1.503

  For the three years 1990–91 to 1992–93 grant was given at the rate of 75 per cent. From 1993–94 the rate has been 60 per cent.

  In addition, the following city challenge grant was given for the renewal of private sector dwellings in Leicester.

  £ million

  (a) In cash terms

  (b) In 1986 terms

  1993–94

  0.328

  0.221

  1994–95

  0.376

  0.250

  1995–96

  0.300

  0.193

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which(a) the Government are required to consult prior to legislative proposals and (b) the Government are required to publish their response to advice supplied by them. [21856]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A list of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department can be found in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1995". A copy is available in the House of Commons Library.
  274
  There are statutory requirements for Ministers to consult the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, the Building Regulations Advisory Committee and the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council in specified circumstances. Proposals for secondary legislation to effect boundary and structural changes in local government can only be put forward by the Government after the Local Government Commission has made recommendations.

  There is no statutory requirement for the Government to publish responses to advice from advisory bodies.

  Bradford Metropolitan Council
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has considered the response by the City of Bradford metropolitan council to the notices served upon the authority on 3 October 1995 under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988; and if he will make a statement. [22703]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend has considered carefully the responses which the City of Bradford metropolitan council have made to the notice served on the authority for alleged anti-competitive behaviour. He has today given the authority a direction under section 14 of the Local Government Act 1988 for anti-competitive behaviour.

  After careful consideration, the Secretary of State remains of the opinion that the authority acted in an anti-competitive manner in awarding a contract for other catering work worth £112,516 to its in-house direct labour organisation. He considers that the authority required tenderers to have in place systems based on BS5750. He considers that the authority has not been able to demonstrate satisfactorily that the performance bond level was not too high. He is also of the belief that the authority did not consider a full analysis of the ways the contract could have been packaged and that such an analysis would have demonstrated the varying benefits to the authority from adopting different ways of tendering the work. He also notes that, contrary to the advice in paragraph 9 in the Department's circular 10/93, bidders were not allowed to bid for only parts of the contract.

  The direction given to the City of Bradford metropolitan council requires the authority to retender the work so that new arrangements are in place by 1 August 1997. The authority will need to obtain the Secretary of State's permission if it is intended to award the work in-house and to consult the British Hospitality Association before drawing up the new contract specification.

  Duty of Care (Code of Practice)
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to revise the code of practice on the duty of care; and if he will make a statement. [22704]
  275
  Mr. Clappison
  Following public consultation, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Wales and for Scotland have today issued a revised duty of care code of practice under section 34 of part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  The code of practice gives practical guidance to all waste holders on how to discharge their responsibilities under the duty of care. It has been revised to take into account changes to waste management legislation since it was first published in 1991 and in order to provide specific guidance to the metal recycling industry.

  The duty of care applies to any person who produces, imports, carries, keeps, treats or disposes of controlled waste. It obliges waste holders:

  to prevent the escape of waste in their control;

  to transfer it only to someone who is legally authorised to accept it; and

  to ensure that it is recovered or disposed of lawfully by others.

  Parties to any waste transfer must complete, sign and keep a transfer note which provides a "cradle to grave" audit trail of the waste transferred.

  The code of practice is admissible as evidence in court in prosecutions for breach of the duty of care. Breach of the duty is an offence with a penalty of an unlimited fine if convicted on indictment.

  As required by section 34(9) of the 1990 Act, a copy of the revised code of practice is being laid before the House and placed in the Library of the Houses.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government will publish their response to the first report by the Environment Committee into the single regeneration budget. [22705]

  Mr. Curry
  The Government are today publishing their response. Copies of the response have been placed in the Library of the House.

  North Lincolnshire District Council
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he is making to enable payment of the first instalments of grant under section 88A of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to recompense North Lincolnshire district council for the income forgone as a consequence of the transitional reduction of council taxes under the Local Government Changes for England (Council Tax) (Transitional Reduction) Regulations 1996—S.I. 1996 No. 176 as amended by S.I. 1996 No. 333. [22706]

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend has already announced that some £2.182 million is to be paid to North Lincolnshire under section 88A of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Parliamentary approval of this new expenditure is being sought in the 1996–97 main supply estimates for the local government and planning, England vote, class VI, vote 4. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure of £0.8 million on the first instalments of grant to the new North Lincolnshire district council will be met by a repayable advance from the contingencies fund.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Car Travel Expenses
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members who claim car mileage allowance as set out in his answer of 17 July 1995,Official Report, column 974, only claim one rate at each of the three dates. [19268]

  Mr. Newton
  The Fees Office has advised me that the breakdown of the 478 Members who claimed only one rate at that date is as follows:

  a) 11 Members claimed rate 1

  b) 150 Members claimed rate 2

  c) 317 Members claimed rate 3.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his letter of 9 November, what was the total cost of car travel expenses claimed in 1994–95 by(a) hon. Members claiming only rate 3, (b) hon. Members claiming only rate 2 and (c) hon. Members claiming both rates 2 and 3. [19264]

  Mr. Newton
  The Fees Office has advised me that the costs of car travel expenses claimed for standard journeys in 1994–95 are as follows:

  (a) £4,207,741

  (b) £761.731

  (c) £1,169,171.

  Divisions
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the largest number of votes cast in a Division in the House since 1966. [20071]

  Mr. Newton
  This information is not held in the form requested, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Members' Salaries and Pensions
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will request the chairman of the Senior Salaries Review Body to present an interim report on hon. Members' salaries and pensions by 31 May if the report is to be published after that date. [21247]

  Mr. Newton
  The chairman of the Senior Salaries Review Body has been asked to aim to complete the review in time to make recommendations at the end of June. It would not be reasonable to ask the SSRB to produce a report before then.

  Children's Act Exhibition
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition of children's art work in London to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [22433]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 24 June to Friday 28 June 1996.

  Reflections of Life Exhibition
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to reflections of life to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [22440]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 20 May to Friday 2 May 1996.

  House of Commons Notepaper
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to his answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 692, if Wilprint held the contract for the crested notepaper prior to February 1995; and what was the original agreed duration of the February 1995 contract. [22121]

  Mr. Beith
  Wilprint held the contract prior to February 1995; the agreed duration of the current contract is from February 1995 to October 1996.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March. [20525]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March. [20526]

  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.

  Ministerial Committee on the Co-ordination and Presentation of Government Policy
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Prime Minister which non-ministerial individuals, other than civil servants, attend meetings of the EDCP Cabinet Committee. [21588]

  The Prime Minister
  Some officials from Conservative Central Office and parliamentary private secretaries attend at the invitation of the Deputy Prime Minister, as chairman of this committee. They do not take part in any discussions, but are ready to follow up any issues of a party political nature. In this way, the civil servants present are protected from following up matters that do not properly relate to the presentation and co-ordination of Government policy.

  Departmental Contractors and Suppliers
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Prime Minister what measures his Department is taking to ensure that its contractors and suppliers(a) pay their employees a wage which ensures such employees do not need supplementary welfare payments via various state benefits and (b) meet workplace health and safety regulations; and if he will make a statement. [21464]
  278
  The Prime Minister
  For this purpose my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, on 20 March 1996,Official Report, columns 194–95.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average daily attendance at each of his Benefits Agency offices covering the(a) Doncaster and (b) Mexborough area for each year since 1993, and the current year to date; and what were the staffing levels for each benefits Agency office. [19630]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, The chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 20 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what was the average daily attendance at each of his Benefits Agency (BA) offices covering the (a) Donacaster and (b) Mexborough area for each year since 1993, and the current year to-date; and what were the staffing levels for each BA office.

  The information is only available for BA Districts. The Doncaster District comprises of Doncaster West (Castle House) and Doncaster East (St Peters House) offices and the Rother and Dearne District comprises of Goldthorpe, Mexborough, Rotherham North, Rotherham South and Wath on Dearne offices.

  Annex A gives details of average daily attendance at each District and Annex B gives details of the staff in post at the dates indicated in the table.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Annex A: Average daily attendance at Doncaster and Rother and Dearne districts

  Number

  1993–94

  Doncaster district

  CB Callers

  265

  IS Callers

  392

  Rother and Dearne district

  CB Callers

  294

  IS Callers

  321

  1994–95

  Doncaster and district

  CB Callers

  251

  IS Callers

  418

  Combined Callers

  645

  Rother and Dearne district

  CB Callers

  298

  IS Callers

  387

  Combined Callers

  653

  CB Callers = Contributory Benefit. IS Callers = Income related Benefit.

  Combined Caller count introduced August 1995.

  CB and IS Callers should not be added together to arrive at the Combined Caller Count since one caller could have approached both caller areas.
  279

  1 April 1995–31 January 1996

  Number

  Doncaster District

  641

  Rother and Dearne District

  696

  Data is not yet available for February/March 1996.

  Data are provisional and subject to change.

  Data supplied by BA central data unit.

  Annex B: Staff in post for Doncaster and Rother and Dearne Districts from 1993

  1 April 1993

  1 April 1994

  1 April 1995

  1 March 1996

  Doncaster District

  285.1

  270.8

  265.8

  282.4

  Rother and Dearne District

  355.5

  326.0

  312.3

  312.3

  These figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Child Support Agency clients are paying in maintenance more than(a) £400, (b) £500 and (c) £900 a month. [20887]

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. David Atkinson, dated 20 march 1996:

  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency maintenance assessments.

  Information is not available on the number actually paying maintenance. However, a statistically valid sample of live cases on the Child Support Computer System in August 1995 provided the following figures relating to the amount of full maintenance assessments;

  CSA clients assessed to pay

  Number

  Over £400 per month

  4,420

  Over £500 per month

  940

  Over £900 per month

  0

  I hope this is helpful.

  Benefit Payment Card
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to ensure that information currently contained in the pension book will be preserved and improved with the proposed new benefit payment card system with particular reference to(a) a permanent record of pension payments received, (b) details of how the pension is made up, (c) clear information on the amount due and the date available, (d) information on change of circumstances and (e) details of claiming income support. [11750]

  Mr. Heald
  [pursuant to his reply, 31 January 1996, c. 947]: I am advised that Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, is writing again to clarify his reply of 31 January 1996.
  280
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 20 March 1996:

  I am writing to clarify the information provided to you in my letter of 31 January 1996 in response to your Parliamentary Question. You asked the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to ensure that information currently contained in the pension book will be preserved and improved with the proposed new benefit payment card system with particular reference to (a) a permanent record of pension payments received, (b) details of how the pension is made up, (c) clear information on the amount due and the date available, (d) information on change of circumstances and (e) details of claiming Income Support (IS).

  The potential service suppliers have been asked to produce a receipt which will only include the following information; details of the type(s) of benefit paid, the amount(s) payable and the due date and the date of payment, but not the date of the last payment(s) made, as indicated in my earlier reply. As I explained in my earlier letter, customers should have no difficulty keeping a record of payment collected from the post office as a receipt will be given and the facility to request a full statement of the benefit account will be retained. This statement will be available on request from the local benefits office.

  I hope this explains the position and I apologise for any confusion.

  War Pensions
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many service personnel were awarded war pensions(a) between 1967 and 1987 and (b) since 1987; how many in (a) and (b) were awarded war pensions owing to disabilities or injuries sustained on active service; and how many in (a) and (b) were awarded war pensions for asbestos-related conditions. [21529]

  Mr. Heald
  The estimated number of war disablement pensions or lump sum gratuities awarded is as follows:

  (a) between 1967 and 1987–76,000

  (b) since 1987–297,770.

  These figures include awards made to other groups such as civilians and mercantile mariners who sustained qualifying injuries since records of awards made solely to ex-service personnel for disablement due to service in the armed forces are not available.

  The other information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  National Disability Council
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the minutes of the first meeting of the Government's new National Disability Council will be published. [21592]

  Mr. Burt
  This is a matter for the National Disability Council.

  Departmental Staff (Working Homes)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons in his Department worked in excess of 48 hours per week in any of the last 52 weeks; and what percentage of the staff employed this represents. [21509]
  281
  Mr. Burt
  Records of the number of hours worked by each employee are not kept centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  War Pensions Agency Helpline
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give a breakdown of the lost incoming telephone calls recorded by the War Pensions Agency helpline for each month since it was introduced. [21274]

  Mr. Heald
  This is a matter for Mr. Kevin Caldwell, chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from K. C. Caldwell to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 20 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of lost incoming telephone calls recorded by the War Pensions Agency Helpline since it was introduced.

  Although a Helpline has been in existence since February 1992, information on lost calls has only been available since we upgraded our telephone system in February 1994. The enclosed table shows the number of calls lost each month since then. These figures do not reflect the number of people attempting to contact us because enquirers often call back later if they cannot get through quickly at the first attempt.

  The number of calls received by the Helpline rose significantly during 1995 for a number of reasons. We introduced a new computer system, reorganised the way we work and moved to a new building. All this is aimed at securing a better, more cost effective service but there have been some issues arising from the changes which have resulted in many pensioners contacting the Agency for a variety of reasons. There was also the special exercise in restoration of War Widow's Pensions to those widows who had remarried after the death of their first husband and subsequently became widowed again or divorced/legally separated.

  Extra staff were drafted in to answer calls and our telephone system was upgraded further to divert automatically to an answerphone calls which have not been answered within 30 seconds. A message can then be left and the call is returned. These measures have led to a gradual reduction in lost calls since their peak in October 1995 and we are working to reduce lost calls to the pre-1995 level.

  I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Lost telephone calls to War Pensions Agency Helpline

  Month

  Total lost

  1994

  February

  116

  March

  484

  April

  748

  May

  1,266

  June

  1,530

  July

  1,077

  August

  1,890

  September

  2,548

  October

  2,390

  November

  1,804

  Decembe

  692

  1995

  January

  1,202

  February

  1,497

  March

  7,495

  April

  18,918

  May

  17,552

  June

  7,839

  July

  19,015

  282

  Lost telephone calls to War Pensions Agency Helpline

  Month

  Total lost

  August

  30,425

  September

  44,915

  October

  73,575

  November

  53,579

  December

  32,005

  1996

  January

  46,474

  February

  19,484

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which(a) the Government are required to consult prior to legislative proposals and (b) the Government are required to publish their response to advice supplied by them. [21864]

  Mr. Burt
  Except in circumstances prescribed in section 173 of, and schedule 7 to, the Social Security Administration Act 1992, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is required to refer proposed regulations to either the Social Security Advisory Committee or the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council for consideration and advice. If the committee reports on proposed regulations, he is required to lay before Parliament its report with his response to any recommendations when he lays the relevant statutory instrument.

  Motability Scheme
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if, under the proposed Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Amendment Regulations, hospital patients will be able to joint the waiting list for the hire or purchase of a vehicle through the Motability scheme while in hospital; [16623]

  (2) what factors led to the decision to protect, under the proposed Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Amendment Regulations, payments of the disability living allowance mobility component payable directly only to Motability when the agreement still has a period to run after a claimant has been admitted to hospital. [16709]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Under the proposed legislation, which would align payment arrangements of the mobility component of disability living allowance with those of the DLA care component for people in hospital, people entering hospital with Motability agreements would have those agreements protected. This decision recognises that access to the Motability scheme depends entirely on payment of the higher rate mobility components of DLA—sufficient to meet the terms of the agreement—by the Department direct to Motability Finance Ltd.

  The proposed changes would not prevent someone in hospital who expects to be discharged, from applying for a vehicle or wheelchair through the Motability scheme. Although payment of the benefit ceases during periods of hospitalisation, entitlement to the benefit continues. It would be for Motability to decide whether to accept such applications.

DEFENCE

  Boarding School Allowances
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost to his Department for children whose parents have claimed boarding school allowances in(a) autumn term 1995 and (b) in spring term 1996 at (i) Finborough, (ii) Rodney and (iii) Lime House schools. [22024]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 14 March,Official Report, column 680, concerning Finborough, Rodney and Lime House schools. Information concerning how much my Department pays in boarding school allowance in respect of particular schools is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Works of Art
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what disciplinary action has been taken or is planned against officials in his Department who moved works of art without official permission. [20836]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Moving works of art without official permission is not a specific disciplinary offence. Officials are warned that loans could be withdrawn if works of art are moved without official permission. Disciplinary action could arise if a work of art were damaged or lost as a result of being moved without permission.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list those works of art which have been loaned or which are currently on loan to Ministers or former Ministers; and how such loans are authorised; [20833]

  (2) if he will list those works of art which have been loaned to members of the Defence Council; and how such loans are authorised. [20832]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A list of works of art on loan to the offices of current ministers and other members of the Defence Council has been placed in the Library of the House. To list the works of art loaned to other Ministers, while in office, would incur disproportionate cost.

  Ministers and other Members of the Defence Council are entitled to borrow works of art from the Government art collection, subject to their conditions of loan, and from my Department's own collection. Other collections and museums may lend works at their own discretion.

  Royal Navy Vessel Procurement
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to replace the Royal Navy's coastal survey vessels; which yards have been invited to tender for new vessels; when such tenders are due to be returned; what estimate he has made of the cost per ship; and when it is intended they will enter service. [21701]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  In addition to the ocean survey vessel, HMS Scott, which was ordered in January 1995, my Department is currently considering plans to procure further survey vessels. I expect to be in a position to initiate discussions with industry later this year with a view to inviting tenders for a competitive procurement 284
  around the end of the year leading to an order later in 1997. I am not in a position to release estimates of cost as this information is commercially sensitive.

  Foxhounds
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria his Department has set for the registering of packs of foxhounds which hunt on their land; and if such packs must also be recognised by the Masters of Foxhounds Association. [21756]

  Mr. Soames
  Foxhunting on the defence estate is regulated by the issue of licences to those hunts which are officially recognised and accepted by the committee of the Master of Foxhounds Association. The licence is issued to a hunt representative who must be a member of the Master of Foxhounds Association.

  The registration of packs of foxhounds in the foxhound kennel stud book is a matter for the master of the hunt.

  Upholder Class Submarines (Disposal)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the four Upholder class submarines currently at Barrow-in-Furness; and if he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to ensure that their disposal represents the best value for money to public funds. [22022]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The four Upholder class submarines are currently being marketed for sale or lease to a number of friendly countries. The cost of marketing is regularly assessed against the likely return to Her Majesty's Government to ensure that it is cost-effective.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about negotiations with foreign countries with which his Department is involved with regard to disposal of the four Upholder class submarines. [22023]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department is currently engaged in negotiations with the Governments of several friendly nations interested in acquiring the Upholder class submarines.

  United States Bases
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the United States bases in the United Kingdom which are covered by(a) leases, (b) security of tenures and (c) other arrangements. [21842]

  Mr. Soames
  Bases are made available for use by United States forces in accordance with the NATO status of forces agreement of 1951 and confidential arrangements between the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the United States of America. It is not our practice to comment on the details of such arrangements.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what approaches he has received from(a) the US Government and (b) the US armed forces to renew the security of tenure arrangements at (i) Menwith Hill station and (ii) other US bases in the UK. [21850]
  285
  Mr. Soames
  The administration arrangements governing the basing of United States forces at RAF Menwith Hill are confidential between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America. These include the security of tenure correspondence which applied solely to Menwith Hill.

  RAF Brawdy
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United States personnel work at RAF Brawdy; and how many of them are employed by the National Security Agency of America. [21844]

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Menwith Hill Station
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the planned numbers of United States military personnel at Menwith Hill station will be in(a) the coming year, (b) the next three years and (c) the next five years. [21846]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our policy to give details of personnel assignment.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) United States, (b) British and (c) Government communications headquarters personnel currently work at Menwith Hill station. [21848]

  Mr. Soames
  There are currently approximately 1,200 United States and 600 UK personnel employed at RAF Menwith Hill. This includes a significant GCHQ presence. It is not Government policy, however, to give more detailed information on the deployment of GCHQ staff.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which members of the Intelligence and Security Committee visited Menwith Hill station; if the Committee took(a) oral and (b) written evidence before its visit; who the Committee met during the visit; what report the Committee plans to make about work undertaken at the station; and if he will make a statement; [21839]

  (2) when the Intelligence and Security Committee visited Menwith Hill station; what was the purpose of its visit; if the proposal that Menwith Hill station should become an RAF station was discussed; who invited the Committee to visit; how long the visit lasted; to what parts of the station the Committee was denied access; what was the outcome of the visit; and if he will make a statement. [21840]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not the Government's practice to disclose details of the Intelligence and Security Committee's business. The Committee itself does this through its annual report to the Prime Minister which he lays before Parliament; the publication of other reports is dependent on their content.
  286
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into links between the operations of Menwith Hill station and local incidence of cancer. [21841]

  Mr. Saomes
  My Department has neither commissioned nor evaluated any such research. Health issues affecting the local population are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are taken to ensure that operations at Menwith Hill station (i) comply with the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and (ii) do not intercept the communications of British businesses. [21843]

  Mr. Soames
  All interception of communications on public telecommunications networks in the UK is subject to the provisions of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. It is not Government policy to comment on the detailed operations of the intelligence and security agencies.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new building and construction work has been carried out or commissioned, at Menwith Hill station over the last six years; at what cost; to whom and what further work is planned over(a) the next year, (b) three years and (c) five years. [21845]

  Mr. Soames
  Over the past six years, there has been a variety of new building and construction work at RAF Menwith Hill including new radomes and operational structures as well as a range of social and domestic buildings including barrack accommodation and water towers. The total cost is a matter for the US authorities. Further planned development of the site will cover a new child development centre, an extension to the chapel, the erection of portable classrooms and extension of security fencing.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many US military personnel have started work at Menwith Hill station since 8 August 1995. [21847]

  Mr. Soames
  Since 8 August 1995, the overall manpower structure has not changed significantly.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what legal basis the US army occupies Menwith Hill station. [21849]

  Mr. Soames
  The basis on which the US army, along with other United States forces, is stationed in the UK is contained in the NATO status of forces agreement of 1951.

  Redundancy Costs
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the costs incurred by his Department as a result of redundancies in each of the three services in each of the last five years. [21886]

  Mr. Soames
  The "Options for Change" redundancy programme began in financial year 1992–93. In that year, redundancy payments of £232 million were made. In 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 the payments totalled £509 million, £453 million and £187 million respectively.
  287
  These costs are split between the three services as follows:

  £ million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  RN

  12

  95

  75

  28

  ARMY

  209

  328

  281

  16

  RAF

  11

  86

  97

  143

  Total

  232

  509

  453

  187

  These payments include special capital payments, and early payment of terminal grants, commuted pension payments and the first year's payment of immediate pensions.

  Merchant Vessels
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions merchant vessels chartered by his Department to transport troops and equipment to the UN implementation force operation in Bosnia have been inspected under port state control arrangements; and what vessel deficiencies have been identified by such inspections. [22001]

  Mr. Soames
  Neither of the two merchant vessels chartered for IFOR and used for deployment and sustainment was subject to a port state control inspection during the period of MOD charter.

  USAF Lakenheath
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what emergency plans are in place in the event of an accident involving the American nuclear weapons store at USAF Lakenheath. [21851]

  Mr. Soames
  It has been the long-standing policy of both the United Kingdom and the United States Governments neither to confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons at any particular place or time. Bilateral arrangements for responding to an accident involving a US nuclear weapon provide for a joint response in which US and UK military and civilian personnel would work in conjunction with the civil emergency services.

  Recruitment Costs
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the costs of recruitment in each of the three services in each of the last five years. [21887]

  Mr. Soames
  The costs of recruitment in each of the three services for each of the last five years is shown. Total recruitment figures for the Army are not available for the first year as they cannot be identified separately.

  £ million

  Year

  Royal Navy

  Army

  RAF

  1990–91

  23.48

  n/a

  26.33

  1991–92

  26.83

  42.20

  27.98

  1992–93

  19.00

  42.60

  27.45

  1993–94

  21.10

  48.61

  27.60

  1994–95

  19.50

  45.91

  27.87

  Reservists
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to replace those members of the Territorial Army and Army Reserve who were called out last December and February to support the United Kingdom's contribution to the NATO implementation force in former Yugoslavia. [22650]

  Mr. Soames
  Work has commenced to trawl for suitably qualified volunteers from the Army Reserve and Territorial Army who are willing to be called out for service in former Yugoslavia, and also to identify those reservists currently called out who are prepared to extend their period of service.

  Munitions Dumping
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 March,Official Report, columns 510–11, what was the use of Bedenham quay in Hampshire in munitions dumping exercises; how long it was in use for those purposes; and what was the volume and type of material which was dumped in each area. [21954]

  Mr. Soames
  I am not aware of any surviving records that document any past sea dumping of munitions from Bedenham jetty, now part of the Royal Navy armaments depot, Gosport.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 March,Official Report, columns 510–11, what radioactive waste emanating from military establishments has been dumped or loose dumped into the English channel. [21955]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of the UK's sea disposal programme for low and intermediate-level radioactive wastes, including very low-level contaminated sludges generated by MOD establishments and disposed of at Hurd deep, were contained in a report commissioned by the Department of the Environment titled "Report of the Independent Review of Disposal of Radioactive Waste in the Northeast Atlantic" published in November 1984.

  Boi de Mai Residence
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's asking price for the official service residence Boi de Mai; what was the original purchase price; in what year the property was purchased by his Department; and what was the total amount spent by his Department on improvements to the residence. [21964]

  Mr. Soames
  Boi de Mai was purchased in November 1992 and furnished for £2.4 million. The price of the house was £1.9 million. The economic recession in western Europe has affected the Belgian residential housing market. As a consequence, our agents advise an unfurnished asking price of £1.565 million. These prices are calculated at the Government accounting exchange rate prevailing at the time. A total of £683,000 was spent on improvements and maintenance to the property. This figure includes an initial refurbishment and "get you in" package of some £235,000—including the installation and subsequent repairs of a security system. Some £150,000 was also spent on other furnishings which will be removed.

  Empty Quarters
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of empty Ministry of Defence quarters in southern England(a) by county and (b) by shire district or borough at the latest available date. [21381]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has 4,976 empty family quarters in southern England. Of these, 558 are to be modernised, 1,454 have been identified for disposal, 316 are to be demolished and 630 are allocated for incoming service families.

  A breakdown by county and local authority is given:

  Number

  Avon

  Woodspring District Council

  207

  Berkshire

  Bracknell Forest Borough Council

  12

  Newbury District Council

  24

  Royal Borough of Windsor

  9

  Wokingham District Council

  55

  100

  Cornwall

  Kerrier District Council

  89

  Restormel District Council

  71

  Caradon District Council

  11

  171

  Devon

  East Devon District Council

  36

  Exeter City Council

  10

  North Devon District Council

  48

  Plymouth County Council

  298

  South Hams District Council

  9

  West Devon District Council

  9

  410

  Dorset

  East Dorset District Council

  18

  North Dorset District Council

  188

  Poole Borough Council

  18

  Purbeck District Council

  81

  Weymouth and Portland Borough Council

  33

  338

  East Sussex

  Wealden District Council

  76

  Hampshire

  East Hampshire District Council

  53

  Fareham District Council

  21

  Gosport Borough Council

  238

  Hart District Council

  22

  Havant District Council

  20

  Portsmouth County Council

  142

  Rushmoor City Council

  120

  Test Valley Borough Council

  101

  Winchester County Council

  63

  New Forest District Council

  51

  831

  Hertfordshire

  Watford District Council

  22

  Three Rivers District Council

  23

  Hertsmere District Council

  40

  85

  290

  Number

  Kent

  Dover District Council

  191

  Gravesham District Council

  17

  Rochester upon Medway District Council

  127

  Shepway District Council

  210

  545

  London

  Barnet Outer London Borough

  230

  Bromley Outer London Borough

  3

  Camden Inner London Borough

  7

  Croydon Outer London Borough

  3

  Greenwich Outer London Borough

  206

  Harrow Outer London Borough

  21

  Hillingdon Outer London Borough

  82

  Hounslow Outer London Borough

  122

  Kensington and Chelsea Inner London Borough

  24

  Kingston Outer London Borough

  60

  Lambeth Inner London Borough

  3

  Lewisham Inner London Borough

  11

  Merton Outer London Borough

  1

  Richmond Outer London Borough

  15

  Sutton Outer London Borough

  12

  Wandsworth Inner London Borough

  46

  Westminster Inner London Borough

  139

  985

  Oxfordshire

  Vale of the White Horse District Council

  67

  Somerset

  South Somerset District Council

  44

  Surrey

  Elmbridge District Council

  4

  Guildford Borough Council

  89

  Horsham Borough Council

  1

  Spelthorne District Council

  5

  Surrey Heath Borough Council

  42

  Tandridge District Council

  129

  Working Borough Council

  28

  298

  West Sussex

  Chichester Borough Council

  37

  Wiltshire

  Kennet District Council

  262

  North Wiltshire District Council

  17

  Salisbury District Council

  454

  Thamesdown Borough Council

  49

  782

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Public Houses (Opening Hours)
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce legislation to allow public houses to stay open later. [21296]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We are currently considering the scope for relaxing evening licensing hours. Any proposals for extending existing hours would be subject to public consultation.

  Buckley Hall Prison
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the responsibilities of the Home Office representatives that are at present at Buckley Hall
  291
  prison in relation to the decision to grant a prisoner a period of release on temporary licence under (a) prison rules and (b) young offenders institution rules; and if the responsibilities of a governor of a privately run prison are identical to those of a governor of a prison directly run by the Prison Service in making a decision to grant a prisoner a period of release on temporary licence under (a) and (b). [21882]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 21 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the respective responsibilities of the Home Office Controller and the Director of a privately-managed prison with regard to granting a prisoner release on temporary licence.

  The decision to grant a prisoner a period of release on temporary licence under the Prison Rules or Young Offender Institution Rules is a matter for the Secretary of State. In practice, this will normally be taken on his behalf by the governor of the prison or, in the case of a contracted-out establishment, the Home Office Controller.

  Any recommendation to grant a period of temporary release is passed to the Controller for authorisation. The Controller must be satisfied that the systems in place, to allow a risk assessment to be undertaken on all prisoners applying for temporary release, fulfil all contractual requirements.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations the Prison Service has carried out into Buckley Hall prison; what information on these is in the public domain; what investigations are currently being carried out; and if details of these investigations will be made public. [21888]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 21 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about investigations the Prison Service has carried out into Buckley Hall prison; the information which is in the public domain; the investigations which are currently being carried out; and whether details of these investigations will be made public.

  The Prison Service Controller has carried out six investigations. These dealt with: (a) an allegation that a member of staff had threatened a prisoner; (b) a member of staff had allegedly assaulted a prisoner; (c) the escape of a prisoner from within the prison; (d) an attempted escape; (e) an escape from an escort; and (f) a hospital break-in by prisoners. All the reports were submitted to the area manager. None are in the public domain and there is no intention to make such reports available.

  Group 4 are currently examining the number and type of temporary release failures as a normal response to such incidents. Any report produced will also be for internal use only.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the objects that were stolen from the hospital in Buckley Hall prison following the break-in by prisoners in August 1995; and if he will list the objects that were subsequently recovered. [21891]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  292
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 21 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question requesting a list of objects stolen from the hospital at Buckley Hall prison following a break-in by prisoners in August 1995, and a list of the objects subsequently recovered.

  The items stolen by prisoners from the hospital at Buckley Hall were:

  Valium 2mg x 1000 tablets

  Valium 5mg x 300 tablets

  Coproxamol x 300 tablets

  Diamorphine 5ml x 2 ampules

  Temgesic x 28 tablets

  DF118 x 460 tablets

  Amitriptyline 50ml.

  Many of the tablets are believed to have been recovered as a result of later cell searches, it is not possible to identify whether all the tablets recovered were stolen from the hospital or, if some were tablets issued to prisoners which they had failed to take.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed escape attempts have occurred at Buckley Hall prison since its opening; and what is the national average over the same period of time for male category C training prisons. [21889]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 21 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many failed escape attempts have occurred at Buckley Hall prison since its opening; and what is the national average over the same period of time for male category C training prisons.

  Between its opening on 14 February 1992 and 29 February 1996, there have been three reported failed escape attempts from Buckley Hall prison by individual prisoners. In the same period, the reported average for the category C training estate is 1.68.

  These figures refer to failed escape attempts from within the prison and exclude escorts.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the recorded number of assaults on prison officers at Buckley Hall prison since its opening; and what is the average number for male category C training prisons over the same period. [20919]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 March 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 21 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking for the latest figures of assaults on prison officers for Buckley Hall and all male category C training prisons.

  The attached table provides provisional information on the number of assaults on staff of all grades, including prison officers, during the period January 1995 to February 1996.

  The details of assaults on prison officer grades alone would only be available at disproportionate cost.
  293

  Number and rates of assault on staff per 100 population January 1995—February 1996

  Assaults on staff1 2

  Number

  Rate per 100 population

  1995

  Buckley Hall

  16

  7.1

  Male cat. C training prisons

  322

  2.5

  January-February 1996

  Buckley Hall

  1

  31.8

  Male cat. C training prisons

  60

  32.7

  1 Includes assaults on staff of prison officer grade or another member of staff.

  2 Provisional.

  3 Based on population for end January 1996.

  Fine Defaulters
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of sentence of a fine defaulter. [21114]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Anne Campbell, dated 21 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking, what is the average length of sentence of a fine defaulter.

  The average custody period imposed on prisoners received in 1995 for non-payment of a fine was about 17 days.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently in prison for(a) non-payment of fines, (b) non-payment of the community charge and (c) non-payment of council tax. [21244]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 21 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking, how many people are currently in prison for (a) non-payment of fines, (b) non-payment of the community charge and (c) non-payment of council tax.

  The latest available information is for 31 January 1996. On that date there were 358 persons in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for non-payment of a fine and 42 for non-payment of community charge. No persons were recorded as being in custody for non-payment of council tax.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of maps of the areas covered by each of the London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Leeds and Bristol fire authorities showing the risk areas together with their minimum statutory response requirements. [21534]
  294
  Mr. Sackville
  No. Categorisation of fire risk within a particular brigade area is a matter for the local fire authority concerned.

  Replica Weapons
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions have been achieved since the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 came into force for possession of replica weapons as part of a criminal activity; and if he will make a statement. [21711]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 19 March 1996]: The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1994, which came into force on 21 September 1994, introduced a new offence under section 16A of the Firearms Act 1968 of possession of a firearm or imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence.

  Information held centrally shows no record of any convictions under the aforesaid legislation in 1994. The 1995 data will not be available until the autumn 1996.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the total number of valid firearms certificates in respect of each police district of London for the current year. [21710]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 19 March 1996]: The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The latest figures which are readily available relate to December 1994, when in the whole of the Metropolitan police area there were 9,345 valid firearm certificates on issue.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training is given to police officers in the evaluation of applications for firearms licences; and if he will make a statement. [21712]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 19 March 1996]: Nationally, all police officers are given training in the firearms administration process as part of their probation. Additional training is provided to those undertaking the evaluation of applications for firearms licences at the discretion of individual chief officers of police. In the majority of police forces, applications are evaluated either by dedicated trained police officers or civilian staff, or by nominated officers who are trained and experienced in firearms issues.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the total number of firearms certificates(a) issued for new applications, (b) which are renewals and (c) which are valid for more than one year in England and Wales for each year since 1985. [21709]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 19 March 1996]: The latest available information is published in the annual Home Office Statistical Bulletin 'Firearm certificate statistics, England and Wales 1994', issue 11/95, table 1, copies of which can be found in the Library.

  New firearms certificates granted prior to 1995 were initially made valid for three years and could be renewed after this time for further three-year periods. Since the Firearms (Period of Certificate) Order 1994 came into

  295
  effect on 1 January 1995, the order has extended to five years the life of all firearms certificates granted or renewed after that date.

  Gun Clubs
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the total number of gun clubs in each local authority district of England and Wales indicating the total number of weapons held in each and the total membership for each year since 1985. [21714]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 19 March 1996]: There are currently 2,252 gun clubs in England and Wales approved by the Home Office under section 15 of the Firearms Act 1988 in which members may use firearms for target practice without holding a firearms certificate. More detailed information about these clubs could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information is not held centrally on gun clubs which do not fall within the section 15 scheme.

  Firearms-related Crime
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he is taking to deal with the problem of firearms-related crime. [13872]

  Mr. Howard
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 February 1996, c. 707) I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland were in discussion with the police service before the Dumblane tragedy about the possibility of a firearms amnesty. It has now been agreed that such an amnesty will take place in England and Wales and in Scotland. The details are being worked out.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which(a) the Government are required to consult prior to legislative proposals and (b) the Government are required to publish their response to advice supplied by them. [21853]

  Mr. Willetts
  This Department responds publicly to reports of some NDPBs, such as the Standing Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Government panel on sustainable development. We are not, however, required by statute so to do.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the membership of the board of trustees of each national lottery distribution body, indicating for each(a) the salary of the chief executive, (b) the staff complement and (c) the overall annual budget; and if she will indicate the figures for (a) to (c) prior to introduction of the national lottery. [17224]
  296
  Mr. Sproat
  The list shows the membership of the board of trustees of each national lottery distribution body. For the details of salary, staff complement, and overall annual budget, prior to the introduction of the national lottery, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given on 29 February,Official Report, columns 697–700.

  The Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  Donnell Deeny, QC (Chairman)

  Jim Aitken Esq

  Sir Charles Brett, CBE

  Sam Burnside

  Councillor Fred Cobain

  Paddy Donnelly

  Ms Rita Duffy

  Dr. Tess Hurson

  Ms Kate Ingram

  Professor Edna Longley

  Councillor William O'Connell

  Richard Pierce Esq

  Chrissie Poulter

  Mrs. Irene Sandford

  Professor Robert Welch

  The Arts Council of England

  Lord Gowrie (Chairman)

  Sir Richard Rogers

  Peter Gummer

  Trevor Nunn

  Usha Prashar

  Prudence Skene

  Thelma Holt

  Professor Christopher Frayling

  Gavin Henderson

  Stephen Phillips

  Richard Cork

  Sir Ernest Hall

  Stella Robinson

  Maggie Gillebaud

  Robert Southgate

  David Reid

  The Scottish Arts Council

  Dr. William Brown (Chairman)

  Fiona Walker

  Dr. Rita McAllister

  Geraint Stanley Jones Esq

  Paul Dowds Esq

  Councillor Keith Geddes

  Councillor Janette Richardson

  Lesley Thomas Esq

  Dr. Sheila Brock

  Sheriff Peter Hamilton

  John Denholm Esq

  Dr. Ian McGowan

  Robert Love Esq

  Professor Eric Spiller

  The Arts Council of Wales

  Sir Richard Rogers

  Ms Jane E. Davidson

  Meirion Edwards Esq

  297

  Frank Evans Esq

  H. Keith Evans Esq

  Ms Katrina Gass

  J. Peter G. Griffiths Esq

  R Gerallt H. Jones Esq

  Geraint Stanley Jones Esq CBE

  David Richards Esq

  Alwyn Roberts Esq

  Eurig Thomas Esq

  Professor Gwyn Thomas

  Ms Moira M. Vincentelli

  The Sports Council for Wales

  Ossie Wheatley MA (Chairman)

  Tom Baxter-Wright (Vice Chairman)

  Mrs. Wendy Williams

  Mrs. Jill Edwards

  Councillor Mrs. Dorothy James

  Miss Anne Ellis OBE

  Councillor W. J. Williams

  Mr. Hugh Thomas

  Mr. Robert Turner

  Mr. Harvey Davies JP

  Mr. Peter Gunn

  Mr. Edgar Lewis

  Mr. David Burcher

  The Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  Don Allen (Chairman)

  Stephen Hilditch (Vice Chairman)

  Peter Robinson Tony Carlin

  Mrs. Roseanne McCaughan

  Mrs. June Davis

  Mrs. Georgie Hear

  Mrs. Jackie Mc Williams

  David Bowen

  Clarence Hiles

  Dr. Ian Corry

  Miss Fionuala McGrady

  Jim Mckeever

  Dawson Stelfox

  Ronnie Trouton

  The GB Sports Council

  Rodney Walker (Chairman)

  Gerald Dennis Esq.

  Trevor Booking MBE

  Julie Bracewell

  Tim Marshall MBE

  Keith Oates

  Graeme Simmers OBE CA

  Dr. Sarah Springman

  Geoff Thompson

  Ossie Wheatley MA

  Derek Casey (Chief Executive)

  The Scottish Sports Council

  Graeme Simmers, OBE, CA

  Alan Grosset

  G. Malcolm Murray, FFA

  David Arnott

  J. Neil Stevenson

  298

  Miss Lesley Grant, MBE

  Alan Grosset, WS

  Mrs. Evlyn Ruistrick

  Mrs. Margaret Seymour

  Major-General John MacDonald Esq. CB CBE

  Fred Nelson

  The National Heritage Memorial Fund

  Lord Rothschild (Chairman)

  Sir Richard Carew Pole

  Lord Crathorne

  W Lindsay Evans Esq

  Sir Nicholas Goodison

  Mrs Caryl Hubbard

  Sir Martin Jacomb

  John Keegan Esq

  Lord Macfarlane of Bearsden

  Professor Palmer Newbould

  Mrs Diane Nutting

  Mrs Catherine Porteous

  Commander Michael Saunders Watson

  The Millennium Commission

  Rt Hon Virginia Bottomley MP (Chairman)

  Professor Heather Couper BSc D Litt FRAS

  The Earl of Dalkeith

  The Hon T Robin V Dixon, CBE DL

  Sir John Hall

  The Rt Hon Michael Heseltine MP

  Simon Jenkins Esq

  Michael Montague, CBE

  Patricia Scotland QC

  National Lottery Charities Board

  David Sieff Esq (Chairman)

  English Committee

  Ian Clarke Esq

  Stella Clarke

  Amanda Jordan

  Andrew Phillips

  Chirs Woodcock

  Scotland Committee

  Graham Bowie Esq

  William Kirkpatrick Esq

  Philomena de Lima

  Garth Morrison

  Wales Committee

  Tom Jones Esq

  June Churchman

  Linda Quinn

  Alan Higgins

  Northern Ireland Committee

  John Simpson Esq

  Mrs Aideen McGinley

  Ms Monica McWilliams

  Noel Stewart

  UK Committee

  Andrew Phillips Esq

  Amir Bhatia Esq

  Graham Bowie Esq

  Julia Kaufman

  Sir Adam Ridley

  Departmental Staff (Working Hours)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many persons in her Department worked in excess for 48 hours per week in any of the last 52 weeks; and what percentage of the staff employed this represents. [21582]

  Mr. Sproat
  The number of staff recorded as being paid for overtime which took their hours worked to over 48 hours in a week is 65, which represents 18 per cent. of the Department's staff.

  No records are held centrally, however, of the hours worked either by senior staff not eligible for paid overtime or other staff who choose not to claim overtime, or those on flexible working schemes.

  Sports Grounds (Taylor Report)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate she has made of the total cost of implementing the Taylor committee's recommendations on safety in sports grounds over the period 1990 to 2000. [21223]

  Mr. Sproat
  From 1990 to the end of 1994–95, it is estimated that around £400 million was committed to implementing improvements at league football grounds related to the recommendations of the Taylor report into the Hillsborough disaster. In 1993, it was estimated that, between 1995–96 and 1999–2000, a further £295 million would be needed to complete this work. The latest estimate by the Football Trust is that likely costs will be £358 million. To date, the Football Trust has contributed some £135 million towards the league clubs' costs, funded from a special 2.5 per cent. reduction in pool betting duty that will continue until 2000. A further 0.5 per cent. reduction in pool betting duty was announced in the last Budget, effective from May 1996, which it is estimated will generate an extra £2.5 million to £3 million a year for the Football Trust to grant aid Taylor-related works.

  Princess of Wales (Accommodation)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 12 March,Official Report, column 557, what the Princess of Wales's apartment consists of; what her staffs accommodation consists of; and what accommodation is available in other occupied royal palaces for the princess and her staff. [21360]

  Mr. Sproat
  Her Royal Highness's apartment at Kensington palace comprises five reception rooms, three principal bedrooms and bathrooms and three ancillary rooms, together with nine staff bedrooms, four bathrooms and shower rooms, five general staff rooms, three offices, and kitchen and utility areas.

  Self-contained residential accommodation for Her Royal Highness's staff comprises one flat with a kitchen, bathroom living room and three bedrooms and one flat with a kitchen, bathroom, living room and one bedroom.

  The Princess of Wales and her staff have no residential accommodation on the occupied royal palaces estate other than that referred to.

  Prince of Wales (Accommodation)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 12 March,Official Report, column 557, what the Prince of Wales's apartment consists of; what non-self-contained residential accommodation is available for His Royal Highness's staff; and what accommodation is available in other occupied royal palaces for His Royal Highness and his staff. [21361]

  Mr. Sproat
  His Royal Highness's apartment in St. James's palace comprises three reception rooms, one principle bedroom and two staff bedrooms, together with ancillary accommodation.

  Accommodation for His Royal Highness's staff comprises three flats and one house at Kensington palace. Two flats have one bedroom and one reception room and one has one bedroom and two reception rooms. The house has four bedrooms, three reception rooms and ancillary rooms.

  The Prince of Wales and his staff have no residential accommodation on the occupied royal estate other than that referred to.

  Government Art Collection
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many works of art from the Government art collection are currently on loan to each Government Department or office. [20564]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The figures given relate to the core holding only. All works on loan to the Government art collection from public and private collections, all works owned by other Government Departments which the GAC includes on its computerised database to facilitate their administration and care, all works currently on public display in exhibitions and all reproductions are excluded. So too are all works at GAC headquarters—these include works in temporary storage during Government rebuilding projects, works awaiting conservation, photography or framing, works reserved pending transport and installation, as well as those available for reselection. Excluding works in those categories, the current figures for loans to Government Departments and offices from the Government art collection are as follows:

  Number

  Agriculture and Food Council

  2

  British Library

  1

  Cabinet Office

  102

  Central Statistical Office

  7

  Charity Commission

  2

  Civil Service Commission

  1

  Commonwealth Secretariat

  32

  Crown Estate Office

  8

  Customs and Excise

  21

  Department for Education and Employment

  82

  Department of the Environment

  91

  Department of Health

  78

  Department of National Heritage

  154

  Department of Social Security

  67

  Department of Trade and Industry

  97

  Department of Transport

  47

  Export Credits Guarantee Department

  3

  English Heritage

  1

  Foreign Office: 284 Locations Abroad

  4,722

  Foreign Office: UK Locations

  463

  301

  Number

  Government Actuary's Department

  1

  Government Conference Centre: Lancaster House

  29

  Government Hospitality

  9

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  189

  Her Majesty's Treasury: Location Abroad

  6

  High Court of Justiciary

  42

  Historic Royal Palaces

  66

  Home Office

  101

  Inland Revenue

  17

  Land Registry

  1

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  28

  Lord Advocate's Department

  17

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  592

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  41

  Ministry of Defence

  267

  Ministry of Defence: Locations Abroad

  118

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission

  24

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  10

  National Audit Office

  16

  National Gallery

  1

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  7

  National Investment and Loans Office

  1

  Northern Ireland Office

  116

  Office of Fair Trading

  4

  Office of the National Lottery

  5

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  5

  Office of Public Service and Science

  12

  Office for Standards in Education

  7

  Office of Telecommunications

  5

  Office of Water Service

  5

  Overseas Development Administration

  18

  Palace of Westminster

  6

  Patent Office

  1

  Parliamentary Commissioners

  7

  Parliamentary Council

  28

  Prime Minister's Office

  164

  Privy Council Office

  48

  Property Holdings: Admiralty House

  4

  Public Record Office

  10

  Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre

  16

  Royal Armouries

  4

  Royal Fine Arts Commission

  3

  Register of Friendly Societies

  8

  Royal Hospital

  14

  Royal Mint

  8

  Scottish Courts Administration

  4

  Special Commissioners of Income Tax

  2

  Scottish Home and Health Department

  5

  Scottish Land Court and Lands Tribunal

  8

  Scottish Office

  37

  Council on Tribunals

  5

  Treasury Solicitors' Department

  7

  Government Whips' Office

  28

  Welsh Office

  79

  Total

  8,237

  Government department Defunct organisations in square brackets

  Missing 1991–96

  Missing 1898–1991

  Stolen 1991–96

  Stolen 1898–1991

  [British Maritime Technology]

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Cabinet Office

  1

  5

  -

  —

  Civil Service Commission

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Crown Prosecution Service

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Customs and Excise

  —

  18

  —

  —

  [Department of Education and Science]

  —

  6

  —

  —

  [Department for Employment]

  —

  4

  —

  —

  [Department of Energy]

  —

  4

  —

  1

  Department of the Environment

  1

  48

  —

  4

  [Department of Health and Social Security]

  —

  18

  —

  —

  Department of Trade and Industry

  —

  22

  —

  —

  Department of Transport

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Export Credits Guarantee Department

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Foreign Office Abroad: 356 buildings

  10

  196

  1

  1

  302
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if she will list by Government Department or office how many works of art on loan from the Government art collection are considered to have been(a) missing and (b) stolen for (i) less than five years and (ii) more than five years; [20562]

  (2) if she will list by Government Department or office the number of works of art on loan from the Government art collection that are considered to be (a) missing and (b) stolen. [20563]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  The Government art collection, under different aliases, has existed since 1898 but it was not until after the second world war that a retrospective, and necessarily inaccurate, manual record of accessions was created. The first project to computerise the accession records and the current locations of works began in 1981. Given the distribution of the collection in, at the peak, around 600 different buildings in 300 cities across the world, computerisation was not completed until 1993. Tracing the consecutive history of individual works throughout the century, using inconsistent and incomplete manual records, has not always been possible and the fate of some may never be established. Thus, numerical accounts of works which have been long lost can only be approximate in that they reflect records which cannot be reconciled rather than actual lost works.

  It is also seldom possible to state exactly whether works have been misplaced or deliberately stolen. The table listing the number of pictures considered to be missing and stolen over the past 98 years from the named Government Departments and offices reflects the GAC's best effort to decide the individual circumstances which caused a particular work of art to leave a particular room in a particular building in a particular city somewhere in the world. "Missing" is not an absolute status; it means a work is not in the room where it was last installed and recorded by the GAC. Each year "missing" works are found again, often in legitimate Government locations where they had been moved without GAC authority and knowledge. Efforts to trace works continue until and unless it can be established that they no longer exist.

  Six of the 27 works listed below as missing since 1991 were lost during the emergency evacuations of British embassies in Belgrade and Baghdad. The 27 works include no paintings, 20 prints, two photographs and five watercolours. Of the 10 works stolen since 1991, five are prints, four are watercolours and one is a painting.
  303

  Government department Defunct organisations in square brackets

  Missing 1991–96

  Missing 1898–1991

  Stolen 1991–96

  Stolen 1898–1991

  Emergency evacuations of Embassies

  6

  —

  —

  —

  In transit and at contractors abroad

  —

  —

  —

  20

  Foreign Office UK

  —

  14

  3

  —

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  —

  7

  —

  —

  Home Office

  3

  9

  —

  —

  Inland Revenue

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  2

  9

  —

  9

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  —

  4

  1

  —

  Ministry of Defence UK

  2

  53

  1

  12

  Ministry of Defence abroad

  2

  6

  —

  5

  Northern Ireland Office

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Overseas Development Administration

  —

  3

  —

  —

  [Property Services Agency]

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  —

  —

  4

  —

  Scottish Home and Health Department

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Department Unknown

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to the answer of the Prime Minister of 28 February 1996,Official Report, column 568, for what purpose and to whom funds will be contributed by the private sector to offset the cost of mounting the millennium exhibition; and what advantages will such donors gain from their contributions. [19571]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer Friday 8 March 1996]: The Millennium Commission makes all decisions entirely independently of Government, and it is for the commission to determine the arrangements for a millennium exhibition. The commission has selected the ideas and concepts for an exhibition submitted by Imagination Group Ltd., and announced on 28 February its preference for the event to be located on the Greenwich peninsula site. The commission has made it very clear that it intends that an exhibition would be funded by a combination of private sector funds alongside a commission grant. The commission has stated that it will need to be fully satisfied as to the firm commitment of the private sector support and viability of the whole project before a final grant decision will be taken. This work is currently in progress, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the details of private sector involvement while negotiations are taking place.

  The commission is inviting Sir Peter Levene to examine the work completed to date and the work which Imagination, in conjunction with British Gas—the owners of the site—and English Partnerships, to develop the final details of the project to the point where private sector funding is committed.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list those of her Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which(a) the Government are required to consult prior to legislative proposals and (b) the Government are required to publish their response to advice supplied by them. [21861]

  Mr. Sproat
  The answer is(a) None; and (b) None.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Mitchell Commission
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress towards implementation of the Mitchell commission recommendations. [20423]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government have welcomed and accepted all the international body's recommendations, and has called on others to do the same. In particular, the Anglo—Irish communique of 28 February states that all parties"would need to make clear at the beginning of discussions their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the report of the International Body".

  They would also need to address, at that stage, its proposals on decommissioning.

  Children Order
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact the proposed reduction in the health and social services budget on the implementation of the children order. [20424]

  Mr. Moss
  The proposed reduction in the health and personal social services budget will have no detrimental impact on the implementation of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order. Indeed, I am pleased to say that redeployment of the reductions will enable me, among other things, to make available £4.928 million in 1996–97 for this purpose.

  Peace Process
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had regarding the system for elections leading to all-party talks. [20425]

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress towards peace. [20436]
  305
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the political leaders in Northern Ireland to discuss the peace process. [20429]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Members to the answer that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and the hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice).

  International Fund for Ireland
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last communicated with the board of the International Fund for Ireland with regard to its operations in Northern Ireland. [20426]

  Sir John Wheeler
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met the board on 20 November 1995 and has had a number of informal meetings with the chairman of the fund since then, as have other ministerial colleagues. The Government are kept fully apprised of the work of the fund through its advisory committee of senior officials.

  Rathlin Island
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to compensate those who will lose their jobs on Rathlin island when the new ferry service is introduced. [20427]

  Mr. Moss
  It is my understanding that the vessels presently operating the Rathlin ferry service are crewed by their owners and their families. Our legal advice is that there is no liability for compensation for loss of business as neither is viable without the subsidy which we have paid since 1991. When the new service commences, probably in November 1996, opportunities will be created for a number of jobs, both full and part-time, and those presently involved with the ferry service will be able to compete for them.

  Illegally Held Weapons
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has held recently with the Government of the Republic of Ireland concerning the recovery of illegally held weapons. [20428]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government regularly discusses security matters, including the question of illegal arms, with the Irish Government and will continue to do so as part of both Government's determination to maintain close and effective security co-operation. It would not be appropriate to reveal details of such discussions.

  Social Security Fraud
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to introduce a strategy to combat fraud in the social security system. [20430]

  Mr. Moss
  The Social Security Agency is currently compiling a security strategy to tackle social security fraud, excluding housing benefit, the implementation of which will commence in April. The DHSS is also committed to the introduction of a housing benefit fraud strategy by the end of June.

  Security Situation
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his assessment of the current security situation in Northern Ireland. [20432]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The announcement on 9 February by the Provisional IRA that it has ended its ceasefire, and the subsequent terrorist outrages, have rightly earned the condemnation of the world. Allied to this, the Combined Loyalist Military Council recently issued a statement declaring it will match PIRA violence "blow for blow".

  Against this background, the security forces have introduced additional security measures and have responded in a proportionate manner.

  The Government have consistently made it clear that they will not be deflected by terrorism from their determination to work towards a settlement which can win the allegiance of both communities.

  Drug Dealing
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the influence of drug dealing on violence in the Province; and if he will make a statement. [20434]

  Sir John Wheeler
  An accurate assessment of the influence of drug dealing on the extent of violent crime is not available. Because of the influence of terrorist groups, victims and witnesses may sometimes be unwilling to make complaints or otherwise assist any form of police investigation. Between April 1995 and January 1996, seven alleged drug dealers were murdered by a group calling itself "Direct Action Against Drugs", a covername for the Provisional IRA. The RUC continues to pursue those responsible and in this it has the full support of the Government.

  Economic Prospects
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the prospects for the Northern Ireland economy. [20435]

  Mr. Ancram
  Prospects for the Northern Ireland economy remain encouraging. Employment is at record levels, output and trade are increasing and we would wish this excellent progress to be maintained. Nonetheless, Northern Ireland's economic prospects would be significantly more assured through a permanent end to paramilitary violence.

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the dairy industry in Northern Ireland. [20431]

  Mr. Ancram
  The dairy industry contributes some £275 million or 2 per cent. of Northern Ireland's gross domestic product. There are up to 9,900 people employed on 6,050 dairy farms and 2,800 people are employed in 39 dairy processing plants. Liquid milk accounts for only 16 per cent. of production with the remainder being processed into butter, cheese and milk powders which are marketed world wide. The milk marketing scheme was
  307
  revoked on 1 March 1995, thus effecting the deregulation of the industry. The average producer price for milk increased by 4p per litre in 1995.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the expenditure of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all external consultants including management consultants for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if he will estimate the savings accruing to his Department from the use of consultants in each of these years. [11399]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: The information in respect of the Northern Ireland Office, Northern Ireland Departments and agencies is listed.

  1979–80: not available

  1989–90: £12,996,000

  1991–92: £25,239,000

  1993–94: £30,382,000

  1994–95: £26,388,000

  1995–96: £ll,190,0001,2

  1995–96: £17,911,0002,3

  1996–97: £16,058,000.4

  1To date.

  2Excludes DED who could only provide information for these years at disproportionate cost.

  3Yearly estimate.

  4Excludes DED, DHSS and DENI as estimates for such expenditure has not yet been made.

  Information on non-departmental public bodies could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  As consultants are, in many instances, engaged to contribute particular skills to an element of a much larger process it is not possible to quantify savings which such expenditure has resulted in, but in each instance consultants were engaged on the basis of best value for money.

  Computers
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all cases since 1987 in which his Department has bought computer capacity from(a) other Departments and (b) the private sector, giving the value of each contract and the name of the private sector contractors. [19451]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office, Belfast have bought the following computer capacity from:

  (a) Other Departments

  The Department of Social Security Information Technology Services Agency provide systems relating to income support, unemployment benefit, pension strategy, family credit, disability working allowance, disability living allowance, social fund and child support services to the Social Security Agency and Child Support Agency.

  308

  (b) The private sector

  In 1991 a contract was awarded to CFM by the Department of Finance and Personnel on behalf of the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments for the provision of a computer bureau and associated services. Other Northern Ireland Departments have also taken out separate contracts with CFM as follows:

  Department of Health and Social Services

  provision of contingency service—commenced 1991;

  provision of mainframe bureau services—commenced 1993;

  provision of a contingency support system for pensions system—commenced 1993.

  Department of Agriculture

  provision of Accounting System—1994–1997.

  Department of Economic Development

  provision of computing services for selected systems—commenced September 1992.

  Department of the Environment

  provision of computerised printing of all communications excluding start of year rate demands—1995–1997.

  In addition computer capacity has been purchased from the following:

  (1) MVM Consultants, Bristol 1993–1998

  (2) Kendrick and Jefferson, Birmingham 1987–1994

  (3) Aluset Ltd, Dublin 1995

  (4) Kendrick and Jefferson, Birmingham 1996–1998

  (5) Datashield, Hoddleston, Herts. 1987–1995.

  Individual contract values cannot be disclosed on grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Information from the Northern Ireland Office, London is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Anti-social Neighbours
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the current number of anti-social neighbours; and if he will make a statement. [20527]

  Mr. Moss
  It is not possible to provide an estimate of the number of anti-social neighbours in Northern Ireland.

  Proposals for dealing with anti-social behaviour in the public sector are set out in the housing policy review document published on 19 December 1995, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Law Commission Act 1965
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will amend the Law Commission Act 1965 to end the exclusion of Northern Ireland from its remit. [21682]

  Sir John Wheeler
  No. In my reply to the hon. and learned Gentlemen on 28 February 1996,Official Report, column 574, I set out the arrangements for review of the law for Northern Ireland, which include regular contact with the Law Commission. I am satisfied that the arrangements function efficiently.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in respect of how many new housing benefit claims in Belfast and North Down in 1995 the Housing Executive has recorded the name of an estate agent acting for a private landlord but not the landlord's name. [21683]

  Mr. Moss
  I understand from the chief executive of the Housing Executive that the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  North Down and Ards Community Trust
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff in the North Down and Ards community trust were employed on six-month contracts; how many have been on such contracts for more than two years; and will he make a statement. [21684]

  Mr. Moss
  The policy of the trust is to set each temporary contract to reflect the needs of the post. Eighty-nine staff are currently on temporary contracts. Ten of them have been employed for over two years.

  Orders in Council (Debate)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 224, for the period since 1 January 1995, if he will list those Northern Ireland Orders in Council debated on the floor of the House. [21685]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:

  Date of debate

  Children (NI) Order 1995

  8 February 1995

  Children (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1995

  8 February 1995

  Appropriation (NI) Order 1995

  8 March 1995

  Appropriation (No. 2) (NI) Order 1995

  18 July 1995

  Appropriation (NI) Order 1996

  19 February 1996

  Rathgael Centre
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 225, if he will specify the daily average number of residents at the Rathgael centre in Bangor in 1995 and the annual total, by type, and the percentage who absconded in that year, and the range of penalties that can be, and were imposed for going absent without leave; and if he will make a statement. [21686]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is as follows:

  (1) The annual average number of residents on campus at Rathgael in the year from 1 January 1995 to 1 January 1996 was 82. Of this total an average of 53 were the subject of order for care, protection and control and 29 were the subject of orders for offending.

  (2) In that period Rathgael had a throughput of 285 children of which 166 were there for care reasons and 119 for offending.

  (3) During the same one-year period 144 children—76 care and 68 justice—were responsible for 481 incidents of absconding. This represents an average of 1.3 per day or
  310
  1.6 per cent. per day of the average population. These statistics include all those suspected of leaving the campus without permission, even for a very short time.

  (4) There is a range of sanctions available to staff to enable them to respond meaningfully to absconding and other misdemeanours. At the lowest level a young person may be given extra chores, lose recreation time, be sent to bed earlier for a specified period, suffer a reduction in pocket money and have restrictions placed on, or even lose, home leave privileges. At the higher level, where there are concerns about physical or moral welfare or where there is evidence of anti-social behaviour or persistent absconding, a child may be sent to one of the on-site close supervision units. In extreme cases a young person may be removed to the secure unit at Lisnevin or to the Young Offenders Centre at Hydebank.

  Farm-reared Deer (Hunting)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to review the law on the hunting of farm-reared deer or stags; if he will set out the legal provisions on carting which are specific to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [21687]

  Mr. Moss
  I have no plans to review the law on the hunting of farm-reared deer or stags.

  Under the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, it is illegal intentionally to kill, injure or take, without a licence, any species of deer during the close season or at night during the open season. It is also an offence, under that order, to take and remove any live deer at any time without a licence. These provisions do not apply to any person who keeps and breeds deer for the purposes of a trade or business certified by the Department of Agriculture or to veterinary practitioners in the course of their work.

  In addition, the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 provides for the general protection of all animals from cruelty. Under the Act, it is illegal to hunt any animal—other than a domestic animal—which is released for that purpose, if it is released in an injured, mutilated or exhausted condition or the animal is hunted in an enclosed space from which there is no reasonable chance of escape.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which(a) the Government are required to consult prior to legislative proposals and (b) the Government are required to publish their response to advice supplied by them. [21862]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) The Drainage Council for Northern Ireland

  The Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside

  The Northern Ireland Buildings Regulations Advisory Committee

  The Statistics Advisory Committee

  The Health and Safety Agency

  (b) None

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he first issued the export certificate, numbered EC400, for use by local veterinary inspectors to certify calves under the age of 42 days destined for France. [20774]

  Mrs. Browning
  The earliest available official records confirm that export certificate EC400 was in use in 1977 and applied originally to the export of calves under 15 days of age. It is not possible, however, to establish when it was first used. Records also confirm that the certificate was first used for the export of calves under 42 days of age to France in October 1980.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many consignments containing calves between the ages of 15 days and 42 days were exported on certificate EC400 to France in 1995. [20822]

  Mrs. Browning
  Precise information on the number of consignments containing calves between 15 and 42 days of age exported in 1955 to France on EC400 certification could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. We believe, however, that approximately 1,800 consignments were exported on certificate EC400 in 1995. An informal analysis of trade during 1995 indicated that the majority of consignments of calves exported to France included calves between 15 days and 42 days of age.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of livestock markets in England and Wales currently meet the approved EU standards for export purposes, such that they would qualify as departure points for calculation of overall journey times; and if he will make a statement. [21826]

  Number of licences issued in England during the last five years1

  County

  Year ending 31 March 1992

  Year ending 31 March 1993

  Year ending 31 March 1994

  Year ending 31 March 1995

  Period ending 19 March 1996

  Cheshire

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Dorset

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Humberside

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Isle of Wight

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Lancashire

  9

  9

  4

  5

  5

  Norfolk

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumberland

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Suffolk

  3

  2

  2

  1

  —

  West Yorkshire

  —

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Total

  19

  20

  12

  13

  12

  1 The date of issue of a licence does not necessarily correspond with the date on which the licence comes into affect.

  312
  Mrs. Browning
  The percentage of livestock markets that meets the conditions for EC approval is not known since all livestock markets that want to be EC approved must apply for such status and be inspected by Ministry veterinary staff before approval may be granted.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many consignments of calves which started their export journey at Wix lairage in Essex are under investigation in respect of animal health certification and ear tag irregularities. [21757]

  Mrs. Browning
  This Department is not carrying out any investigations at Wix lairage in Essex. Enforcement of the legislation governing the health rules for consignments intended for export is the responsibility of the local authority.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the animal export certification procedures carried out by the local veterinary inspector at Wix lairage in Essex. [21758]

  Mrs. Browning
  Meetings have been held with the local veterinary inspector—LVI—for the Wix lairage in Essex to discuss the export certification procedures. In addition, export health certificates issued by the LVI are checked by local Ministry staff as part of the Department's audit procedures.

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fox fur farms there are in each county of England and Wales. [21367]

  Mrs. Browning
  There is no requirement to register fox fur farms. However, I am not aware of any in England and Wales.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many licences were issued for mink farms in each county of England and Wales in each of the last five years. [21366]

  Mrs. Browning
  No licences have been issued in Wales in the last five years. The number of licences issued in England is set out in the table.

  Sheep Cloning Experiments
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what inquiries he has made of the Roslin institute, Edinburgh, concerning the deaths of sheep during experiments into cloning and the excess growth of another animal; if he will publish a full report into the extent of publication of the outcome of the cloning experiments; if he will ban such experiments; and if he will make a statement. [21647]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Ministry encourages the full publication of scientific results and notes that the original scientific paper in Nature disclosed the deaths of three sheep during a cloning experiment. It is aware that the research team plans the publication of further details on the weights of the lambs at birth. The Ministry is aware of the large birthweight offspring and has commissioned research into this problem.

  MAFF is guided by the recommendations of the 1995 report of the committee to consider the ethical implications of emerging technologies in the breeding of farm animals—the Banner report—which endorsed cloning, subject to safeguards. Experiments on animals are regulated by the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which is administered by the Secretary of State for Home Affairs.

  Selective Breeding
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect of the selective breeding of farm animals on the gene pool. [21480]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Ministry has commissioned work on the theory of genetics, which included specific studies on the effects of selective breeding of farm animals on the gene pool. The research concluded that any potential negative effects can be avoided by targeted breeding.

  Departmental Contractors and Suppliers
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures his Department is taking to ensure that its contractors and suppliers(a) pay their employees a wage which ensure such employees do not need supplementary welfare payments via various state benefits and (b) meet workplace health and safety regulations; and if he will make a statement. [21453]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department seeks to award contracts in accordance with chapter 31 of "Government Accounting" and the public procurement rules. In choosing its suppliers and contractors, the Department has regard to the eligibility, economic and financial standing, and the ability and technical capacity of its suppliers and contractors to deliver the contracted goods and services at the contracted charges. Terms and conditions of employment, including wages, are a matter between contractors or suppliers and their employees, subject of course to any relevant legal requirements. Compliance with health and safety regulations is a legal requirement for contractors or suppliers.

  Ostriches
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans he has to protect the welfare at slaughter of ostriches in the United Kingdom; and on what scientific research those plans are based; [21759]

  (2) by what methods and on what premises it is permitted to slaughter ostriches on a commercial basis in the United Kingdom; [21760]

  (3) how many farmed ostriches have been slaughtered to date in the United Kingdom; by which method they have been slaughtered; and if he will make a statement. [21761]

  Mrs. Browning
  There is at present no commercial slaughter industry for ostriches in this country. Although small numbers of birds have been killed on farms in recent years, information on their number or on the methods used is not available. The state veterinary service continues to monitor developments.

  The slaughter of ostriches for human consumption in the United Kingdom must be carried out in a slaughterhouse licensed under the relevant Great Britain or Northern Ireland hygiene legislation for the production of poultry meat or in exempt premises which comply with general food hygiene legislation.

  The welfare at slaughter of ostriches bred or kept for the production of meat or other products is already protected in Great Britain by the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995, S.I. No. 1995/731. The regulations provide specific controls over the movement, lairaging, restraint, stunning, slaughter and killing of animals and make it an offence to cause any animal, which includes birds, any avoidable excitement, pain or suffering during these operations. The permitted methods of stunning are by means of a captive bolt, by concussion stunner or by electronarcosis—electrical stunning. After stunning, the birds must be bled without delay in accordance with the regulations. Similar regulations will be made in Northern Ireland.

  Government-commissioned research into ostrich slaughter is due to provide a preliminary report and recommendations at the end of this month. In the light of the findings of this research, guidance on recommended slaughter practice will be made available to producers.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many ostrich farms operate in the United Kingdom; and what is the current size of the United Kingdom ostrich flock. [21762]

  Mrs. Browning
  The information is not available. The Ministry's agricultural and horticultural census does not separately identify ostrich farmers or the number of birds they keep. Ostrich farmers must hold a dangerous wild animals licence, issued by local authorities under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. I understand that the Department of the Environment, which is responsible for this Act, does not keep a central register of this information.
  315
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much ostrich meat was consumed in(a) 1994 and (b) 1995 in the United Kingdom; what were the countries of origin of that meat; and if he will make a statement. [21763]

  Mrs. Browning
  The information is not available. The consumption of ostrich meat is not identified separately in the national food survey. Only one establishment—in France—has been approved to export ostrich meat to the UK.

  Pet Dogs and Cats (Illegal Imports)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of pet dogs and cats illegally imported in each year since 1986; and how many cases of such imports have been discovered. [22070]

  Mrs. Browning
  No estimates are made of the number of people who smuggle animals into the country undetected. However, figures are available for the number of animals reported as illegally landed since 1988.

  Dogs

  Cats

  1988

  93

  16

  1989

  38

  28

  1990

  59

  40

  1991

  72

  39

  1992

  60

  33

  1993

  50

  39

  1994

  70

  39

  1995

  59

  44

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what action he is taking to implement the EU directive on the welfare of live animals in transit in a way that ensures the future viability of livestock markets, including those in Wales, and if he will make a statement on the impact of these measures on farmers dependent on livestock markets; [21824]

  (2) when he expects to be able to set out the terms on which the EU directive on the welfare of live animals in transit is to be implemented with particular reference to (a) rest periods and (b) the conditions for allowing time at markets to be discounted from time in transit; and if he will make a statement. [21825]

  Mrs. Browning
  We are developing our plans to implement this directive in the light of responses to our consultation paper and in full discussion with all those with an interest. We attach particular importance to developing provisions on journey time and rest, for example, which meet the requirements of the directive in a way that recognises the reality of livestock marketing practice in Great Britain. We shall set our detailed plans out in a further consultation document before finally deciding what approach to adopt.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 727, what were the main recorded causes of death of dogs and cats held in quarantine in the United Kingdom in each year since 1986. [22071]

  Mrs. Browning
  No information is available on the causes of death of dogs and cats held in quarantine prior to 1995, other than those which died from rabies. The information collected from 1995 onwards shows that the causes of death were varied and no different from those that could be expected in a population of similar animals. Tumours/cancer accounted for around 25 per cent. of deaths. About a further 10 per cent. of the deaths in quarantine were where animals were euthanased at the owners request.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many imported(a) dogs and (b) cats have passed through United Kingdom quarantine in each year since 1986. [22069]

  Mrs. Browning
  It is possible to provide information only on the number of animals for which licences have been issued permitting their import. Information on the number of animals actually imported into the United Kingdom is not available for this period.

  Dogs

  Cats

  1986

  4,738

  2,329

  1987

  5,249

  2,927

  1988

  5,132

  3,095

  1989

  5,915

  3,220

  1990

  5,999

  3,687

  1991

  5,290

  3,289

  1992

  5,175

  3,190

  1993

  5,738

  3,633

  1994

  5,554

  3,863

  1995

  5,394

  4,126

HEALTH

  Factor 8
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the quantity of (i) recombinant factor 8 and (ii) plasma-derived factor 8,(a) produced and (b) used annually in the national health service. [19567]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not collected by the Department of Health. Figures collected by the United Kingdom haemophilia centre directors, which may be incomplete, show that some 158 million units of factor 8 were used in the UK in 1994. Of the total, 4 per cent. were recombinant, 64 per cent. plasma-based products produced by the national health service and 32 per cent. plasma-based imported products.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people died from thrombo-embolic complications arising form the use of the contraceptive pill in each of the last five years. [21013]
  317
  Mr. Horam
  Mortality statistics are based on the cause of death as stated by the doctor or coroner. It may not be possible for the certifier to link definitely the thrombo-embolic episode to oral contraceptives and consequently oral contraceptives may not be mentioned on the certificate.

  The table shows the number of deaths in England and Wales from thrombo-embolic complications, ICD1 E932.2, stated to be associated with the use of the contraceptive pill in each of the last five years.

  Year

  Number of deaths

  1990

  7

  1991

  7

  1992

  2

  1993

  6

  1994

  3

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what external legal advice he sought on the implications of issuing the "Dear Doctor" letter of 18 October 1995 prior to the issuing of that letter. [20500]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to(a) withdraw or (b) amend the advice to prescribers issued in the "Dear Doctor" letter of 18 October 1995. [20501]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those members of the Spritzer team of investigators for the trans-national study of oral contraceptives employed to advise(a) the Medicines Control Agency and (b) the Licensing Authority since 18 October 1995 on safety concerns relating to third generation oral contraceptives; on what date they were recruited; what are their emoluments and if they were required to sign the Official Secrets Act. [20502]

  Mr. Malone
  None were employed.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment the Licensing Authority has made of the dangers of third generation oral contraceptives; and if the authority proposes to license these products. [20511]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made in the House on 23 October 1995,Official Report, columns 701–11. A number of third generation oral contraceptives are currently licensed; applications for subsequent licences will be considered under normal procedures.

  Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many yellow cards have been received by the Medicines Control Agency for each month since January 1994. [20499]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the table. A report of a suspected adverse drug reaction does not necessarily mean that the condition was caused by the medicine.
  318

  Month and year of receipt

  Number of yellow cards received

  1994

  January

  1,171

  February

  1,262

  March

  1,464

  April

  1,133

  May

  1,277

  June

  1,619

  July

  1,309

  August

  1,412

  September

  1,543

  October

  1,352

  November

  2,072

  December

  1,950

  1995

  January

  1,741

  February

  1,484

  March

  1,720

  April

  1,210

  May

  1,517

  June

  1,472

  July

  1,579

  August

  1,347

  September

  1,437

  October

  1,381

  November

  1,559

  December

  1,289

  1996

  January

  1,487

  February

  1,660

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions and on what date or dates since the coming into effect of the Medicines Act 1968 the powers under section 3 (2) (c) of the Act have been used by Ministers to request the Medicines Commission to review the section 4 committees; and if he will not invoke those powers. [20503]

  Mr. Malone
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is the chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines for the period 1 January 1996 to 31 December 1998. [20504]

  Mr. Malone
  Professor Michael Rawlins.

  Amphetamines
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to make an announcement on the use of amphetamines for sliming purposes. [21053]

  Mr. Malone
  An announcement is expected to be made shortly concerning the availability for sliming purposes of a range of medicinal products known as anorectic agents.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to take new measures to(a) increase public awareness of osteoporosis and (b) combat the disease. [21519]

  Mr. Horam
  We are continuing to implement the report of the advisory group on osteoporosis, which was published in January 1995. Work in clinical guidelines is
  319
  under way, led by the Royal College of Physicians. The Department of Health has increased its financial support for the National Osteoporosis Society, which undertakes a wide range of public and professional education activities and launched a £9 million national exercise campaign on 19 March.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to increase the resources available in the north-west for the early diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. [21477]

  Mr. Horam
  Nationally, health authority general revenue allocations for the financial year 1996–97 will increase by 1.1 per cent. in real terms—£221 million—over 1995–96 allocations. Within these allocations, the provision of local services is a matter for local managers.

  Clinical Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the illegal dumping of clinical waste in Hertfordshire in 1995. [21291]

  Mr. Horam
  I understand that a quantity of clinical waste was found dumped on two sites in Hertfordshire and was cleared and made safe by the local waste disposal regulatory authority. Investigations are being undertaken and co-ordinated by the Hertfordshire county council waste regulation unit in collaboration with other waste regulators and with regional offices of the NHS Executive. Legal action against the contractor concerned is being considered by the waste regulation unit.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary for Health (1) how many of the NHS trusts which contracted for the disposal of the clinical waste found at Hertford checked the incineration procedures to be used by the contractors; [21301]

  (2) if he will name the NHS health trusts which contracted with Green Environmental Services to handle infected clinical waste subsequently found dumped at various sites in Hertfordshire. [21292]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally. Investigations by the Hertfordshire county council waste regulation unit continue.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action he has taken to warn the public of the dangers arising from the dumping of infected hospital clinical waste; [21293]

  (2) what representations he has made to the chief constables of Essex, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire about the need to alert their officers to the risk of infected clinical waste in unattended lorry trailers. [21294]

  Mr. Horam
  These are matters for waste regulation and environmental health authorities. The Hertfordshire county council waste regulation unit continues to co-ordinate the investigation of possible breaches of waste regulations in collaboration with other authorities in Hertfordshire and elsewhere.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the responsibilities of the NHS for the safe disposal of infected clinical waste. [21271]
  320
  Mr. Horam
  As a waste producer, the national health service is bound by the "duty of care" requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to ensure that clinical waste is properly disposed of, even when this work is contracted out. In particular, each waste producer must ensure that waste is transferred only to an authorised transporter. It must describe the waste accurately, ensure its safe disposal and keep records of waste consignments. It must also ensure that proper documentation is passed to the transporter.

  NHS Magazine
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the costs to his Department of(a) publishing, (b) printing and (c) distributing each issue of the NHS magazine. [21384]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on 15 January at columns 344–55 for information about production costs/gross revenues for issues Nos. 1 to 3 of the magazine.

  Issue No. 4 was published on 13 March. Details of production costs are as follows:

  £

  Production (editorial/photography/design/reproduction/print)

  49,486

  Advertising revenue

  25,417

  Distribution

  12,700

  NHS Trusts (External Financing Limits)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the external financing limits for each NHS trust in the current year; and on how much of this they have drawn. [21177]

  Mr. Horam
  Trusts do not draw on external financing limits. They meet them through a combination of borrowing and repaying debt, and drawing down or building up cash balances. Their responsibility is to ensure that, at the year end, their total expenditure is within their authorised external financing limit and they report their performance against this objective in their annual accounts which are audited and published.

  The current external financing limit for each national health service trust will be placed in the Library.

  Social Work Records
  Mr. Kirk wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to implement the proposals on access to social work records set out in his Department's consultation paper of February 1992, following the European Court of Human Rights decision in the case of Graham Gaskin. [21674]

  Mr. Bowis
  The open government White Paper, Cm 2290, proposed a statutory access right to personal records, which will be introduced as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows. The Government are reviewing the scope for including in this measure provisions to implement the European Court of Human Rights decision in the case of Graham Gaskin.

  Surplus and Underused Properties
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number and value of surplus and underused NHS properties. [21645]

  Mr. Horam
  Most operational national health service property is owned by NHS trusts. No information is available centrally about the number of value of properties identified as surplus by NHS trusts.

  The non-NHS trust estate includes 876 properties identified as surplus, or potentially surplus, which will be sold over the next 10 years. They have an estimated open market value of £1.2 billion.

  No information is available centrally on the number or value of underused NHS properties.

  Asthma
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people suffered from asthma in east Lancashire for(a) 1989 and (b) 1994; and what were the national figures for these two dates. [21644]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the number of people in East Lancashire suffering from asthma is not available centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to contact the relevant family health services authorities, which hold some information on the number of people resident in east Lancashire who suffer from asthma.

  There are no comprehensive national data on the number of people with a diagnosis of asthma. However, it has been estimated that the prevalence of asthma sufficiently severe to require regular medical supervision is from 4 to 6 per cent. in children and about 4 per cent. in adults. More information is given in "Asthma: An Epidemiological Overview", produced by the central health monitoring unit of the Department of Health and published on 22 March 1995, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Departmental Staff (Working Hours)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many persons in his Department worked in excess of 48 hours per week in any of the last 52 weeks; and what percentage of the staff employed this represents. [21508]

  Dr. Horam
  Records of the number of hours worked by each employee are not kept centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nursing and Residential Homes
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data his Department collate on the size of(a) nursing and (b) residential homes. [21646]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department collects information on the number of registered beds in nursing homes registered under section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1984, the number of registered places and residents in residential homes registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984 and the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991 respectively and the number of places in staffed and unstaffed local authority residential homes.
  322
  More detailed information on these collections is contained—under the entries for returns KO36, RAC5, RAC5(S) and RAU1—in the personal social services statistical information directory, copies of which are available in the Library.

  NHS Executive (Redundancy Costs)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the redundancy costs of reducing management and manpower at the NHS executive, Quarry house in each of the last three years. [21723]

  Mr. Horam
  The costs for the Department of Health's voluntary early severance/retirement scheme for national health service executive staff at Quarry house for each of the last three financial years is shown in the table. There have been no compulsory redundancies in the NHS executive during this period.

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  Total cost

  0

  388,406

  3,812,635

  Centrally funded

  0

  310,724

  3,050,108

  Net cost to DH

  0

  77,681

  762,527

  Fraud
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that fraud appears as a separate item in the losses statements of health authorities and trusts from 1 April. [21729]

  Mr. Horam
  With effect from December 1995 health authorities and trusts were already required to report the value of all frauds to the national health service executive separately.

  Physical Activity Task Force
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the work of the physical activity task force has been completed; and if he will make a statement. [22730]

  Mr. Horam
  The work of the physical activity task force has now been concluded. The Government fully appreciate the valuable work of the task force, from which the Department of Health has developed a physical activity statement. Copies of this statement are available in the Library.

  Darlington Memorial Hospital
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future of accident and emergency services at Darlington memorial hospital. [22074]

  Mr. Horam
  This is a matter for South Durham health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the authority, Dr. John Marshall, for details.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of the national health service bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base; and if he will list those bodies which(a) admit members of the public to all

  323
  board or committee meetings and (b) hold open meetings for the public (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [21828]

  Mr. Malone
  All national health service bodies, as defined by the Cabinet Office, have a statutory basis. Health authorities and special health authorities are statutorily required to admit members of the public to their meetings. NHS trusts are statutorily required to hold an annual public meeting and many voluntarily admit the public to board meetings. There is no requirement on the Dental Practice Board to hold any meetings to which the public are admitted.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the national health service bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open Government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [21833]

  Mr. Malone
  National health service bodies, as defined by the Cabinet Office, are subject to investigation by the Health Service Commissioner (Ombudsman), and scrutiny by both the Audit Commission and the National Audit Office.

  The principles of open government are incorporated in the code of practice on openness in the national health service, with which all national health service bodies must comply. The principles of the citizens charter apply to national health service bodies and have been incorporated into the patients charter.

  The NHS executive monitors the performance of all national health service bodies.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of the national health service bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) minutes of meetings, (d) agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests (i) under the statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [21838]

  Mr. Malone
  There is a statutory obligation on national health service trusts to publish an annual report, all other NHS bodies are required to do so by the codes of conduct and accountability. There is a statutory obligation on all NHS bodies to publish annual accounts but no obligation on them to publish minutes of their meetings, although many do. Health authorities and special health authorities are statutorily required to publish the agendas of their meetings. All NHS bodies are required by the codes of conduct and accountability to maintain a register of members' interests.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will break down by(a) element and (b) amount the emolument figure paid to NHS trust board members in 1993–94 in the NHS accounts; [22000]

  (2) if he will break down the £985,000 compensation for loss of office by board members of NHS trusts in 1993–94 by (a) the number of individuals involved, (b) the amounts, and (c) the trusts concerned. [21994]
  324
  Mr. Malone
  Information will be placed in the Library on the fees paid to non-executive directors, other emoluments of executive directors, compensation for loss of office and early retirement pensions paid to the directors of NHS trusts for 1993–94. Information on the number of individuals involved is not available centrally.

  We do not recognise the amount of £985,000 quoted by the hon. Member.

  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will break down by (i) trust, (ii) element and (iii) amount the losses and special payments totaling £24,902,000 as set out in the NHS summarised accounts 1994–95. [21995]

  Mr. Horam
  The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS trusts no longer recruit senior managers on fixed-term contracts. [20901]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is not available centrally

  Play Schemes
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has either to suspend or abandon his proposed deregulation of supervised activities and holiday play schemes used by children under eight years of age. [22075]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 18 March at column 82.

WALES

  Executive Action
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those areas of executive action where he has discretion to act in respect of an individual without giving reasons for his decision. [20530]

  Mr. Hague
  Comprehensive records are not kept in the form requested. I exercise discretion to act in respect of an individual without a legal obligation to give reasons in the following subject areas, which provide examples of such powers. However, as a matter of practice and in accordance with the Government's code of practice on access to government information, reasons are usually given when there is an exercise of any discretionary power.

  The subject areas, with examples are:

  1. Agriculture, fisheries and food:

  eg section 18 Agriculture Act 1986

  section 33(5) Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964

  2. Industry

  eg section 5 Thermal Insulation (Industrial Buildings) Act 1957

  3. Employment and training:

  eg section 84(1) Factories Act 1961

  section 27 Children and Young Persons Act 1933

  4. Education:

  eg section 99 Education Act 1944

  section 5 Education Reform Act 1988

  325

  5. Transport

  eg section 51 Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981

  section 17(2) Transport Act 1982

  6. Housing:

  eg section 164 Housing Act 1985

  7. Environment:

  eg section 15 Environmental Protection Act 1990

  section 44 Water Resources Act 1991

  8. Health and social services

  eg section 123 Mental Health Act 1983

  section 86 National Health Service Act 1977.

  Ministerial Visits (Nursery Schools)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which nursery departments and nursery schools he has visited. [21132]

  Mr. Richards
  Since our appointments, in addition to a number of my constituency visits, my right hon. Friend or I have visited the following infant and primary schools, many of which have nursery provision:

  Palmerston County Primary School, Barry, South Glamorgan

  Ysgol Caergeiliog (Grant Maintained), Anglesey, Gwynedd

  St. Giles Infant School, Wrexham, Clwyd

  Rhostyllen Primary School Rhostyllen, Clwyd

  Pen Barras County Primary School, Ruthin, Clwyd

  Ysgol Pen-y-Bryn (Grant Maintained), Colwyn Bay, Clwyd

  Ysgol Bro Carmel, Holywell, Clwyd

  Llanellen Primary School, Abergavenny, Gwent

  Llanfihangel Rhydithon Primary School, Llandrindod Wells, Powys

  Bryn Coch County Primary School, Mold, Clwyd

  Ysgol Dewi Sant, Llanelli, Dyfed.

  Ysgol Llys, Prestatyn, Clwyd.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average cost of answering an(a) oral and (b) written parliamentary question from (i) Opposition and (ii) Conservative hon. Members in each Session since 1989–90. [21787]

  Mr. Hague
  This Department does not collect the information in the form requested.

  Welsh Office Staff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 18 March,Official Report, columns 92–93, how many people were employed at the time of transfer in each of the services transferred out of his Department into other agencies. [22136]

  Mr. Hague
  The numbers of Welsh Office staff working for next steps agencies, for which the Welsh Office has some responsibility, were, at the time the agencies were set up as follows:

  Cadw: 216

  Planning Inspectorate: 20

  ADAS: 45.

  Additionally, 41.5 staff transferred to the Benefits Agency.

  National Health Service
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of the national health service bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base; and if he will list those bodies which(a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings and (b) hold open meetings for the public (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [21827]

  Mr. Richards
  All national health service bodies, as defined by the Cabinet Office, have a statutory basis. Health authorities and special health authorities are statutorily required to admit members of the public to their meetings. NHS trusts are statutorily required to hold an annual public meeting and many voluntarily admit the public to board meetings.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of the national health service bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) minutes of meetings, (d) agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [21836]

  Mr. Richards
  There is a statutory obligation on national health service trusts to publish an annual report, all other NHS bodies are required to do so by the code of conduct and accountability. There is a statutory obligation on all NHS bodies to publish annual accounts but no obligation on them to publish minutes of their meetings, although many do. Health authorities and special health authorities are statutorily required to publish the agendas of their meetings. All NHS bodies are required by the code of conduct and accountability to maintain a register of members' interests.

  Pembrokeshire Islands Conservation Area
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) when the consultation period ended on the proposed special area of conservation for the Pembrokeshire islands; and which individuals and organisations registered objections; [22018]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the bjections to the proposed Pembrokeshire islands special area of conservation including any maps of the area concerned. [22016]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The consultation period on the proposed Pembrokeshire islands special area of conservation ended on 22 June 1995.

  It is not proposed to place copies of responses in the Library of the House. Copies of objections received following the national consultation exercise are kept in the Welsh Office library, and can be viewed on request. Responses to the local consultation were treated as in confidence by the Countryside Council for Wales.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a map of the proposed special area of conservation known as the Pembrokeshire islands as recommended by the Countryside Council for Wales. [22020]
  327
  Mr. Jones
  As I said in my letter of 29 March 1995 to the hon. Member, maps of all potential special areas of conservation on which we consulted last year have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the procedure for approving special areas of conservation under the EU habitats directive; and what are the deadlines relating to the Pembrokeshire islands special area of conservation; [22019]

  (2) when he plans to forward to the European Commission his final recommendation on the special area of conservation for the Pembrokeshire islands; [22021]

  (3) what is the current position of the Pembrokeshire islands proposed special areas of conservation under the EU habitats directive; and if he will make a statement. [22017]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on 9 January,Official Report, columns 6–8, in which he stated that further sites would be forwarded to the Commission when the remaining points raised during consultation have been fully considered. Discussions are continuing regarding Pembrokeshire islands; it is hoped that a further meeting of interested parties to be held shortly will enable an announcement to be made shortly.

  Powys Healthcare NHS Trust
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Powys Healthcare NHS trust concerning the cash management and year-end flexibility arrangements required by trusts reaching the financial year end without settling the 1995–96 wage claim; and if he will make a statement. [22072]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the consequences on the administration of health care in Powys of the industrial dispute between Powys Healthcare NHS trust and its trade unions and professional associations. [22112]

  Mr. Hague
  There have been lengthy negotiations over pay but no industrial action has taken place. The performance of all NHS trusts is monitored against a range of measures, including patient charter standards, and the results for 1995–96 will be published in the summer.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to appoint the new chairman of the Powys Healthcare NHS trust. [22118]

  Mr. Hague
  I expect to make an announcement shortly.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for wales what consultations he has had and what representations he has received in relation to the Powys Healthcare NHS trust, corporate public relations contract with Golley Slater; and what is the latest estimate outturn for the value of that contract for the year 1995–96. [22076]

  Mr. Hague
  None. This is a matter for the NHS trust to manage.
  328
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what instructions he will give the incoming chairman of the Powys Healthcare NHS trust concerning(a) the payment of across the board annual wage increases and (b) the retention of Whitley Council arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [22119]

  Mr. Hague
  None. This is a matter for the NHS trust which has the power to use local pay bargaining to achieve greater flexibility and efficiency in delivering health services.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the numbers of trainee general practitioners on the first year of the general practice vocational training scheme. [22110]

  Mr. Hague
  The number of trainee GPs on their first year of general practice vocational training schemes as at 31 January 1996 was 64.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date the Merthyr and Neath general practitioner trainee schemes terminated. [22109]

  Mr. Hague
  The Merthyr Tydfil vocational training scheme was terminated on 30 September 1993. The Neath vocational training scheme terminated on 30 September 1994.

  Performing Arts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the locus of(a) the Cardiff Bay development corporation, (b) the Welsh Arts Council, (c) the Institute of Welsh Affairs and (d) local authorities in taking the lead in providing a new home for the Welsh National Opera company (i) within and (ii) without a new lyric theatre for Wales; and if he will ake a statement. [22114]

  Mr. Hague
  I am aware that a meeting was held on 8 March among a number of public and private bodies to discuss the possibility of a centre for the performing arts in Cardiff. I have made no assessment of their locus in this matter; the funding of any such centre would be an issue for the funding bodies.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had from the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation concerning its 1996–97 budget; and what resource will be allocated within it for the funding of a trust or other body to develop the proposed new lyric theatre or centre for the performing arts in Cardiff bay. [22111]

  Mr. Hague
  None. Financial support to a trust or other body for the development of a new theatre or centre for performing arts in Cardiff bay is, within delegated limits, an operational matter for the Cardiff Bay development corporation. I have asked the chief executive to reply and will place a copy of his response in the Library of the House.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent consultations he has had with the chairman of the Wales region of the National Rivers Authority concerning the safety of water sports in the impounded lake behind the Cardiff bay barrage. [22120]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the current forecast gross out-turn cost of constructing the Cardiff bay barrage to its original specification relative to the gross cost cap he gave to the Cardiff Bay development corporation. [22116]

  Mr. Hague
  The estimated final cost of the barrage project announced to Parliament in April 1995 was £191 million. I have asked the Cardiff Bay development corporation to contain expenditure within that figure. The expenditure forecasts are monitored by the Welsh Office on a monthly basis.

  The detailed assessments of the final cost of the barrage project, including the barrage construction contract, and changes to the original specifications are operational matters for the corporation. I have asked the chief executive to reply to the hon. Member on those aspects and will place a copy of his response in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the capital cost savings in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98 in the budgets of the Cardiff Bay development corporation of the omission or postponement of the (i) third boat lock, (ii) sea-angling pier, (iii) environmental island and (iv) dredging to provide 2.5 m lake water depth; and if he will make a statement. [22115]

  Mr. Hague
  These are operational matters for the Cardiff Bay development corporation. I have asked the chief executive to reply and will place a copy of his response in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the Royal Yachting Association concerning the siltation of the current mooring areas of the Cardiff Yacht Club and its relationship to the construction of the Cardiff bay barrage. [22113]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  South-East Wales Ambulance Trust
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 18 March, what proposals he has received from the Powys sub-section of the South and East Wales Ambulance NHS trust to break away from the trust. [22134]

  Mr. Hague
  None. I would expect any proposals for trust reconfigurations to come from the boards themselves with the full support of their commissioning authorities.

  IMAX Theatre Project
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent consultations he has had with the President of the court of governors of the national museum of Wales concerning the location and funding of the expansion of the Welsh industrial and maritime museum with particular reference to its IMAX theatre project. [22108]

  Mr. Hague
  The National Museums and Galleries of Wale's ideas for museum development in Cardiff bay were raised with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, at a meeting with the museum's council to discuss its corporate plan on 28 July 1995; it may be further discussed at a meeting between my hon. Friend and the President on the museum's operational plan for 1996–97, to be held on 27 March. No specific proposals have been submitted to the Welsh Office.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 18 March 1996,Official Report, columns 92–93, what part of the £22 million additional running cost figure for his Department's 1995–96 budget relative to 1979–80 are attributable to (a) superannuation charges, (b) TEC management fees and (c) accommodation and other miscellaneous overheads. [22137]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department's running cost budget for 1995–96 includes £5 million for superannuation costs; £9 million for TEC management fees; and £8 million for accommodation costs. These items were not included in the Welsh Office running cost figures for 1979–80.

  East Glamorgan NHS Trust
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 18 March 1996,Official Report, columns 93–94, how the issue of public dividend capital to East Glamorgan NHS trust counts against the public sector borrowing requirement. [22133]

  Mr. Hague
  Public dividend capital advances, which are issued by the Government as a form of long-term finance on which the trust pays dividends, score within the public sector borrowing requirement.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the dates on which the NHS trusts in Wales agreed annual wage increases for 1995–96; [22073]

  (2) what date each NHS trust in Wales agreed the annual wage increase for 1995–96 with (a) nursing staff, (b) auxiliaries and (c) professionals allied to medicine. [22117]

  Mr. Hague
  This information is not held centrally.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which(a) the

  331
  Government are required to consult prior to legislative proposals and (b) the Government are required to publish their response to advice supplied by them. [21868]

  Mr. Hague
  There are no such bodies.

  Emergency Medical Admissions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answers of 18 March, 1996,Official Report, columns 91–92, if the NHS emergency admissions action plan recommendation that he discuss levels of community care with unitary authorities has been (a) rejected and (b) communicated as such to trusts and health authorities. [22135]
  332
  Mr. Hague
  In the normal course of business, the Welsh Office will continue to discuss both the resourcing and implementation of community care with local authorities. Decision on the use of their resources are, however, the matter for individual local authorities.

  It is for individual health authorities to agree with local authorities on how to manage their shared responsibilities for continuing care in the light of local needs and circumstances and Welsh Office guidance. This policy is well known to the NHS and local government, and will be confirmed when the Welsh Office responds formally to the final report of the NHS working group on emergency admissions.

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

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund Act 1996,
Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Act 1996.

European Defence Policy
3p.m.
Lord Finsberg Lord Finsberg asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they agree with the assertion of the report to the Intergovernmental Conference of the Political Committee of the Western European Union adopted on 23rd February 1996 that defence must remain with the Western European Union and not be handed over to the European Union.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, the Government believe that an autonomous Western European Union provides the best framework for the further development of European defence co-operation. The European Union is not equipped to fulfil that role itself.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer which is highly satisfactory. However, will he perhaps take on board that that is a view shared by other parties because, in the delegations that I lead to the Western European Union, all the parties fully support it? Those countries taking part in the IGC which may try to delay matters in the hope that there will be a change of government after the next election ought not to think that there will be a change on that particular issue of Western European Union.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is most satisfactory that my noble friend finds my reply satisfactory. Of course, he is quite right.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, we on these Benches find the Minister's reply a little less satisfactory. Is the noble Lord aware that the view of the committee of the Western European Union seems to us to be essentially a short-term view? In the long-term, the best way of maintaining NATO in the post-Cold
1364
War world, with the American commitment to NATO, is through the Western European Union so building on an effective European Union defence and foreign policy arrangement.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, our position in respect of the relationship between the Western European Union and the European Union is one which we believe is both clear and in the national interest.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, is right in saying that, so far as concerns the Labour Party, we support the view that the Western European Union as a second pillar of NATO—if I may put it that way—is the proper mechanism for Western European defence? Further, will the Minister agree that, in terms of defence procurement, there may well be matters which can be raised within the European Union but that, ultimately, as regards defence of the United Kingdom, the Western European Union as a pillar of NATO is a policy which, as the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, pointed out, is supported by our party?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for explaining his party's position in that respect. As I have already explained, we believe that the Western European Union is an important element of NATO and that NATO is a mainstay of our defence.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is on this issue—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, with the greatest respect, I believe that it is the turn of this side of the House.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, is it not correct to say that if the Western European Union was merged in any way with the European Union to form such a defence pillar, there would be some problems with Russia which would then regard the European Union as being a defence organisation?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I must begin my reply to my noble friend by emphasising that it is no part of the Government's policy that the WEU should be merged with the European Union. Of course, the point made by my noble friend is correct; indeed, we are most concerned about the suggestion that such a merger might take place.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, following on from the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, does the Minister agree that, in all this very interesting controversy about Western European and then European Union, it is the Atlantic alliance that counts, that the defence of Europe is indivisible from

1365
that of North America and that it is membership of NATO and of the Atlantic alliance which really should lie at the heart of the Government's policy?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, all I can say is that, so far as concerns the Government, NATO does lie in that position.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was over-eager to express my support for the Question and, indeed, for his acceptance of it? I believe that one of the things which is most widely known throughout the parties and probably throughout the country is the fact that, generally speaking, both that Question and the Answer have our full support.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is indeed an historic event, both in terms of this afternoon's proceedings and in terms of the more recent history of this House, to find the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and the Government at one on such matters.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether there is any thought on the part of the Government, which would be possible under the Brussels treaty, to create a head of state and a formula at governmental level to improve the level of communication which exists at present and which, thus far—and I can say this from some experience as an elected member of the WEU Assembly—has been far from satisfactory?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, alludes is one of which the Government are aware. However, it seems a little early at this stage to form definite views about such matters.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there must be some sympathy with the supplementary question put by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth? If in fact there were a federal Europe, the case for a European defence policy would be logical and irresistible. Those of us who think that the idea of a federal Europe is an absurdity to be avoided have no problem in that respect. Is the Minister actually saying that the Government also dismiss the idea of a federal Europe out of hand?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, using the word "federal" in its English sense, the concept of a federal Europe—which is a centralised, monolithic Europe—is one which the Government entirely reject.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an assurance that at the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference Her Majesty's Government will resist any endeavours to amend Article J8 paragraph 2 of the treaty which gives the power to determine policy to the European Council and not—and I emphasise the word "not"—to the Commission?
Lord Inglewood: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, do I understand that the Minister has now admitted that there are two interpretations of the word "federalism" and that the English version is quite different from the other? Would it not be a good idea if the Government agreed with the other members of Europe as to what the word really means?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, so far as concerns the English language, surely the British themselves can determine the meaning of the word.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I very much welcome his reply to the original Question tabled by his noble friend? However, I welcome even more the question, and its direction, posed by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel from the Labour Front Bench. However, can the Minister give us the absolute assurance that in no circumstances whatever will the Government agree to qualified majority voting on defence matters in Pillar 3—as I think it is—of the European Union?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the Government do not have the slightest intention of allowing defence matters to intrude into Pillar 3 of the European Union. Even if it were to do so—which we are opposed to and, indeed, would resist in any IGC—it would be entirely inappropriate for such decisions to be taken by qualified majority voting.

Tobacco Advertising and Promotion
3.9 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their assessment of the working of the voluntary agreement between the Department of Health and the tobacco companies about tobacco advertising and promotion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the annual reports produced by the committee which monitors the voluntary agreements (COMATAS) show that the tobacco companies have a good record of compliance with those agreements.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. However, does the noble Baroness agree that there is disturbing evidence that the number of young people who smoke, especially teenagers between the ages of 11 and 15, is increasing; that the latest figures show that 21 per cent. of all 11 to 15 year-olds smoke; and that there is a loophole in the voluntary agreement in that there is still a great deal of sports sponsorship by tobacco companies, as well as sponsorship of individual sporting entrants? Is not that loophole a contributory factor to encouraging young people to take up smoking?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is a marginal increase in young people smoking, but it is mostly among young girls and not young boys.

1367
The sports sponsorship agreement is a new agreement. The noble Lord will be aware that it was introduced at the end of January this year. It includes no sponsorship of activities in which the majority of participants are under 18, or activities which are designed to appeal in particular to audiences under 18; no advertisements for sponsored events are to be posted within 200 metres of the front entrance of schools; and the contents of advertisements for such sponsored events are to follow the spirit of the cigarette code.
We have taken action. The agreement only came into existence in January. Therefore it is unlikely to have had much effect yet.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will my noble friend consider requesting a review yet again of the provision which allows smoking in all parts of the Library in your Lordships' House? I appreciate that the matter has been considered many times. I refer to the effects of passive smoking. Will the Minister confirm that smoking positively or passively is very harmful to health?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should hate to dictate whether or not your Lordships should smoke. Tobacco is a legal substance. I am aware that these matters are dealt with by the appropriate committee of your Lordships' House.
As regards the dangers of smoking, my noble friend is right. It is irrefutable that smoking damages your health. That is why we have the most comprehensive strategy for anti-smoking in the world.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, has the Minister discussed the Question with her noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish? Does she recall that in replying recently to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, he stressed that smoking during pregnancy was an important cause for low birth weight babies. The Minister raised the issue of an increase in smoking among young girls and women. As the voluntary agreement is obviously not working as regards discouraging smoking in an at-risk group, will the Government think again on the issue?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have a campaign running at present. The sum of £14 million was invested in this area. We have only just launched the campaign. We shall see what impact it has. The noble Baroness is right. Smoking in pregnancy has an effect on the birth of young babies. Perhaps that is not an issue of enormous importance to your Lordships' House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I declare an interest. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the Government will not bother about this issue. After all, we do not present any danger to babies. The suggestions of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes on this issue are surely a little rough.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I in no way wish to intrude on the habits of your Lordships in this House. However, it is right that every member of the British
1368
public should have the right information about the dangers of smoking. To put out the information, and especially to target it at young people, is part of the Government's strategy.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, following the Minister's reply to my noble friend Lord Dubs on the sports issue, why do not the Government follow the very good example of the Australians, a country where sport is very important? Is the Minister aware that after the Tobacco Advertising Act 1992 in that country, the Government supported health promotion foundations in order that the money previously donated to sport through tobacco advertising came from other sources.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have this agreement on sports sponsorship with the tobacco industry. A case is often put—I do not believe that it is made—that advertising should be banned generally. However, when we consider the progress of this country compared with other European countries it is interesting to see that we have made greater progress than any other European country except the Netherlands which also does not have an advertising ban.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the great disincentives to smoking is herbal tobacco which is horrible?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have not tried it. I would not know about that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I hope that the Government, and indeed Members of your Lordships' House, are not in danger of becoming hypocritical on this issue. I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that the social problems arising from drink and excess drink are extremely serious. They involve child battering; wife battering; the killing on the roads of 500 people every year, and the injuring of 10,000; stabbing outside public houses and all kinds of social evils. Yet we have now agreed, apparently with government approval, to spirits being advertised on television whereas previously they were banned. Let us have some equality in the matter.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord is correct in his last statement. I shall check it. The Government in no way want a nanny state. We shall not tell people what to do or how to live their lives. That is not part of the Government's role. We ensure that people have the information.
We have very stringent laws on drink driving. We enforce those laws. The noble Lord will be aware of the enormous progress that we have made in that field.
Lord Rea: My Lords, £14 million has been spent on campaigns to dissuade young people from smoking and those campaigns have had no effect. That indicates that it is rather a waste of money. Other campaigns have also been ineffective in that age group. Would it not be far better—it would cost no money—for the Government to ban sports sponsorship, as has been suggested, and to forbid other forms of tobacco advertising?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I should correct the noble Lord. The £14 million is for a comprehensive campaign for all sections of the population which will last over three years. Of that £14 million, £3 million has been set aside in particular for young people. That contract has only just been let. The work has not yet started. We shall not see the results for a while.
We are making progress in this field. Twenty years ago, nearly half the population smoked; today the figure is just over a quarter. We are making progress. It would be wrong for your Lordships to feel that we are not and that an advertising or sponsorship ban is the answer. We know from countries which have those bans that they are not effective. We work with the tobacco industry with very stringent agreements which it enforces and which we know to be successful.

Training for Work: Funding for Ex-offenders
3.18 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as chairman of the Apex Trust which is concerned with the training of offenders.
The Question was as follows:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why Training and Enterprise Councils do not receive the highest category of weighted funding for the training of ex-offenders within the Training for Work programme, in view of the importance of ex-offenders obtaining employment and so reducing the rate of recidivism.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, many ex-offenders are able to join training for work immediately on their release from custody. This is because we have relaxed the eligibility requirements for the programme to help them start training quickly.
Training and Enterprise Councils receive higher weighted payments for trainees who are very long-term unemployed, have disabilities, or who have literacy, numeracy and English language training needs. Where ex-offenders are in those categories, they will attract the higher payments.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he realise that getting ex-offenders into jobs is not only humane but very sensible, and is the best way to cut down on recidivism. If one can reduce recidivism, one will have tackled many of the worst problems in the prison system. Will the Minister not consider the matter again so that ex-offenders other than those in the categories to which he referred can gain the benefit of the enhanced training grant?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously we have to use the available resources as we can. We believe that we have roughly the right balance. That is why we give all ex-prisoners basic entitlement to training for work the minute they leave prison without having to wait six months as with other unemployed people.
As regards the other groups, we believe that they are a higher priority and one on which we should target the available resources. Where ex-offenders fall into those groups, they can benefit from the higher payments.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I declare an interest as President of NIACRO. Does the Minister realise that Northern Ireland is affected as well as England? Is he aware that there will be fewer voluntarily managed training places, both for ex-offenders and for those at risk of offending, as a result of the cuts imposed by the Government on the ACE programme?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously the noble Lord would not expect me to answer in detail on the Northern Ireland position in relation to programmes provided by that department. Although in Great Britain as a whole we had to make cuts to training for work, it was in the light of a particularly difficult public expenditure round. We were still able to maintain the same number of opportunities as before. We believe that at a difficult time we must allocate resources in a sensible way. That is why I emphasised the priorities that I mentioned in my original Answer.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, it seems to me that my noble friend Lady Seear made an entirely socially desirable proposition. Will the Minister indicate what extra expenditure there would be in following her proposal?
Lord Henley: My Lords, not without notice. As I said earlier, public expenditure remains difficult and we have to cut our cloth according to whatever resources are available. We allocated the extra resources to the groups that we thought had a higher priority than ex-offenders. However, we see a case for ex-offenders and that is why they have immediate entitlement to training for work the moment they come out of prison, without having to wait six months, as other unemployed people do.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Home Secretary will bring forward proposals which will inevitably increase the prison population, as is widely recognised. Will the Minister give assurances that the funding of training programmes for ex-offenders will be increased proportionately to the increase in spending on the prison system?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord will accept that that is another Question. However, I can make it quite clear that we have no intention of changing the basic eligibility for training for work. Ex-offenders will be entitled to training for work when they come out of prison.
Lord Richard: My Lords, will the Minister confirm some figures on this? Am I right that the training organisations hoping to run pilot courses, including

1371
NIACRO, have put in bids to the TECs which last week submitted proposals to the department'? Bids were made for 19,000 training places, of which 8,500 will be funded. Is that the scope of the problem, that only about 40 per cent. of the applications will receive government funding? If so, is that not too extreme a cut?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot confirm the noble Lord's figures without notice but I should be more than happy to write to him. As I said at the beginning, we must cut our cloth according the resources available to us. We give basic eligibility to those who come out of prison for training for work, without their having to wait six months. As regards the extra resources available for certain groups, we believe that it is right to target those I mentioned in my original Answer.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House when ex-offenders on training for work programmes last had their allowances up-rated for inflation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, not without notice.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister said that it is important that we use our money sensibly. Will he agree that to keep an ordinary grade offender in prison costs at least £400 a week? To keep a high category offender in prison costs over £1,000 a week. If we can save ex-offenders from going back to prison, is that not economical?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it obviously costs a great deal to keep offenders in prison. Training is provided to those offenders while they are in prison and we hope that it is of benefit to them. That is why so much is spent on them. However, as I made clear earlier, we have to cut our cloth according to the resources available. I do not believe that merely increasing money for one particular group would necessarily prevent all the recidivism that the noble Baroness fears. It is right that we should do what we can, and that is why we target the resources on ex-offenders in the way I described. However, there are other groups: the disabled, those with literacy and numeracy problems and those with English language training needs. It is right that they should receive higher priority than ex-offenders.

Cheltenham Festival: Risks to Racehorses
3.23 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill Lord Kirkhill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the number of horses destroyed at the recent Cheltenham Festival was unacceptably high and, if so, whether they will take steps with the racing authorities to reduce the risks.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, it is a matter of sadness that the recent Cheltenham Festival was marred by the deaths of
1372
those horses. However, the safety of horses at individual racecourses is a matter for the responsible racing authorities.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. However, will she agree that there is considerable public anxiety about the fact that 10 horses were destroyed at a three-day race meeting held in the name of sport? Is it not now time for the Government to set up the appropriate form of joint consultation with the racing authorities so that the continuing national scandal of equine slaughter may be seriously examined?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it was not a three-day but a four-day event. It is a wholly exceptional occasion when 10 horses die in one event. It is fair to say that it is not just the public who are distressed by the fact. The owners, trainers and riders of the horses are too, as well as the Jockey Club, the officials of the course and everyone else connected with racing. Bernard Donigan of the RSPCA said:
"Together with the Jockey Club, we have made great advances. We have left nothing to chance. Cheltenham race-course has done everything possible and you cannot criticise them. Everyone there did all they could".
It is a matter for them and it would be quite wrong for the Government to intervene in the process in a knee-jerk reaction.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that horse-racing, especially jump racing, is a high risk sport both for horse and rider, but it employs thousands of people and gives pleasure to millions? It is inevitable that accidents will happen and it is unfortunate that so many should occur at one meeting. Will the Minister further agree that when a horse fractures its leg or otherwise damages itself so that it is no longer able to walk, the most humane thing to do is to have it destroyed as quickly as possible?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is a sad occasion, particularly when as many as 10 horses are involved, but it is a wholly exceptional occurrence. It is also true that almost no sport is without risk. There is always risk and many horses ridden not for sport but for pleasure die in the field as a result of broken legs or, even worse, broken necks.
The Jockey Club takes its work seriously and the officials of the course take their work seriously. It is our view that everyone concerned is highly responsible and they do all they can to minimise such occurrences. I again quote Bernard Donigan who said:
"To lose one horse, never mind 10, is a source of great concern to us. But in racing there will never be a situation where there will be no casualties".
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I happened to be in Cheltenham last week and saw this unprecedented number of fatalities? Nearly half of them were on the flat, between jumps, so it is bewildering. I have sympathy for those who are worried. Will the Minister agree that the probable explanation is the unusual combination of the exceptional speed and

1373
competitiveness of this great festival, together with perhaps a lack of preparation of some horses whose training was hindered in the bad winter?
In order that we may know the facts, will the Minister press for general publication of the report of the inquiry which the racing authorities set up, I may say with commendable speed? Although in top jump racing it is inevitable that there will be great danger for jockeys as well as horses, no one who loves racing would like to see a repetition of fatalities on that scale.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, an inquiry has been set up by the Jockey Club and the officials of the racecourse. We understand that anyone will be free to give evidence to it, including welfare organisations. The inquiry will report to the board of Cheltenham Racecourse. I simply do not know the answer, so I cannot say whether the report will be made public, but I will take the point away with me. It is in everybody's interest that the inquiry is thorough, and we have every reason to believe that it will be. As to speculation as to what happened, it would be inappropriate to guess. My understanding is that the combination of weather both last summer and during this winter may have been a contributory factor. It is also true that it was a very fast course during those four days. If I may be forgiven the pun, I am told that there was a very serious tailwind, so they were even faster than normal.
Lord Carew: My Lords, it is important that the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, is addressed. People do not like seeing horses die. No one likes seeing any animal die. I declare a special interest: for the past seven years I have been head of a world equestrian sporting body, the Three Day Event. Regretfully, in that discipline we have had several fatalities, and I have been involved in addressing them.
Will the Minister agree that the risk in equestrian sports such as racing is very, very considerable? Horses love galloping and jumping. If they did not like it, they would not do it. Can the Minister tell the House how long the inquiry that the Cheltenham authorities have set up will take? It is a very laudable thing to do. When will we have the result?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the issue is serious. It is being addressed. There is an inquiry, and the inquiry will take as long as it needs to take in order to come forward with a conclusion. That conclusion will be reported to the board, which has promised it will take action if that is appropriate.

Business
3.32 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Northern Ireland elective process.

Broadcasting the Judicial Business of the House: Select Committee Report
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth rose to move, That the report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting the Judicial Business of the House be agreed to [HL Paper 42].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House may be aware that, at present, a general prohibition exists on broadcasting the judicial proceedings of the House, subject to the exception set out in this report. Under that exception, judgments have been broadcast on three occasions in the past. Each time agreement to allow the broadcast was sought both from the Broadcasting Committee and the Law Lords. The present position is cumbersome. At the request of the Law Lords, the Broadcasting Committee now seeks to establish a more satisfactory arrangement.
The report recommends that the general prohibition on the broadcast of judicial proceedings be upheld, but that the Law Lords be given authority to relax the rule on a case by case basis where they think it appropriate to do so.
By retaining the general prohibition, the committee envisages that the adoption of the report will not lead to the regular broadcasting of judicial proceedings. Rather, the effect of the report will be to put in place a proper procedure for giving permission to broadcast judicial proceedings on an occasional basis.
The report has been made and agreed by the Broadcasting Committee at the request of the Law Lords themselves. The Law Lords have assured the committee that they support the recommendations contained in the report. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved to resolve, That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the incident at Dunblane Primary School on Wednesday, 13th March 1996, which resulted in the deaths of 18 people.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland: Elective Process
3.34 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the arrangement leading to all-party negotiations in Northern Ireland now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:

1375
"In my Statement to the House of 28th February, I announced that all-party negotiations would commence on 10th June. In a communiqué issued on the same day, the British and Irish Governments also agreed on intensive multilateral consultations with the Northern Ireland parties. The purpose of these was to help the British Government draw up proposals for a broadly acceptable elective process, including the possibility of a referendum, and to try to reach agreement on the format and agenda of all-party negotiations.
"In the course of these consultations the Government have met all the major parties and most minor parties in Northern Ireland on several occasions. Sinn Fein has of course excluded itself. There have been several meetings between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Tanarste, Mr. Spring, including a review of the outcome of the consultations. The Irish Government have also had a number of meetings with the Northern Ireland parties.
"In some areas, we have seen encouraging signs of convergence between the parties' views. In others, sharp differences have remained. The form of elections has been one of the main areas of disagreement between the parties.
"Three main systems have been proposed: first, an election in 18 constituencies, each electing five members by single transferable vote; secondly, an election on a party list system across one single Northern Ireland constituency; thirdly, a single constituency election across Northern Ireland with votes for parties but not for named candidates. None of these systems has secured the clear support of major parties representing each of the main communities. Some parties have even threatened not to participate in the process and thus abort the possibility of all-party negotiations should one of the other systems be chosen.
"I made clear in my Statement on 28th February that, if no agreement proved possible, the Government would come forward with proposals based on a judgment of what is most likely to be broadly acceptable to the parties and to the people of Northern Ireland. Whatever the merits of each of the three main systems, it is clear that none on its own meets this criterion of broad acceptability.
"We have therefore considered how to proceed. We have decided to propose a new system including the most attractive elements of other proposals. We will therefore introduce legislation immediately after the Easter Recess providing for an election on 30th May using a list system rather than individual candidates, organised in 18 constituencies but not by single transferable vote, and supplemented by Northern Ireland-wide party preference.
"Briefly, electors will have to register just one vote which they will cast for the party of their choice. Five seats in each of the 18 constituencies will be allocated from party constituency lists of candidates, published in advance, in proportion to each party's share of the vote. In addition, the votes in all the constituencies
1376
will be aggregated and the 10 most successful parties across the whole of Northern Ireland will secure two elected representatives each from party lists published in advance.
"I believe this is a fair and balanced system that will produce a representative outcome. The Province-wide element should help achieve the widely shared objective of making the negotiating process as inclusive as possible through representation of the smaller parties.
"These elections will create a pool of 110 elected representatives. The successful parties will be invited by the Secretary of State to select from among their representatives negotiating teams for the negotiations to begin on 10th June. The transition from the elections to the negotiations will be automatic and immediate.
"Our aim is to see inclusive negotiations. Sinn Fein have, however, currently excluded themselves from negotiations by the ending of the IRA ceasefire. That is their choice. But they can make themselves eligible to participate through the unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire. That, too, is their choice.
"These negotiations need to take place in an atmosphere of confidence. As I told the House on 28th February, all parties will need to make clear at the beginning of negotiations their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out the Mitchell report and to address, also at the beginning of negotiations, Senator Mitchell's proposals on decommissioning. There can be no backing away from this. Equally there must be confidence that, as the negotiations proceed, they will be comprehensive and address all legitimate issues.
"As well as furnishing negotiating teams, the elected representatives will be members of an elected forum to meet in Belfast on a regular basis when negotiations are not in session. The purpose of discussion in this forum will be to promote dialogue and mutual understanding within Northern Ireland.
"The forum will not engage in the negotiations, which will be free-standing, but could interact with and inform the process at the request of the participants in negotiations. For example, the negotiators might agree to commission discussions, studies or reports from the forum. The legislation will also provide for the forum to be able to conduct hearings at which public submissions by relevant bodies or individuals can be made.
"The forum's life will be time limited to 12 months, renewable for up to a maximum of a further 12 months. It will not continue in existence if negotiations are no longer in process. In its procedures, it will be required to proceed by broad consensus.
"We have also looked at proposals for referenda. We agree that the people of Northern Ireland must have full ownership of the negotiation process and its outcome. The electoral legislation will give the Government powers to hold referenda in Northern Ireland. This will enable us to meet our

1377
undertaking to put the outcome of negotiations to the people of Northern Ireland before submitting it to Parliament.
"It has also been argued that a referendum could be valuable, for example, on the use of violence for political ends. Our judgement at present is that the case for such a referendum has not yet been conclusively made. But we have not ruled out the option of holding a referendum with an appropriate question or questions on the same day as the elections.
"There is one other important area which needs to be settled before negotiations can begin, namely, the ground rules for these negotiations. At the end of last week, a consultation paper was issued to the parties. This paper sets out what an acceptable approach might be, drawing on the experience of the 1991–92 talks round and preliminary consultations with the parties. Further consultations with the parties will continue to ensure that the maximum common ground can be identified.
"I have outlined today what I believe to be a viable and reasonable way forward. Everyone in this process has had to make compromises, some of them difficult ones. Everyone has needed to exercise patience. I am grateful for that. But the basis of our approach has remained unchanged, namely, the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the Downing Street Declaration and the need for an approach which can build confidence and lead to an agreement capable of winning the allegiance of both main communities.
"I therefore urge the Northern Ireland parties to look carefully at the announcements I have made today and the short paper giving more detail which we are publishing in parallel. No party has got all it wanted. Equally, I see no issue of principle here which could reasonably cause any party to walk away from the democratic process I have set out. I do not believe the people of Northern Ireland would understand if any party did.
"Let us also not forget that the threat of terrorism continues to hang over this process. That is why the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence, and parallel decommissioning, remain so important.
"The IRA used the lack of a fixed date for all-party negotiations as an excuse to break its ceasefire. There was never any justification for its actions. Now its excuses are running out. What I have set out today represents a clear and direct route to all-party negotiations. The prospects for a just and lasting settlement are better than they have been for a generation if all parties take advantage of the opportunities now before us.
"But let me make clear yet again that, while we want to see all parties round the table, the process will go on with or without Sinn Fein. If it excludes itself from taking part in democratic negotiations, it will not be able to exercise a veto against others doing so.
1378
"Once again the people of Northern Ireland are watching the latest steps along the road to negotiations with bated breath. Their hopes for peace could not be clearer or more overwhelming. We need to move beyond procedures to the substance of negotiations as soon as we can. The chance is there: no one who stands unreasonably in the way of a settlement will be readily forgiven.
"I therefore commend to the House the approach I have set out, and hope that the House will today send a clear signal of support for this democratic process. That would be the best answer to the terrorists who continue to threaten it."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made in another place. This is a very delicate and dangerous time in the history of Northern Ireland and we who do not live there but have great affection and regard for those who do need to bear that constantly in mind. I know that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will accept that that is our approach and will remain our constant concern. We wish the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to succeed. There is no ambiguity about that.
But I am troubled that some of the present proposals are a shade opaque. They seem not to have been fully worked out. That may be put right in the short paper which the Leader of the House indicated is to be published in parallel. I have not seen that paper and it would be of assistance, I believe, if we could know when it is to be published and when it will be available.
We believe that elections and electoral mechanisms are only a present means to a future purpose. Is the noble Viscount the Leader of the House able to assure us that the elective process he has set out today is going to lead to all-party negotiations and nothing will be allowed to delay or derail those negotiations? What work is presently being done with the Irish Government and the political parties on the ground in respect of the rules for the negotiations? How is the forum to work? It is very large in number, bearing in mind the population of Northern Ireland. Who is to determine its rules of procedure? Is it to have a chairman? If it steps outside its apparent mandate, who is to control it?
Those are not finicky questions of detail. I foresee with regret that they are likely to be stumbling areas if they are not precisely defined as soon as possible. Will the forum have any power to direct or influence the course of negotiations, or will the negotiating body simply be able to direct the forum to carry out investigations? What are the ground rules to be?
As I understand the Statement, the ground rules are to be drawn on the basis of the Mitchell Report. That means parallel decommissioning. That in turn means the beginning of all-party negotiations without a single weapon being handed over. Is that acceptable, on the Government's present best judgment, to unionist opinion in Northern Ireland? Some of these are harsh questions; they are not intended to be partisan. But there

1379
are dangers ahead which we need to avoid if we can. Are the negotiations to be based on the three-stranded process, which has been the common concern of Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Republic?
I have one or two further questions of detail to ask. On a constitutional point, if this legislation is to be introduced immediately after the Easter Recess, I should welcome the noble Viscount's assurance that we shall have the draft before we part for that Recess. It is essential that we have ample time to study it.
What proposals are there about the details of how many persons are to be designated from each elected party as part of the negotiating teams? It is of extreme importance—it may be of central importance—to know the Government's judgment about whether there is to be a continuing role either for Senator Mitchell and his two present colleagues or for a successor body. That may be of vital importance when one considers the issue of parallel decommissioning.
From these Benches we shall put forward no obstacle to the passage of legislation designed to bring about all-party talks. But we respectfully repeat: the electoral mechanism is only a first step on a very long journey, which may be tortuous indeed.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend. The noble Viscount knows that these Benches support all the efforts that the Government are making through the Secretary of State and his team in an impossibly difficult situation. We congratulate them when they succeed and commiserate with them when they fail. However, consensus on ends cannot entirely preclude criticism and comment on detailed means.
The electoral system seems to be a real hotchpotch. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, it bears some signs of haste. My fear is that, like any project designed to have something for everyone, it may end up pleasing no one rather than representing what we all know is important in Northern Ireland; namely, the maximum point of compromise.
I particularly regret, given that the main representation that the system will produce comes from 18 five-member constituencies, that the Government did not choose to use the single transferable vote in those constituencies. That would have given the voters a chance to get in on the process, to express a preference between those in favour of peace and those less in favour of peace and to distinguish between people as well as between parties.
I saw some fairly confused and bemused looks around the House as the noble Viscount explained the system. I hope noble Lords understand that this is a classic party list system vote, where the only vote that the voters from Northern Ireland will be able to make is for a party, albeit the parties themselves will put a list of candidates in each constituency. I put some emphasis on that point because I feel it is extremely important that the Government, having set their hand to the plough of getting the public of Northern Ireland to be involved in
1380
the process as well as the parties, should do everything that they can to maximise vote of participation and ownership of the elections.
I have one or two other questions. The forum which seems to be created by this procedure lives a curious kind of half life, does it not? It is riot a legislature. I imagine that the choice of the word "forum" was considered rather like the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in the Irish Republic. Who decides the agenda of the forum and who will chair it? Where will it be? We know that that is an important issue in Northern Ireland. What is the so-called one-way valve which links the negotiations to the forum? How will that work?
With regard to the negotiations themselves, the issue that most concerns your Lordships is, I feel, the potential representation of Sinn Fein. The Prime Minister's Statement seems to indicate on page 5 that the only condition for participation by Sinn Fein is that there should again be a ceasefire. Of course there should be a ceasefire. We all want, expect and must see that. But what other conditions apply? Perhaps I am asking an obvious question but I should be grateful for an answer: does Sinn Fein have to take part in the elections? Does it only enter into the negotiations if it has taken part in the elections? As well as undertaking a ceasefire, standing for election and being elected, does it also have to adhere immediately at the first meeting to the Mitchell principles and put decommissioning on the agenda? If it does not, is it then asked to leave the room? I am very unclear about that and many people would like to know the answer.
I mentioned the importance of involving the people of Northern Ireland in the process as the main justification for going down the election route, as, incidentally, it would be for a referendum. It is extremely important that the Government commit themselves and the Northern Ireland Office to a campaign, first, to get voter registration. In some parts of Northern Ireland, voter registration is extremely low. The precedent set by the Home Office of direct door-to-door canvassing would be perfectly possible. Even when there has been a voter registration drive, they should go on from that to run a campaign to get the people of Northern Ireland to turn out and express their wishes, to vote for peace and progress in Northern Ireland. If we are to take the gamble that, in a sense, that stratagem represents of engaging—as the framework document envisages with a referendum and this process does through elections—the people of Northern Ireland, may we encourage them to turn out and make the elections a success?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the spirit in which they approached what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, rightly described as an extremely delicate process. In no way do I take amiss the fact that both noble Lords asked a series of extremely pertinent questions. I have to say to the House that I shall not be able to give a clear answer to all those questions. I suspect that neither noble Lord would expect me to do so at this stage. However, I shall endeavour to do my best. As I said, I want to emphasise my own personal gratitude and that of Her Majesty's

1381
Government for the extraordinarily co-operative spirit that both Opposition parties have shown during this difficult and tortuous time.
Both noble Lords asked about what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, described as the "opaque" nature of the proposals, referring particularly, as did the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, to the nature of the election. I had considerable sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Holme, when he said that the list system tends to distinguish between people and parties in favour of parties. I yield to no one in my strong feeling that one of the glories of the British electoral system is that it maintains a direct link between a Member of Parliament and his or her constituency. Those who have had the honour to represent constituencies realise the enormous value of that link.
Nevertheless, in this case we were presented with a difficulty. Since it was clearly impossible for a genuine compromise to be reached as the result of the negotiations between 4th and 13th March, as foreseen in the Statement that I repeated in the House the last time that we addressed this question, the Government had to make a judgment about the system which, in their opinion, was most likely to achieve the primary purpose: a series of elections which they hoped, whatever their reservations, would encourage all the parties in Northern Ireland and particularly the main parties to participate in; and once they had participated, to take part in the forum.
We do not know—I would be foolish to assert otherwise—whether we have achieved our primary objective. I hope that by the end of this afternoon we shall have a clearer idea as to whether or not our judgment proved correct. I can only hope that, in spite of the reservations which I am sure virtually every party will have and indeed the Government have about the system we propose, everybody will recognise that this is the "least bad" in the circumstances. I am certain that were I standing anywhere other than at this Dispatch Box or were my right honourable friend standing anywhere other than at the Dispatch Box in the other place, neither of us would quarrel with the fact that the system we propose is not perfect. However, any other system would have its own drawback.
I hope the House will forgive me if my answer is somewhat longer than usual. Both noble Lords asked a series of extremely important questions which deserve a full answer. One of the advantages of the system is, above all, that each person will vote only once on one piece of paper. The process of voting is therefore simple. That is a considerable advantage. What is rather less simple is the allocation of seats which must be made as a result of the voting system. The allocating of seats, as a result of the fractions that will result, is still the subject of discussion.
Noble Lords will be aware, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, with his party's well-known addiction to various forms of proportional representation, that there are a large number of recognised systems for allocating seats under a constituency list method. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that we examined those systems with
1382
some care in order to try to satisfy ourselves that they are workable and fair. However, we have not made a final decision on which method to use. We should like to hear representations from individual parties before we bring forward definite proposals in the Bill. A number of possibilities exist, though I shall spare your Lordships the details. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, in particular will be familiar with the Hare system, the Droop system and the d'Hondt system. I shall be happy to discuss those with him and perhaps take his advice outside your Lordships' House.
I cannot say that the elective process will definitely lead to negotiations. What is absolutely certain is that we and the Republic of Ireland Government are determined to drive this process forward. In order for it to work we must do our best to ensure that the various parties take part in it. It is for them to choose. The elections will take place on or around 30th May subject to the appropriate legislation gaining parliamentary approval and thereafter the negotiations will begin on schedule on 10th June.
Both noble Lords wanted to know how the forum will work. In a sense the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was right when he said that the answers had not yet been thought through. That is, at least in part, deliberate. The forum itself will have the ability to establish committees, as has been set out in the draft guideline document—it is very much a consultation document—issued to the leaders of the main parties last weekend. I do not know whether either noble Lord has had the chance to study that document. If they have, they will no doubt have noted that, particularly in its revised form, paragraph 19, though not specific, conveys the sort of function anticipated for the forum. Paragraph 19 states:
"The Forum will have the ability to establish committees to consider specific issues within its remit such as social and economic questions, cross-community reconciliation, equity of treatment and aspects of human rights. There will be a requirement that the membership and chairmanship of committees be allocated on a proportional basis reflecting party strengths in the Forum. The Forum or its committees will also be enabled to conduct hearings at which public submissions could be made by relevant bodies and individuals such as community, voluntary, women's and youth groups, trade unions, business and professional organisations, the Churches, academics and others. Any negotiation, any discussion, studies or reports of the Forum could inform the negotiating process which could commission such work. This or any other interaction between the Forum and the negotiating process which might be proposed by participants in the negotiations and which might be of benefit in developing agreement will be by agreement among the participants in the negotiating process and at their instigation".
I am aware that that is not a prescription to be imposed on the forum by the Government. I suggest that that in itself is a strength. If the forum can take that guidance and translate it at its own initiative into working practices, the forum will be much more able to develop a force of its own rather than relying on imposition from Her Majesty's Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, asked about negotiations and whether they would still be in the three-stranded form. The answer is "yes". In relation to the assurance that he asked for, that we would have available before Easter a draft of the proposed legislation, I shall do my best to make sure that the draft

1383
is available as soon as is practicable and I shall need to investigate when that date will be. However, we are extremely anxious to share what is proposed on a bipartisan-tripartisan basis in both Houses of Parliament and will be anxious to take both Houses into our confidence as soon as is practicable.
The noble Lords, Lord Williams of Mostyn and Lord Holme of Cheltenham, asked a key question in relation to the role of Siren Fein and its associates, the IRA. I do not believe that. I have heard any dissent from any of the Unionist parties in this regard; if it wishes, Sinn Fein can take part in the elections. We would encourage it to do so. In view of its past record, it would do nothing but good for it to expose itself to the rigour of electoral politics. I hope that it will not duck that challenge. If it does, we can draw our own conclusions.
Thereafter, like everybody else, Sinn Fein can nominate negotiating teams from the membership of the forum in order to begin discussions. In order for it to be able to enter the negotiating chamber at all, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said, Sinn Fein will need to have ensured, if it is within its power, an unequivocal renewal of the ceasefire. If the IRA has not renewed that ceasefire, Sinn Fein will not be allowed into the negotiating chamber.
A question still hangs in the air from both noble Lords. We took a chance last time round that the ceasefire was permanent. We made an assumption—I believe we used the word "working" assumption—that, since no bombs had gone off, that ceasefire was permanent. We were cruelly deceived and disappointed. We have to ask ourselves what the IRA can do to convince us, if there is to be a renewed ceasefire, that this time they mean it. The answer must come at the very beginning of talks, of negotiations, and when that comes we will expect every party to sign up, in exactly the same terms, to the six Mitchell principles. If any party refuses to do that—and your Lordships will remember that the Mitchell principles are very specific—then there is no question but that that party will be shown the door. They also, in the words of the communiqué, as part of the first item on the agenda, have to address the question of the mechanics of parallel decommissioning as set out in paragraph 34 of the Mitchell Report.
We will see whether that happens, but I would also like to remind your Lordships that it is not only bombs, bullets and murder that is at stake here. Any party that is committed to peaceful means does not need the paramilitary organisation which enables a terrorist organisation to exist; and we must remember that that paramilitary organisation, during the period of the ceasefire, has not only not been demolished, it has been enhanced. That is something which we would do well to remember in the coming critical days and weeks.
I am well aware that I have trespassed on your Lordships' patience for rather longer than, perhaps, I had any right to, but I would like to take note particularly of the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for a voter registration drive. I would very much like to communicate his suggestion to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I am sure he will treat it with the seriousness which it deserves.
4.12 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, first, I would like to thank the Leader of the House for his explanations so far. One point on which I was not quite clear was at what stage the IRA and Sinn Fein must declare a ceasefire. Is it right that they must declare the ceasefire directly before the talks or directly before the election? If it may be as late as after the election and they are allowed to the polls, this means that we are permitting an election to occur under the intimidation of the terrorist organisations whilst they are not in a ceasefire mode. That, I believe, could be very dangerous indeed.
Whatever his answer may be, either that they must declare it before the election or that they must declare it before the talks, how soon before? If it is before the election, do they have to declare it before the ballot sheets are printed because, if so, there must be a time given. If they do not, then their party would appear on the ballot sheet and one would get destroyed votes as a result, if those votes count for nothing. If it is before the talks, may they continue bombing up until 9th June, if the talks are on the 10th, and then declare a ceasefire and walk through the doors?
This is all very important because, if we look at what the IRA has done over a number of years, when deadlines like this have occurred they have tried to get to the very doors and, if possible, ambush the other parties by persuading the Government to give way slightly on something—for instance, any one of the Mitchell Report requirements—in order for the Unionist parties or other parties to then boycott the talks. Sinn Fein will then say: "We are ready to talk, and it is the Unionists who have destroyed it."
I accept what the Leader of the House said, that the parties would have to sign up to the six requirements in the Mitchell Report. Are these requirements, one by one, to be signed up, or is the Mitchell Report to be signed in totality? If it is only piece by piece, there may be a chance—I would hope not—that the Government might allow one or two of the lesser ones not to be signed up to, and that would put the Unionists out of it. I think that these are important points, and I hope he will be able to answer them.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. They are extremely important points. My noble friend will know, almost better than anyone else in your Lordships' House at the moment, that throughout the troubles since 1969 Sinn Fein councillors have been able to present themselves for election. So, when I answer his first question, he will understand that there will be no change from the present situation.
In the absence of a ceasefire, Sinn Fein will be able to take part in elections; but what is perfectly clear is that, unless they declare a ceasefire, they will not be able to begin negotiations. I would go further than that: just as they attempted recently to gain entrance to Stormont Castle during the consultation talks beginning on 4th March, they would find exactly the same refusal as they found then, in the absence of a ceasefire. So I put this with all the clarity at my command: unless there is a ceasefire, they cannot enter the negotiating chamber.

1385
The second question which my noble friend asked I regard as equally important. There is a clear danger that, when presented by the terrorists—as is always possible and, indeed, it is one of their favourite ploys—with the option of giving a little or, on the other hand, facing a return to violence, the terrorists always calculate that we will choose to give a little. Let me be perfectly specific. We have no intention of having the Mitchell principles chipped away in the way that my noble friend fears. The representatives of Sinn Fein will have to sign up to all six unequivocally at the outset of their entry into the negotiating chamber. Unless they do that, they will be asked to leave.
Lord Annan: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House how far, if at all, the Irish Government have been consulted on these matters? I ask, because I think it is of very great importance that we carry the Irish Government with us as far as is possible on all these matters, and I was relieved, in fact, to hear the noble Viscount the Leader say that Sinn Fein would be able to take part in the elections. I say that, not out of any regard for the lizard-like manoeuvrings of Mr. Gerry Adams, but because my mind goes back to the days of 1916 and afterwards, when we had to come in the end to negotiations with noted terrorists such as Michael Collins. The treaty was, in fact, signed with Lloyd George and Michael Collins. He came back and the Irish Free State was formed.
At that time the Republican Movement refused to accept that treaty and civil war followed. The Irish Government shot and executed more Irishmen during the next few months than the British had ever done since 1916. That is why it is important, it seems to me, to carry both Sinn Fein, if possible, and certainly the Irish Government with us so that, when we do get a settlement, there is absolutely no doubt that every interested party, except those who will never accept anything but the total triumph of the IRA, is behind the peace process.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I have tried to emphasise in response to similar comments on previous occasions like this the importance of the two governments keeping closely in step and I am happy to re-emphasise that today. The Irish Government have been made aware of what we propose, although I should make it clear that on the point of elections this was a matter for the British Government because we are dealing with elections within the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, as a matter of practicality and courtesy, it was right, once we had decided, that we should advise the Irish Government of what we had decided.
I should perhaps emphasise that the ground rules on negotiation remain the same as forecast and as have been forecast for many months now. Strands two and three of the three-stranded process, about which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked me, remain to be negotiated in the form forecast, and strand one is concerned purely with relations within Northern Ireland and is not a matter for the republic. Nevertheless, I should like to emphasise once again that it is important
1386
that the two governments march in step and we shall endeavour to continue to do so. If there is any suggestion that the IRA is beginning to split the two governments, it will make further progress increasingly difficult.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I wish every possible success to the proposals in the Statement read out by the noble Viscount. Can he say how the British Government, or indeed the Dublin Government, will keep in touch with the new elected body? It will be there discussing and, presumably and it is to be hoped, coming to sensible conclusions. Will Her Majesty's Government have observers there, or is some other arrangement in view?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the elected body is within part of the United Kingdom and therefore the Republic of Ireland does not have a locus in the proceedings of that body. I am sure the noble Lord would want that to be so. At the same time it is clearly important that this highly complex negotiating process, if, as we hope, it manages to get under way, should be co-ordinated in terms of its mechanics if not its substance. Therefore it is suggested—it is merely a matter for consultation at the moment—that there should be a co-ordinating committee to look at the mechanics of the three-stranded talks and on which representatives of the government of the republic would sit. That perhaps is the best way in which we can ensure that good order and discipline are maintained.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am much obliged.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
4.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the legal powers which are necessary as a supplement to the ordinary criminal law to counter terrorism in Northern Ireland. The Bill re-enacts, with omissions and amendments, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. It is made necessary, first, by the fact that the 1991 Act expires in August this year and, secondly, by the fact that the security situation in Northern Ireland requires that the powers be renewed.
Perhaps I may describe briefly the situation as it existed in the run-up to the terrorist ceasefires of August and October 1994, and since then up to the present time. The ceasefires declared in 1994 saw a significant down turn in some types of terrorist activity. In the 17 months prior to 31st August 1994, 117 people died in Northern Ireland as a result of terrorist activity. In the period of just over 18 months from September 1994 to 17th March 1996, 15 people were killed in Northern Ireland. These figures do not include the recent London murders. During 1994

1387
in Northern Ireland there were 348 shooting incidents and 207 bombing incidents; in 1995 there were 50 and six respectively. However, during 1995 armed robberies continued at an alarming rate—421, compared with 555 in 1994—and the number of punishment attacks rose to 315 over the period 1st September 1994 to 17th March 1996, compared with 238 over the 18-month period in the run-up to the provisional IRA's ceasefire of 31st August 1994.
In response to the ceasefires, the Government relocated more than 1,500 troops to their home bases; they removed several Army bases and security installations; routine military patrolling in support of the police dropped by around 80 per cent.; closed roads at the border with the Republic of Ireland were opened; the majority of orders under the vehicle control zone order were revoked; all Northern Ireland exclusion orders were lifted; and the civilian search unit was disbanded. The Government's response was measured and proportionate. Their response to the breakdown in PIRA's ceasefire has been so, too.
Steps have been taken to reintroduce appropriate security measures; for example, police officers are again wearing flak jackets and patrolling in armoured vehicles; they have increased their patrolling and are carrying long weapons. In addition, two of the three relocated battalions have returned to Northern Ireland to be available to support the police if required.
The Government's view remains that for as long as the terrorist organisations retain their capacity in terms of armaments, organisation and training to renew their campaign of violence with little or no warning, it would be irresponsible to dismantle any security measures on the ground which would not be capable of being reintroduced quickly. The same argument applies to emergency legislation. The Government and the security forces must retain their ability to protect the community from terrorist attack. It is our duty.
I now turn to the Bill itself. Like its predecessors, the current Act has enabled the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland to function effectively and fairly, and has provided the legal basis for the police and Army to take appropriate and effective action against terrorism. At the same time it has provided terrorist suspects with appropriate safeguards.
The Government have consistently made it clear that the emergency legislation will remain on the statute book only for as long as is necessary. The provisions are regularly reviewed independently, at the invitation of the Government. The most recent major review of the emergency provisions Act was conducted by Mr. John Rowe Q.C. in 1994. His terms of reference were:
"To consider what changes to existing provisions should be made when the time comes to replace the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 in August 1996, taking into account the need to ensure that there are both effective powers to deal with terrorist violence and adequate safeguards for the individual".
The Government are indebted to Mr. Rowe for the work he has done and for the clarity of expression of his views and recommendations, as set out in the report of his review. Mr. Rowe's work concluded on 1st October 1994, just one month after the Provisional IRA's ceasefire announcement of 31st August 1994.
1388
The Government, while having made a working assumption that the ceasefires were intended to be permanent, could not accept that they brought about anything more than a fragile peace. This view was reinforced by the background terrorist activities which I have described, and has been vindicated by subsequent events. On this basis, Mr. Rowe's conclusions were considered to be as valid in the post-ceasefire situation as they clearly would be in a non-ceasefire scenario. In shaping the Bill, therefore, much of what John Rowe recommended in his report, has been taken on board.
I shall take a few minutes now to outline the detail of the Bill and to explain in what way it differs from the current Act. The most obvious change is the removal of the confiscation provisions, set out in Sections 47 to 56 and Schedule 4; and the authorised investigator provisions set out in Section 57 and Schedule 5 of the current Act. Broadly similar provisions will be introduced to the ordinary law by way of the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order which will be laid after the Easter Recess. These proposed new provisions will apply to all forms of financial crime including those perpetrated by or on behalf of terrorist organisations. Indeed, in some respects, these new provisions will be stronger than those in the EPA which they will replace.
The EPA Bill is in eight parts and has six schedules. Part I and Schedule 1 contain provisions relating to the scheduled offences; that is, offences which merit special treatment under the Bill. Schedule 1 lists and defines the scheduled offences; Part I makes arrangements for preliminary inquiries in magistrates' courts. It sets out the conditions for granting bail and for the holding in custody of young persons and their treatment on conviction; and it provides for the setting of statutory time limits in scheduled cases. It makes special arrangements for the trial of scheduled offences; namely, the continuance of the system of Diplock Courts, with its associated safeguards.
A number of changes are proposed to Part I. Certain offences have been removed from the schedule. They are those which, in the light of experience, have proved not to be charged in terrorist cases. Other offences have been made capable of being certified out. These include offences under the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 of robbery with violence and aggravated burglary. Often cases involving these offences could safely be tried by jury as they tend to be committed without terrorist involvement. Part I also includes a new provision which allows for such transitional arrangements as may be necessary in the event that an offence is added to, or removed from, the list of scheduled offences.
New and more flexible provisions have also been introduced for the setting of time limits for remand proceedings. In relation to custody time limits in particular, experience has shown that the current provision, as contained in Section 8 of the 1991 Act, is too rigid to be applied in Northern Ireland. There is in existence a scheme of time limits and this has demonstrated clearly that if a statutory scheme had been introduced in accordance with Section 8 of the Act, a number of potentially dangerous defendants on serious terrorist charges would have been released on bail. The new provisions contained in Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill

1389
are in a broader form and contain less detail. They permit regulations to be made to set time limits and to specify the circumstances in which time limits could be extended by a court.
Substantial progress has already been made in reducing the time that is spent in custody on remand by those facing serious charges. In a Written Answer on 7th December last year, I reported on the first three years of the administrative time limits scheme to which I have just referred. I referred at that time to a substantial reduction in the average time that is taken to process cases from first remand to arraignment, and to a particularly impressive fall over the past year in waiting times between arraignment and the start of trial.
Part II of the Bill relates to powers of arrest, search and seizure. It provides for the specific circumstances in which the police and Army have power to enter and search premises; arrest and seize without a warrant; search for ammunition and transmitters; search for, and seize, explosives; examine documents; stop and question; and requisition and interfere with private property and public highways. It creates a new offence of failing to stop and be searched when required to do so by a police officer or a member of the Armed Forces. At present, police officers and soldiers have the power to stop and undertake a search for munitions or transmitters, but anyone failing to stop for a search does not commit an offence under the Act and the right of arrest under Section 17 of the current Act does not apply. The Bill corrects this.
Part III and Schedule 2 deal with offences against public security and public order. Part III continues in force the offence of directing a terrorist organisation. It lists the proscribed organisations and provides for offences relating to membership of, or support for, such organisations. The provisions make it an offence to dress in paramilitary clothing and forbid possession of any item intended for terrorist purposes, as well as the collecting or communicating of information likely to be of use to terrorists. They also re-enact an offence relating to training in the making or use of firearms or explosives.
The Bill strengthens the current provision in relation to proof of possession of information likely to be of use to terrorists, by providing that evidence of proximity shall be treated as proof of possession unless proved otherwise. This is consistent with the onus of proof applied in the case of prohibited articles such as explosives, firearms and ammunition.
Part IV and Schedule 3 contain the provisions relating to executive detention. These powers are retained in their current lapsed state. Their retention is the subject of some debate; but it is the Government's firm belief that until they are satisfied that peace in Northern Ireland is permanent and irreversible, it would be grossly irresponsible not to ask Parliament to re-enact this power.
Part V deals with the regulation of the provision of private security services. It continues to regulate all private security firms in Northern Ireland offering security guard services. The provision of security
1390
services without a certificate under Part V is prohibited. A new provision in this part allows failure to comply with Part V of the 1991 Act as well as failure to comply with Part V of the new Act, to be taken into account in deciding whether to grant or revoke a certificate.
Part VI deals with persons in custody under the terrorism provisions. It sets out the statutory rights of those in police custody under the terrorism provisions; for example, the right of a suspect to have a friend or relative informed of his detention, and the right of access to legal advice.
At this point it is appropriate to mention the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of John Murray, which has caused the Government to consider whether any amendment is necessary to the Bill to comply with the requirements of the convention.
The Murray case concerned inferences drawn from silence. On the general question of whether inferences may be drawn, the judgment supported the Government in their view that the drawing of inferences was a matter of common sense. But on the narrower question of inferences being drawn at a trial from silence at a time when access to a legal adviser was denied, the court found against the UK.
The Government are considering how best to respond to the judgment. We have reached the view that the implications of the judgment may go beyond Northern Ireland and beyond the emergency legislation. For that reason we do not think that an amendment to this Bill would be the most appropriate response. We have not yet concluded which steps, legislative and administrative, should he pursued to ensure that we comply with our obligations under the convention.
Part VII and Schedule 4 deal with miscellaneous matters. A number of changes are made here. The current Act contains a discretionary power to make codes of practice in relation to the police and armed forces' powers of arrest, search and seizure. That provision had been removed from the Bill, in recognition of the improvement in the security situation brought about by the ceasefires. However, in the light of recent IRA attacks, and the possibility, which we all hope fervently will not be the case, that the security forces' powers set out in Part II of the Bill could still be needed for some little time, the Government intend to table an amendment to the Bill reinstating the discretionary power to make such codes of practice for your Lordships' consideration at Committee stage.
The basis of the appointment of the independent assessor of military complaints procedures has been changed from a mandatory to a discretionary one. This will allow flexibility to discontinue the post in the event that routine military support to the police is no longer needed.
Part VII also contains a new provision which will provide for the silent video recording of all interviews which take place in the police holding centres, and for a code of practice to be drawn up for that purpose.
The case for introducing some form of electronic recording of interviews with terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland has been argued by successive reviewers of the Emergency Provisions Act and others.

1391
The Government, after consultation with the police, have decided to introduce a system of silent video recording. This will add to the already extensive range of protections which exist for individuals being interviewed in the police holding centres. The police are content that the scheme which is proposed will not raise the same security concerns as audio recording, where the concern existed that suspects, fearing for their lives, would be unwilling to assist the police if they knew their co-operation was being recorded. Also, a system of silent video recording would not require a statutory scheme to prevent the disclosure of tapes by or to those who might have sinister motives for seeking to acquire them. Disclosure is a key issue.
The Government have concluded that a scheme which would safeguard tapes to the extent that would be necessary in Northern Ireland to meet the security concerns to which I have referred would be so elaborate and so restrictive as to undermine the benefits of recording the interviews.
Part VIII and Schedules 5 and 6 contain the supplementary provisions: included is a provision which will allow for the powers of arrest, search and seizure conferred upon the police and the Army to be separated, to allow the Army powers to be more easily suspended if during the lifetime of the Act that becomes a realistic prospect. Also included in this part is a new, technical provision to avoid problems caused by the transition from the old Act to the new Act.
Part VIII also contains the provisions for the repeal of the Act in two years' time. The new Act will have a lifespan of two years, compared with the five-year lifespan of the current Act. Following the breakdown in PIRA's ceasefire, the Government have given careful consideration to the arguments for and against extending the life of the new Act beyond two years.
The Government have decided not to make an amendment to the Bill at this stage, but should the security situation in two years' time require the emergency provisions to be extended, they will not hesitate to introduce a Bill at that time for that purpose.
I shall conclude my remarks by looking to the future. Your Lordships will be aware that an independent review is currently underway into the future need for counter-terrorist legislation in the United Kingdom. The review is led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who has the following terms of reference:
"To consider the future need for specific counter-terrorism legislation in the UK if the cessation of violence connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland leads to a lasting peace, taking into account the United Kingdom's obligations under international law; and to make recommendations".
I am sure your Lordships will join with me in very much welcoming the fact that this review is taking place. We look forward to its outcome. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has asked me to convey his apologies to your Lordships that he is unable to be with us this afternoon.
No one can doubt the need for this Bill. The events of recent weeks demonstrate how very necessary it is, much as we all regret it. We remain full of hope that a peaceful settlement will be reached for the people of
1392
Northern Ireland; they deserve nothing less. But there is much delicate work to be done. In the meantime the Government's priority is to protect the lives and the property of the people of Northern Ireland and this Bill will provide the means to do that. I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
4.46 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her usual careful exposition. She and I, together with the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, are used to having a very small congregation late at night; but earlier in the day the congregation is enlarged, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, who I welcome to our discussions on Northern Ireland on the occasion of his maiden speech.
The Minister concluded by saying that no one could suggest that this Bill was not necessary. I do not suggest that a Bill is not necessary, but I do suggest that this Bill has defects. The defects of any legislation of this sort necessarily arise out of the emergency circumstances or circumstances where the normal rule of law has in part been impeached or impeded, or where the normal judicial processes cannot work fully and fairly. It is self-evident that there are difficulties in empanelling juries who can try criminal cases in Northern Ireland.
My objection is that the balance has not been properly drawn. I should like your Lordships to consider briefly one or two of the provisions because this is an argument and a debate that has been long lasting. First, I welcome the limitation from five years to two years in the currency and the life of this Bill. Secondly, I wholeheartedly endorse, first, the setting up of the review under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, who is assisted by Mr. Justice Kerr from the Northern Ireland Bench, and, secondly, the fact that it is the noble and learned Lord who has been chosen to chair that review. As is well known and on the public record, we on this side of the House and, indeed, the Liberal Democrats, have been pressing for such a review for a very long time. I hope that it is not ungracious to say that the review has been set up far too late, although we welcome the fact that it has been set up in the end.
I turn now to one or two of the clauses in the Bill. Clause 10 is a welcome introduction of a degree of flexibility. It means that the Diplock non-jury courts can if necessary, and where expedient and appropriate, be held outside the Crown Court sitting in Belfast. The consultations that I have had, which have been quite careful, with legal practitioners in Northern Ireland indicate that they support that course in appropriate cases. I believe that that provision usefully amends the former Act.
Turning to Clause 37, not for the last time we in England and Wales should be able to learn something from the Northern Ireland experience. Clause 37 is of great importance since it prohibits private security services acting for reward unless they are certificated

1393
and licensed. To many of us in your Lordships' House that seems to be a provision that can usefully be introduced into the legislation in England and Wales.
My real criticism of the Bill derives from Clause 53. That provision empowers the Secretary of State to introduce a regime, underpinned by a code of practice, which relates, among other things, to the silent video recording of interviews. The Minister paid full tribute to the work of Mr. John Rowe QC. As long ago as February 1995 Mr. Rowe said in his report that audio recording, not silent video, was the very least that should be provided, and that if a video recording was made as well it would be so much the better. Mr. Rowe had considerable experience of Northern Ireland. His recommendation was very clear. I regret to say that I have heard nothing from the Minister to persuade me that Mr. Rowe is wrong and the Government are right.
Mr. Justice Kerr of the Northern Ireland bench tried a case that began in August 1993 and finished in December 1994. A very substantial part of that trial was taken up by the voir dire as to whether or not confessions or admissions had been made and whether or not they were admissible. The Minister has said that there is no efficient mechanism that the Government can devise to safeguard the improper disclosure of audio tape recordings. A long time ago Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, at the request of the Government, examined this point. I studied his carefully researched and argued report on a number of occasions. He concluded that a closely prescribed procedure for the disclosure of tape recordings only to those detainees charged with terrorist offences, and who at trial challenged the admissibility of statements, would be a safeguard. In his report there are many safeguards, with which I will not weary your Lordships, that persuade me that audio recordings can be kept in the circumstances of proper security.
What is the purpose of an audio recording? It includes at least the following. First, it avoids endless trials about who said what to whom in what circumstances, namely, the voir dire. The single most effective measure under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which limited trials in this country both in duration and expense, was the introduction of audio recording. Secondly, it is much more efficient as a true record of what was said. It includes questions which a trial judge or jury need to consider: the shade of meaning, the nuance of voice, the tone of voice of the question and the way that the answer is given. Thirdly, it makes the conviction of the guilty more and not less likely. Fourthly, it improves police performance. All senior police officers to whom I have ever spoken about this matter underline that proposition. It improves the quality of the interview and the evidence derived from it. Not least, the audio recording is a very powerful, sometimes fundamental, safeguard to the honest, honourable policeman who is falsely accused of misbehaviour and misdeeds in the circumstances of the interview. Therefore, it is a source of regret that the Government have felt unable to introduce audio recording as opposed simply to silent video recording. Silent video recording is an improvement but a very limited one.
1394
Clause 55 refers to the right to compensation. After all these months and years, is the Minister able to say whether the Government have at last reached any conclusion about the future of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme in Northern Ireland? Some may say, unkindly, that that is not a question directly referable to the structure of this Bill, but at least I had the modest decency to give the Minister notice that I would yet again put that question.
All in all, we regret the necessity for legislation, which sometimes can be draconian in either its structure or use. Emergency circumstances require deviations from the norm. However, I suggest that the Government ought to have gone further with audio recording as a safeguard to interviewees as well as police officers.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for her customarily clear and cogent presentation of the contents and case for this Bill. It comes at a sensitive time when in Northern Ireland we are poised in limbo between peace and violence. We on these Benches had it in mind—I put it in the past tense since it preceded the terrible events at Canary Wharf—to table an amendment that this Bill should be for one year only in the first instance. We felt then that the work of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, might overtake it and there would be a chance to have a comprehensive look at a new peaceful situation in Northern Ireland. Unhappily, that is not assuredly the case. The noble Baroness is quite right to remind us of the prevalence of punishment beatings and armed robberies, quite apart from the murders of five people in Belfast by Direct Action Against Drugs, which may well be a cover name for terrorists, and various horrendous incidents in London.
Broadly speaking, the Government can expect our support for the Bill. However, I do not believe that it got off to a very good start. Curiously, the Government did not consult the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in advance of the Bill. The Minister will recall that the commission had received specific assurances from the Government that it would be consulted in such matters. The commission has strongly criticised the Government for their lack of consultation and expressed deep concern that the Bill has been brought forward in this way with so few changes. When the noble Baroness replies, can she tell us how to avoid this problem? There is no point in having a standing advisory commission on human rights if it is not consulted. In fairness, the Bill in another place has made good progress in Committee. The Government have made several concessions. Although some of them are technical matters, it demonstrates a welcome flexibility of approach.
Since we regard the 1991 Act and now this Bill as a regrettable necessity, some of the changes are welcome. For instance, the consolidation of terrorist funding provisions in Part VII and Clause 5 are admirable. The Minister will recall that we called for that from these Benches. The provisions relating to terrorist funding are put into a special proceeds of crime order, which will come before us soon, together with similar provisions

1395
in the PTA. It is extremely important that we take a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to the question of the sources of money for terrorists.
I turn to the issue of the video taping of police interviews. I agree with a great deal of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I do not intend to repeat it, save to commend to the Government the report of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper. The report is overwhelmingly persuasive on the case for audio taping. However, as far as it goes, silent video taping is a step forward. I suspect that when the noble Baroness referred to others who had been pressing for it she had in mind the fact that for the five years during which I had been privileged to speak on these matters from these Benches I had asked the Government why there could not be taping of interviews. I believe that it is better to have video taping than nothing, though we should move towards audio taping.
I refer to the question of custody time limits in Clause 8. I congratulate the Government on having almost eliminated the backlog of criminal cases pending and succeeded in reducing custody times a great deal over the past 18 months. However, although the Bill makes it possible to set custody time limits none has yet been set. Perhaps the Minister could let us know when this could happen. I am glad also to see that the omission of the Ulster Defence Association (Clause 30) from the list of proscribed organisations was purely a drafting error. I believe that everyone in the House would want to congratulate the former Loyalist paramilitaries on their attitude to the provocation by the Provisional IRA and on not responding to it. That has been impressive and admirable, but those people who might take up arms on the Loyalist side must be clear that should they return to violence they will be afforded treatment no different from that which we currently provide for Republican terrorists.
Finally, I have two points of concern. The first is the issue in Clause 47 of the right to silence. Clause 47 restricts rights to a solicitor in the first 48 hours of police questioning. The police have to put in writing the reasons why a solicitor is not allowed. However, with the change introduced since 1991—that inferences of guilt can be drawn from an interviewee's silence—having a solicitor present becomes that much more important. It is possible that we may want to come back with an amendment on that point with which of course the European Court of Human Rights will concern itself.
My other point of concern relates to Clauses 20 and 23 under which inspectors are allowed to authorise searches. Selectively, that is a useful power, but I cannot for the life of me think why it has been extended from chief inspectors to inspectors. There are 166 RUC chief inspectors and 501 inspectors. Why do we need to increase by a factor of three the privileged group which has been given powers previously reserved to magistrates? I fail to understand why that is necessary. With those provisos, and no doubt we shall return to those questions on subsequent occasions, I give the Minister the assurance that, in general, we shall be supporting the Bill.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, it is with some nervousness that I am making my maiden speech in your House during this sensitive debate. I live in Northern Ireland and I have spent a great deal of time in the past 20 years working for the public good in the Province. I hope that I may be able to continue some of that work in your Lordships' House in the future. I am very proud to have inherited this peerage from my father and grandfather, who was the first Baron, both of whom spent a large part of their lives involved in Northern Ireland politics. Indeed, they spanned the full 50 years which was the duration of that Parliament, but as far as I can ascertain neither spoke in this House.
I am an Ulsterman, and when I am at Twickenham I cheer for the boys in green. However, I served as a regular soldier with the Grenadier Guards for 12 years and competed in two Olympic games for Great Britain. I am an Irishman whose sovereign is the Queen and whose colours are the Union Jack.
While I was doing some research for this speech, I read the maiden speech made in another place in April 1969 by a fervent young Ulster civil rights leader of the day. Having read it, I asked myself: What has changed since then? Some cynics outside the House might say, "Nothing". This is very far from the truth. Our speech-maker of the day was demonstrating about social injustices such as housing allocations, which at that time were in the control of the district councils. It should be remembered that in 1969 in Northern Ireland only ratepayers had a vote for local council district councillors. That disfranchised all those living in public authority housing. She complained of the lack of equal opportunities in the workplace, and the perceived hypocrisy of successive Stormont governments. Today, that has changed significantly. Sadly soon after she made that speech the democratic process was highjacked by the terrorists. But in response to the public demand of the day Stormont was suspended by the Conservative Government in 1972 and direct rule was imposed from Westminster. Later in the same year the district councils were reorganised and their powers significantly reduced. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive was set up to tackle the serious housing difficulties of the time. One of the results of that is that we now have some of the finest public authority housing in the kingdom, and housing as an issue is off the political agenda.
Proportional representation was introduced for all elections, and today everyone over the age of 18 has a fair vote. The Fair Employment Commission is now in place to ensure equality of opportunity in the workplace for all, regardless of creed or culture. However, it must be said that there are still concerns over inequality of unemployment. That will only be solved by further inward investment in the west of the Province. I have known and admired many of the Ministers of the Crown who, at great risk and sacrifice to themselves, have been responsible for the positive changes which have taken place over the years. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to pay my tribute to them today.
The real issue preventing peaceful progress towards prosperity both north and south is terrorism. To be successful the terrorist requires a sympathetic

1397
indigenous population and a considerable degree of external funding. I do not believe that the IRA is short of funds, but I do believe that it is running very short of credibility. As a result of the many measures and actions taken by successive British Governments, usually with a good measure of support from the Opposition of the day, and now linked for the first time to the unequivocal stance taken against Irish terrorism by both the Irish and American governments, we are faced with a real opportunity for peace and progress in Ireland. Irish people everywhere have demonstrated their desire for peace, but neither culture has shown any desire or willingness for a change of sovereignty. In many local authority areas in the Province there is evidence of a coming together for the betterment of the community, and there may even be signs of a pragmatic form of power sharing. It is my belief that the border will not disappear in my lifetime, but its significance will steadily reduce. It is ironic that while borders across Europe have been coming down, the Irish border, as a direct result of the actions of the IRA, has had to be not only strengthened but fortified.
An acceptable method of replacing direct rule from Westminster must be found. I submit that it is important to raise the intellectual level of debate among the elected representatives from within the community in the Province. That I believe must start at district council level. It is with those local authorities that I believe the future lies. Once the threat of terrorism subsides and local politicians are again able to concentrate fully on the social needs of their electorate, those same politicians must be given the responsibility and authority to enable them to play a full part in the democratic process.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will forgive me for suggesting that the democratic process in Ulster will have to be rebuilt from the bottom up and not from the top down. In conclusion, I believe that there is now a real possibility of putting the border issue and the terrorist on the back burner. That will only happen if the resolve of this Parliament and those of the Republic of Ireland and the United States remains constant. In the meantime, we must remain constantly vigilant against the terrorist with all the powers necessary available to those charged with the defence of this realm against terrorism.
5.9 p.m.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, I begin my congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, on a fluent maiden speech. I knew his father and his grandfather. I am glad to see him now a Member of this House. I hope that we shall hear from him many times in the future. He is well known, not merely for his business ability but for his public service. He brought great credit to us all by taking part in the bob-sleigh race in the Olympic Games. If he can negotiate the perils of that, he will be able to negotiate any lesser perils he may meet in this House.
I stated on Tuesday on the order for the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act the reasons why I consider it necessary to continue anti-terrorist
1398
measures. I quoted Mr. J. J. Rowe's report in which he put the matter very cogently. I do not intend to repeat what I said. Indeed, the Minister has already given us many reasons in her speech.
Therefore, I intend to refer to a few clauses in the Act rather than to attempt an exhaustive review of it. First, there is the renewal of the provision whereby scheduled offences are tried by a judge without a jury; in other words, terrorist offences. They have become known as the Diplock courts because that course was recommended by Lord Diplock and his recommendation was followed. The reason for that is that jurors were being intimidated. Unfortunate citizens were called onto a jury panel through no wish of their own and were then subjected to intimidation by people who wanted them to find a not guilty verdict. It was unfair to the jurors and very bad indeed for the system. I am glad to see that the Diplock courts are to continue. In those cases, the judge must give a reasoned judgment as to why he has reached a decision either to acquit or convict the accused. I support that.
I am glad to see also that Clause 20 renews the powers of the Army and the police to carry out searches for munitions and radio transmitters. Clause 21 means that a full report must be given of all activities carried out under Clause 20. If any questions arise as regards that behaviour, the report can be referred to.
I am glad to see that Clause 21(6) creates an offence of failing to stop for the Army or the police. It was quite ridiculous that that was not an offence. However, that has now been cured, and quite rightly so.
Clause 29 is concerned with people who direct the activities of terrorist organisations. That is very important. There are people who sit back in safety elsewhere and direct operations while letting some other unfortunate person run the risk of being caught with the bomb or whatever it happens to be. Culpability is even greater on the part of the people who are directing the operations and hiding behind other people who are carrying them out. It is essential that that should be an offence because, if those people can be rooted out, a large part of the problem would be solved.
I am glad to see it is to be an offence to dress up to show membership of a terrorist organisation. It is sheer provocation on the part of people who, not merely at paramilitary funerals but at parades and so on, try to stir up trouble by wearing their paramilitary uniforms of one kind and another. It is extremely important that that should be prohibited.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, referred to Part V of the Bill and said that he thought that that should be extended. That provides that private security firms must be registered. He said that that should be extended to England and Wales. I would go even further and say that Scotland should also be subject to the provision. It should apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. It is far too simple to say, "Oh no, this is not a terrorist organisation. This is a security firm". That is a poor bluff, and the registration of such firms will prevent that because they will have to prove that they are legitimate.

1399
I offer my support for the Bill. I join with others in saying that we look forward to the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, which I hope will guide us and help us in the provision of future legislation.
5.16 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I strongly support the powerful arguments advanced by the Minister in support of the provisions of the Bill. I believe that it is important not only as an issue of law but also for the reassurance which the forces of law and order and the general public in Northern Ireland must derive from the recognition that they still need protection.
To take an instance relevant to the Bill, though in fact raised during our discussion of the regulations last week, I have heard exclusion orders dismissed as internal exile and a threat to the human rights of the person so excluded or detained. But the Government have a duty to defend the rights of potential victims where the person so excluded or detained is believed to intend violence against the public.
The IRA itself has not hesitated, in the midst of the ceasefire, to serve its own version of exclusion orders in terms of ordering a man and his family who have become persona non grata in its eyes to leave their homes in Northern Ireland and never to return on pain of death. Though there can he no comparison between the duty of proper and lawful behaviour laid upon a government and the savage rule of the jungle operated by the IRA, yet the victims make that equation and have a right to see themselves being protected from potential harm. Any deterrent action, properly applied within the law, which forces the IRA to abort an operation for lack of a courier, a bomber or a carrier of bomb-making equipment seems to me well worth it.
In the context of the threat to peace which the IRA continues to pose and of the Statement made earlier this afternoon, I should like to take the opportunity to comment on some related issues. One is the frequent and wholly unsustainable comparison made by some between Sinn Fein/IRA in Northern Ireland and the ANC in South Africa, and, even more offensively, between Gerry Adams and that great man, Nelson Mandela.
Sinn Fein, a minority party representing only a tiny fraction of the electorate, has the right to vote and to elect representatives to Parliament, and thus to put its case through the democratic process. The fact that Gerry Adams, having been so elected, chose not to take his seat because he did riot recognise the authority of Parliament, nor of the Crown, does not alter the fact that Sinn Fein has always had the democratic mandate. The ANC, representing the large black majority in South Africa—the majority—did not have the vote and was deprived of a democratic and peaceful way of advancing its case: it had no choice but to have recourse to action outside the law as it stood then. There is no comparison between those two cases, and it angers me to hear a shoddy and devious small-time politician and thug compared with Mandela.
1400
My next concern is that I hope very much that our Government and the Irish Government will not be in danger of going too far to placate an implacable opponent. I was reassured greatly by what my noble friend said, but a very small minority which happens to be armed with Semtex and a large arsenal of modern arms, must not be allowed to marginalise the vast majority which includes not only the unionists but a significant number of nationalists or republicans.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, no doubt the noble Baroness is aware that there is a large Protestant paramilitary force in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Yes, my Lords; I am well aware of that fact. The Protestant paramilitaries have not resumed their operations. They were the first last year to suggest that an international organisation might set up the decommissioning process and look into it. I do not believe that there is any fair comparison between the two.
Even Mitchell McLaughlin, speciously complaining recently of the disenfranchisement (by which he meant the refusal by both Governments to talk to or engage directly with Sinn Fein) only claimed that there were,
"between 35 and 40% of the nationalist population in the North—those who supported his Party",
who were being "disenfranchised". So Sinn Fein knows that it represents only a third of the nationalist constituency, which is, in turn, heavily in the minority in the whole voting population. Its disenfranchisement can end just as soon as Sinn Fein/IRA (two sides of the same coin) decides that it is to its advantage to declare an end to the latest ceasefire and to make the necessary commitment to peaceful negotiation, and power through the ballot, not the bullet.
Yet on all sides the unionists and the many others who reject Sinn Fein/IRA are likely to be, as my noble friend Lord Brookeborough so justly said, presented as the villains, destroying the peace process and obstructing it; and, indeed, actually presuming to say that they will not sit down to negotiate with those who have not explicitly rejected IRA violence and who bring their guns to the table. That is called the veto and is apparently regarded as a sinister obstructionist tactic. Would noble Lords expect the lamb to come to the wolf for slaughter without protest? Moreover, the political representatives of the majority—I emphasise the word "majority"—have names and faces. Do we know the names and faces of the IRA council who presume to decide the fate of Northern Ireland, and, indeed—let us make no mistake—of the South, too, if they had their way?
I deeply hope that the Government will not risk throwing away the substance for the shadow. The majority of the people of Northern Ireland must not be treated as the guilty parties and the blame laid on them if negotiations fail—for fail they may well do, for the simple reason that Sinn Fein/IRA's demands are not such that they can ever be met. On the other hand, the wholly reasonable pre-condition, much hated by Sinn Fein/IRA, that the majority, and the Governments, and the US Government, wish to make is

1401
that Sinn Fein/IRA should reactivate the ceasefire, and for good, and discuss and begin to implement decommissioning as the first act of the all-party talks.
If the IRA gave up all its Semtex—something that the loyalist paramilitaries have never had—that would be a significant start. Such a precondition is surely essential to normal political negotiation. But the talks will fail, right as I suppose both Governments are to press ahead and hope for a miracle, because Sinn Fein/IRA's declared political agenda is one which neither Northern Ireland nor the Dublin Government could accept.
Let us hear what the Sinn Fein President, Gerry Adams—that man who says he has no control over the IRA but still demands to be heard, and is heard only because he is the IRA—had to say in an interview just a week ago. He speaks of:
"an alternative strategy to bring about political and constitutional change which was developed in dialogue initially between myself and John Hume, and then with the Irish Government"—
that was the Government of Albert Reynolds and Dick Spring—
"and with key elements of Irish American opinion … This political approach involved a democratic consensus to deal with the causes of conflict in the context of a number of clearly defined democratic principles".
That is all perfectly respectable. He goes on:
"From Sinn Fein's perspective [for that read Sinn Fein/IRA] these principles are:

(a) peace, to be sustained, must be based on a just and lasting negotiated settlement

(b) Partition has failed

(c) present structures are therefore inadequate to sustain peace and must there be changed

(d) an internal settlement is not a solution

(e) Partition and the British jurisdiction breach the principle of national self-determination

(f) the Irish people as a whole have an absolute right to national self-determination and must be able to exercise this right freely and without external impediment

(g) the exercise of the right to national self-determination is a matter of agreement between the Irish people alone

(h) it is for the Irish and British Governments, in consultation with all parties, to co-operate to bring this about in the shortest possible time and to legislate accordingly

(i) The unionists can have no veto over the discussions involved in this, nor over the outcome of those discussions. There is a need to engage northern unionist and Protestant opinion on the democratic principle of national self-determination, assure them a full commitment to their civil and religious rights"—

that is very respectable—
"and persuade them of the need for their participation in building an Irish society based on equality and national reconciliation;
(j) a solution—a negotiated settlement—requires change, political and constitutional. The effect of this change would be to bring about the exercise by the Irish people of our right to national self-determination
(k) an agreed unitary and independent Ireland is the option desired by us
(l) an agreed Ireland [perhaps he meant a united Ireland] is only achievable and viable if it can earn and enjoy the allegiance of the different traditions in this island by accommodating diversity and providing national reconciliation".
1402
Stripped of the verbiage, that adds up to a united Ireland under Sinn Fein/IRA control: Brits out, and the domination by a small minority, in both ends of the island, over the majority, who will have no veto on those interesting proceedings.
In the same long article, Gerry Adams said:
"there should be no demands which cannot be delivered, such as decommissioning, no commitment to political formulae which are elevated to political principles before negotiations have even begun, as happened in the Forum (on Peace and Reconciliation) on the issue of the nationalist veto"—
a report which Sinn Fein/IRA rejected—
"and no further false trails with negotiations which have the effect of providing potential or actual stalls and diversions".
The diversion provided by Canary Wharf is, of course, not in that category.
I have inflicted those long quotations on your Lordships because we hear all too seldom what the beast itself is saying. The apologists for Sinn Fein/IRA present the case rather differently, and certainly more opaquely. But that is why the majority parties in Northern Ireland are unhappy that Strand 1, Northern Ireland's own business, is being remorselessly entangled by the Irish Government and the SDLP with Strand 2 (all Ireland) and Strand 3 (the two Governments). That is probably why the Irish Government have said nothing for many months about their own commitment to take Articles 2 and 3 out of their constitution and give up their so-called constitutional claim to the Six Counties. I respect the position taken up by the Taoiseach, but the Irish Government, I fear, represent an Achilles' heel in our struggle with the IRA.
And since it must follow as the night follows day, that should we reach the stage of joint party talks with Sinn Fein at the table (which, as we have heard, can happen only if the IRA resumes its ceasefire for good and does something about decommissioning) even then, it seems in the highest degree unlikely that the IRA will achieve its political aim of a united Ireland by democratic means through the ballot box. So, finally, that is why we must keep our guard up and why the Irish Government have probably never relinquished their own emergency powers, including their own version of the Diplock courts.
Let me end by saying that, though the talks may be destroyed by Sinn Fein/IRA, I believe, along with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that the grass-roots in Northern Ireland have been growing fast and growing together. They may yet succeed in finding a settlement; but it will be in spite of, not because of, the IRA.
5.28 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I should like, first, to welcome my noble friend Lord Glentoran and congratulate him on a really excellent maiden speech. I look forward to hearing him speak often, especially on business topics. It is very good to have another Northern Ireland voice in your Lordships' House, even if it means that, for once, the Scots will have to wait, until we have finished, to discuss their wildlife.

1403
In support of the Bill, I do not intend to go through in detail what has happened during the past year, and more particularly since Christmas. Suffice to say that we now have all the proof that we needed, but did not actually want, that Sinn Fein/IRA will switch on and off their ceasefires to suit themselves when they please. To those who say that, given a ceasefire, we would no longer need such legislation, I would point out that during the 18 months of the ceasefire the security forces have shown how quickly they can adapt their operations to a period of reduced violence. They were commendable and professional in their performance. That showed that this legislation is only an infringement on people's freedom during periods of terrorist activity. The people of Northern Ireland require that protection; and they will require that protection regardless of whether we gain a so-called prolonged ceasefire. There is a big difference between a ceasefire and peace.
Noble Lords should be aware of the feelings of horror and revulsion, and the sympathy for the victims felt by everyone outside Sinn Fein/IRA in Northern Ireland when they heard of the first bomb at Canary Wharf and the subsequent ones. I have never seen so many ordinary people so stunned in Northern Ireland. For days they were simply horrified. Not only did they feel sympathy for the people of Canary Wharf and others, but, although everyone said that such an event might occur, they honestly did not believe that it could. Ordinary families are yet again worried about the bomb and the bullet.
Perhaps I may address two of the changes in the Bill: first, the video recording of interviews; and, secondly, the removal of provisions for countering terrorist finance. There are strong arguments against video recording; and we have heard some strong arguments for it. Those arguments have been well adduced in previous debates both in your Lordships' House and in another place. I shall not insult your Lordships' ability to read by taking half an hour to wade through them as did another place. However, I hope that this change in the legislation will not be detrimental to intelligence gathering. Let us remember that 80 per cent., or four out of five, of all planned terrorist operations did not take place because of intelligence and/or security force activity.
Who will have access to the video recordings? What happens when the defence calls for them? To whom will they be shown? What happens when evidence from an interview is used not against the person giving the evidence in the interview but against another defendant? What happens—I can assure noble Lords that it has occurred—if a person wishes to give information and does so by causing himself to be lifted so that he can be interviewed in order to supply that information? I do not suggest that the arguments against video recording should mean that recording does not take place. However, some measures have to be laid down in law, or at least in strong guidelines, as to the use of these videos because their use could become dangerous.
The second item I wish to mention is the removal of provisions for countering terrorist finance from the EPA and transferring those powers to the Proceeds of Crime Order (Northern Ireland) which we have learnt will be brought forward after Easter. The important aspect is
1404
that by producing an order rather than having the provision in the Bill the Government are ensuring that the measures cannot be amended. It does not mean to say that they will not be amended, but by the time the order reaches this House and another place there will be no amendments to it. Can my noble friend reassure this House and the people of Northern Ireland that the provisions will be transferred complete? I hope that she will do so as they are extremely important in the fight against terrorist funding.
In respect of these provisions, we should all understand what the IRA has been doing during the ceasefire apart from reorganising, bearing people up, developing new weapons—some quite sophisticated; I refer to mortars and such like—and intimidation. In addition, they have been running the largest organised crime syndicate outside Europe, perhaps outside the mafia. These terrorist finance provisions are vital in their entirety.
It is worth looking at one of the factors which enabled the IRA to stay intact and prepared during the ceasefire to restart terrorism at a moment's notice.
During the period between the Downing Street declaration and the ceasefire, the IRA reorganised their methods so that their terrorist financing of criminal activities could continue without the back-up of guns for intimidation. We all know that they then moved onto baseball bats and various other weapons.
Since then their criminal activities in this direction have, if anything, increased. The Minister brought that out at the beginning of the debate. While members of the IRA no longer met each other to plan shooting and bombing incidents, they continued to meet to organise their everyday criminal activities and to discuss other things. If, however, they had ceased to operate in that way of their own accord, or if the security forces had managed to stop them, I believe that through lack of reasons to meet at a low level in their structure their cohesiveness might not have survived. It might have become all too pointless to have frequent meetings about very little. Had that occurred, a restart of terrorist operations after calling off the ceasefire would have been much more difficult and there would have been a severe lack of funds—as indeed there was at the time that the ceasefire was called.
For that reason, we must not forget these terrorist financial provisions. We must insist that the Government carry them in totality into the new order. If anything, the Government should consider strengthening them. I know that the RUC and the security forces have been doing everything they can to wipe out terrorist-related crime. Sadly, even with all their efforts, they have not succeeded. If they had, it would have had a large bearing on the possible restart of terrorist violence.
Lastly, perhaps I may make one comment on the review of the PTA and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I look forward and earnestly hope that sooner rather than later there will be a single Act for the United Kingdom as a whole to cover the fight against terrorism from wherever it may come. The

1405
key to its success must be its acceptance in times of total peace and its ability to be of some use during a time of terrorist activity. Should there be an outbreak of terrorism, we must do away with timewasting re-enactments, amendments and arguments which prompt shouts from the ill-informed about infringement of civil liberties and human rights. Let it be a good Act, capable of remaining in place for a long period. I wish the noble and learned Lord success. Meanwhile I support the new Bill and look forward to its eventual replacement in a new climate of peace.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I support the Government as regards the Bill. I do so with a certain diffidence because I am an outsider. My only connection with the issue was in 1973 when, as a civil servant, I was not too far away from the bomb in Whitehall, and rather close to the later one in Brighton when I was a journalist.
However, I believe that it is necessary for ordinary people in this country who are not directly connected—I see myself in that context—to support what I believe are the tremendous efforts of by our Prime Minister, John Major, the Taoiseach, Mr. Bruton, and President Clinton to deal with the problem. It is interesting to note that the Second Reading of the Bill in another place was on 9th January, a month before the breaking of the ceasefire. I read that debate carefully and it is interesting that the reasons given even then, when outsiders did not realise that the ceasefire was likely to be broken, were compelling. The situation has now greatly changed.
Certain points need constantly to be emphasised which many people in this country do not understand. I am sure that your Lordships do, but I hope that I shall be forgiven for mentioning them. The first is the fact that Sinn Fein and the IRA are one and the same organisation. That can never be said too often. I recommend to noble Lords who have not read it a good analysis in the Sunday Times on 18th February in which some of the personalities are exposed. The article showed that the main negotiator for Sinn Fein, Mr. Martin McGuinness, was until 1991 the so-called chief of staff of the IRA army council. Another leading member of the Sinn Fein negotiating team, Gerry Kelly, is not a member of Sinn Fein but a so-called observer. He was given two life sentences for his part in the Old Bailey bombing of 1973. He escaped and was re-arrested in Holland and extradited, but the authorities were not allowed to return him to life imprisonment. He was given a five-year sentence and released. Those are the kinds of people who are playing Sinn Fein/IRA musical chairs.
One must bear in mind that there are different components of Sinn Fein/IRA. There are some genuine nationalists and we can all salute and respect them. Then there are the old hat, highly political Marxists from the days when the group saw it as possible that one day there would be a united socialist Ireland. Gerry Adams was very much part of that tradition. I well remember as a journalist covering Labour Party conferences, going
1406
to meetings which were on the fringe and in which Gerry Adams took part: anyone who reads the text of his speeches then will know what motivates him.
Then there is the most unpleasant lot, dangerous in a direct sense, the psychopaths who enjoy the process of killing and maiming. Every country has a few and if an organisation like Sinn Fein/IRA can recruit them they go to it like bees to honey. As my noble friend Lord Brookeborough said, the main group is the Mafia, the criminal element. It is interesting that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland referred to them in his Second Reading speech on the Bill and to the robbery and extortion for the purpose of acquiring funds. He denounced the so-called Direct Action Against Drugs Group as a flag of convenience for the IRA. I suspect that it is probably closer to merely one Mafia gang battling with another for drug territory. I hope that it is understood in the United States that it is a quasi-Mafia organisation. We should underline our tribute to President Clinton who has been cruelly betrayed by the breaking of the ceasefire.
I wish to raise some specific points. First, I ask my noble friend what arrangements were made when prisoners were prematurely released during the ceasefire, in terms of the possibility of recalling them? I see that my right honourable friend referred to changes to remission rates in prisons. That was before the ceasefire was broken. Can such people be recalled? Recently I asked a parliamentary Question for Written Answer about how many such prisoners there had been. I received a curious letter from the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Prison Service who said:
"Since September 1994 more than 2000 prisoners have been released from prisons in Northern Ireland and the information you are seeking could be obtained only at disproportionate cost".
In another context, I have been trying to obtain information on the extent to which computerisation of the administration of Her Majesty's prisons in the United Kingdom has progressed. It has made some progress in Britain, but it was remarkable to learn from that Written Answer that there is apparently no central record of who is in prison in Northern Ireland. That should be put right quickly. I should have expected something better than the statement that 2,000 prisoners had been released in answer to my Question. I cannot believe that they were all terrorists.
I wish to say a word about the elections. My noble friend will be more aware than I that traditionally in areas where Sinn Fein/IRA exert control there has been much abuse in the past of the electoral system, with widespread multiple voting. I was recently told by someone involved in the 1980s that there were records of people voting 15 or 16 times. One cannot blame the people inside the polling station because they would have been too intimidated to challenge it. It is a similar situation to the Diplock courts which have been referred to. Perhaps we should consider, in the light of the election coming shortly, special measures to prevent that happening. For a long while I have thought that for many reasons we should have a proper system of national identity numbers, with or without identity cards. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord,

1407
Lord Lloyd of Berwick, is undertaking the inquiry into prevention of terrorism, and perhaps that is something which he could consider.
There are two other points which may be regarded as presumptuous, but if I were living in Northern Ireland, I wonder what I would feel about it. Is there any reason why, for the crucial election, we could not introduce a simple system of the dye-marking of hands so that people could not indulge in multiple voting? Alternatively, would it be worth considering having neutral observers at the elections? I would favour them to be Americans because they have a crucial role to play in the peace process. Some people in Northern Ireland might say that that would be outrageous, but all I am concerned with is to try to find methods of, step by step, getting the peace process to work as effectively as possible.
I believe that the people of Britain will welcome the Bill but they would complain if there were loopholes which could not be stopped up. They have been angered by the acts of terrorism and deeply saddened by the brutal results. They have no sympathy for Sinn Fein/IRA, but they would no more be intimidated by such actions than they would expect their government to be intimidated. I was glad that my noble friend Lord Cranborne made it clear that there is to be no compromise on the crucial matter of signing up to the Mitchell agreement and having a ceasefire before there is any question of Sinn Fein taking part in any talks.
I believe that the legitimate nationalist aspirations of the population of Northern Ireland are already well represented in another place by the duly elected people from the various panties who really represent the population. We must strip away the idea that Sinn Fein is a political organisation. In particular, we must strip away any moral justification put forward from time to time. When the Pope visited Ireland some years ago, he encapsulated the deep truth in three words: "Murder is murder".
If Sinn Fein/IRA fail, as I suspect they will, to meet the conditions necessary for them to take a further direct part in a democratic peace process, they will find themselves relegated to the status of a gang of organised crime and will be so treated by people in Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic, the United Kingdom as a whole and the United States. I strongly support the Government in bringing forward this legislation.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the ending of the IRA ceasefire and subsequent atrocities carried out in London have rightly cast their shadow over this debate. The people in Northern Ireland know only too well of the blight, suffering and pain caused by terrorism. This Bill, which is designed to re-enact the provisions of the current Act, will permit the RUC and the Army to hinder and frustrate the work of all those whose aim is to kill because they cannot get what they want through the ballot box. I thank the House for its support for that aim.
In particular, I thank my noble friend Lord Glentoran. I congratulate him wholeheartedly on a splendid maiden speech. I can still recall the nervousness with which one
1408
approaches such an occasion. I particularly welcome another voice from the Province. I think noble Lords on the Benches opposite will share with me the warning that it will involve late hours. Today is most exceptional for Northern Ireland business. We are very pleased, indeed delighted, to hear my noble friend list some of the aspects of Northern Ireland that are to be praised. There is much there, and that is a message that we perhaps do not get across as often as we should. I agree wholeheartedly, too, with my noble friend's view that the terrorists are running out of support. The ceasefire was welcomed and treasured. Its loss has certainly left any credibility they had completely out of the window.
I also support my noble friend's comments on the cross-Border activity that is happening, day in, day out, in business and education. I am sure that he will share my personal aim that the deficit in trade between north and south can be turned into a plus, and we are determined to do that. Although it may sound strange that I should want to talk myself out of a job, I also support wholeheartedly the delegation of powers. There is a democratic deficit in Northern Ireland. We all acknowledge it and wish that it were not so. I am pleased to say that, with the development of local economic development councils and associations, there is real evidence of the role that they can play, and do play, very constructively. I also praise the consultation in which they are involved. It goes deeper than anything that is possible from the centre. The House gives a very warm welcome to my noble friend Lord Glentoran.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for adding to my list of items considered better done in Northern Ireland. It gets longer, and I am delighted about that. I am always conscious that, were I to ask the noble Lord to dance, it would not be on legal territory. However, I will deal with his question. As he said, I have been given fair warning, over many months and now indeed years. I repeat: the Government believe that the innocent victims of violence in Northern Ireland are entitled to fair compensation paid within a reasonable time. That remains our policy. There are currently no firm plans to change the scheme in Northern Ireland. Given the noble Lord's interest, I assure him that he will probably be the first to know were they mooted.
I fear that on the issues of audio-recording, the noble Lord and I must continue to disagree. The decision is based on advice taken from those with great knowledge of security matters in Northern Ireland. Given that advice, the Government have sought to achieve a balance which will provide additional protection for individuals and for the police, assist the efficiency of the courts, while at the same time not undermining the vital work of the police in obtaining information from interviews.
Given the key role that the holding centres play in the fight against terrorism and the vital information which interviews there provide—not only in terms of bringing guilty people to justice, but in gaining information to forestall or disrupt terrorist operations and save lives—we have obviously to listen very seriously to the advice of the chief constable on the potential impact of audio-recording on police operations.

1409
Those interviewed in the holding centres know that the terrorist gangs outside will attempt to discover what has happened at the interview and will not hesitate to use any means in their power to obtain the recording of what was said. The effect on persons being interviewed would be to create fear, irrespective of the safeguards in place, that such tapes might fall into the wrong hands.
The different circumstances that exist in Northern Ireland—the small size of the population; the extent of terrorist influence, which, as we heard too often this afternoon, has not gone away; and the vulnerability of individuals and their families in certain areas to attacks and intimidation—mean that the particular arrangements are required in the circumstances. I assure the noble Lord that we have given very careful consideration to the proposal by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, very rightly praised the work of the committee in another place. The extensive scrutiny that it gave to the Bill has benefited it considerably. The noble Lord also praised the success of the loyalist paramilitaries in holding their ceasefire. I found it interesting that, during a recent visit to the United States, every Irish American was keen to tell me how well he or she knew the loyalist groups now. It is good that another voice is being heard.
The noble Lord was concerned that SACHR was not consulted. I assure him that there has been no intention to deny the commission sufficient opportunity to present its views or to make sufficient representation on the emergency legislation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who of course meets the chairman and members of the commission frequently, has written to them about their concerns. The Government value the views of the commission and the contribution it makes. I know that it will make considered representations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in the course of his review. In Northern Ireland, we look forward to the commission's review of the fair employment legislation, which is a very heavy task for it to take on.
On the issue of the availability of legal advice in holding centres, I hear the noble Lord's comment that he may bring an amendment forward in Committee. The Government are committed to examining the judgments, and we shall ourselves be bringing forward views, though not in the course of this Bill.
The noble Lord also raised the question of remand delays and time limits for persons in custody under the Bill. We envisage in the longer term statutory time limits, applying both to scheduled cases as provided for in this Bill and non-scheduled cases, for which further provision will be required in other legislation. But we do not believe that such limits can properly be introduced immediately. The criminal justice system must first deliver a more consistent performance. Otherwise, we should either set limits very high, or risk the release of potentially dangerous people. The problems are complex, and I shall be happy to set out more fully our approach to the question when the House considers Clauses 8 and 9 in Committee.
1410
The noble Lord also raised the matter of changing the authority from chief inspector to inspector. I assure him that this is simply a practical issue. There appear to be benefits in promotion in that chief inspectors do not have a continuous presence at police stations; whereas inspector grades work a 24-hour shift system. Mr. Rowe spelt out the disadvantages that can result, and the amendment will ensure that there will be no inadvertent delay preventing the RUC carrying out their duties. That is why the Government accepted Mr. Rowe's recommendations.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, showed yet again how much experience and background he has of these situations in Northern Ireland. He well understands the implications of the matters we are bringing forward, and I am extremely grateful to him for identifying them to your Lordships' House.
My noble friend Baroness Park of Monmouth again showed a great knowledge of the issues and rightly drew attention to the horrific total lack of knowledge which would lead to a comparison between Mr. Adams and Mr. Mandela. I am sure my noble friend would be delighted to know that there is much distancing going on in the United States from Mr. Adams, and certainly an increasingly critical media coverage of some of the statements, which in the past, outrageous though they were, had not been challenged.
I am sure my noble friend will also be pleased to know that the Taoiseach identified very clearly that there is no diminishing of responsibility for the Canary Wharf bomb by discussion. The only people responsible were the members of the IRA council, and that was said loud and clear. Of course, the issues of the renunciations to constitutional claims made in the framework document continue to hold.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough raised the disbelief of people in Northern Ireland at the breakdown in the ceasefire. There was almost silence in the Province after that, as people failed to understand that the new and treasured peace had been broken. I would like to assure my noble friend that the concerns he raised on the protection of the silent video recordings are very much in the Government's mind. The precise arrangements for making tapes available will be set out in the codes of practice which will be published for consultation. We envisage that they will be made available to the court on request as needed, but, I can assure you, not without that protection.
I would also offer assurance that measures to transfer the provisions in the Proceeds of Crime Order, which will be available to deal with terrorist finance, will be broadly similar to the provisions in the current Act. They will provide additional powers of investigation, capable of being used in all circumstances in which authorised investigator provisions can be used. In some respects the new provisions will he stronger. Financial investigators appointed under the Proceeds of Crime Order will be empowered to obtain information from banks, whereas an authorised investigator under the current EPA cannot. There are minor differences. Investigators will be appointed by the courts, not by the

1411
Secretary of State, but I would assure my noble friend and the House that there will be no weakening of the powers to deal with terrorist finance.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford apologised for speaking as an outsider. I think that needs no apology whatsoever because, regrettably, people are at risk in Great Britain as they are in Northern Ireland. It would seem that innocence and total non-involvement in these matters are no protection. My noble friend was right to praise our three leaders. No Prime Minister has taken more risks for Northern Ireland than John Major.
The bipartisan approach to the policy is also much welcomed in allowing us to go forward as hard as we can, and the Taoiseach and President Clinton made their absolute abhorrence of violence very clear in the recent Saint Patrick's Day celebrations. I say "day" with some hesitation because in America it seems to be Saint Patrick's week celebrations. They certainly lost no opportunity to make it absolutely certain where they, and I suspect the whole of America, stand.
My noble friend raised the question of prisoners. Can I assure him that the Act gives the Secretary of State the power to suspend this scheme should circumstances require it. The matter remains under review and the legislation to suspend can quickly be brought before the House. The Act also gives the Secretary of State the power to recall any prisoners on licence who present a risk to the safety of the public or are likely to commit further serious offences.
I will take up the question of his Written Answer and endeavour to make it more comprehensive. I share his view that the light-hearted comment that is sometimes made in Ireland, that one should vote early and vote often, is not a joke which can be admired, and I can assure him that much caution will be taken to ensure that there will be no duplication of votes.
There are few things in politics which unite all politicians, but there is one subject in your Lordships' House on which I am absolutely certain we are all of one mind. It is that the terrorist will not win. If he renounces the gun and turns to the democratic path, with all that that entails, he may take his place at the negotiating table. That, I may suggest, would take more courage than some of the activities in which terrorists now indulge.
We, as a government, and I am certain, as a House, will never permit the bomb and the bullet to take the place of the ballot box. This Bill gives the necessary powers to the police and the security forces for as long as they are needed to protect the public, while at the same time preserving people's individual rights. It is one that has served the people of Northern Ireland well through the darkest days and I thank your Lordships for your support this afternoon. I ask that this Bill be given a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
6.10 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Constitution, functions and membership of Deer Commission for Scotland.]:
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, after ("conservation,") insert ("humane,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I start by declaring the same interests as I declared at our Committee proceedings and at Second Reading in that I own a deer forest in Scotland and I sit on the Stalking Committee of the British Field Sports Society.
Together with Amendment No. 1, I would like to speak to Amendment No. 2 and Amendment No. 60 with which it is grouped. These amendments continue attempts to get the welfare of deer onto the face of the Bill, as a matter which the commission must respect as it goes about its duties. At the Committee stage we attempted to insert the welfare of deer among the main functions of the new commission. Now we are merely trying to suggest that any control of deer numbers must be humane, as per Amendment No. 1. The words "the welfare of deer" are now proposed under Amendment No. 2 for inclusion in the new commission's balancing duties, so that the commission in exercising its functions would have the duty:
"to take such account as may be appropriate in the circumstances of—
(a) the size and density of the deer population and its impact on the natural heritage",
and it is here that we would insert under (b) "the welfare of deer".
Then the clause would go on to read:
"the needs of agriculture and forestry; and … the interests of owners and occupiers of land".
Amendment No. 60 suggests a new definition for the meaning of the word "welfare" which may not yet be perfect but which attempts to meet the objections raised at Committee stage and made elsewhere since. Our suggested definition in Amendment No. 60 therefore is as follows:
"'welfare' includes the concept that wild deer are living in a healthy condition within the carrying capacity of their normal range for the time of year in question, and that management to achieve this requires maintaining the herd at a number which does not exceed that carrying capacity, by means which should not cause unnecessary suffering and which include the use of firearms and ammunition as sanctioned by section 23A of this Act".
As I understand the matter, the objections to including "welfare" on the face of the Bill are largely twofold. First, there is the fear that one day those who enjoy stalking may be prevented from shooting deer because the meaning of welfare may come to mean that. I trust that the amendment deals with that point. Secondly, there is the fear that welfare might prevent some of the more severe exercises to reduce deer numbers and therefore defeat what some people appear to think should be one of the main purposes of the Bill. I hope that Amendment No. 60, as worded, gives some comfort there too.
I appreciate that it is possible to criticise the wording by saying, for example, that the wording—to quote the amendment—
"deer … living in a healthy condition within the carrying capacity of their normal range"
is not sufficiently tight legally. One could perhaps find a tighter or different formula. One could perhaps define a healthy herd as one which does not, on a three-year average, lose more than 10 per cent. of its beasts under 12 years of age through death in the late winter and early spring. One could perhaps stipulate that a healthy herd of hinds should not have more than, say, 20 per cent. of its number which have not calved in the previous year. Both those indications would suggest that there were too many deer for the carrying capacity of the range in question.
I shall not weary the House further with such technical suggestions, which should in any case probably be encapsulated in guidelines issued by the future commission. I merely remind your Lordships that there was unanimity in our hearings in Edinburgh from all sides of the land use debate that the welfare of deer should be clearly stated as the duty of the new commission. I also remind your Lordships that there was similar unanimity in our Committee proceedings in the Moses Room on 4th March with, on that occasion, I regret to say, the dissent of my noble friend the Minister.
In those circumstances, I hope that the Minister can be somewhat more accommodating today. I commend the amendments to your Lordships and beg to move.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 2. I am aware that the Minister has put forward an amendment which mentions the word "welfare of deer". I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that it is essential that the words "welfare of deer" should appear at the beginning of the Bill. That then helps to govern everything else that is to be enacted in the Bill. I should very much like to support Amendment No. 2.
6.15 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I too support this amendment. The red deer is our largest indigenous wild mammal. To my mind it is one of the noblest of animals. Why is it that every man's hand seeks to be against it?
So far as I can see, this Bill is largely about killing deer. In fact the word "extermination" was originally in it. I am very glad to see that people are now talking about the welfare of the deer.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I was interested to receive a letter from the Scottish Landowners' Federation. Noble Lords will appreciate that that organisation does not simply involve people who own deer forests and that kind of thing. Many small landowners are involved as well as people who are closely concerned with the environmental movement and so on.
On this subject, the federation said:
1414
"The welfare of deer is important. We think it is appropriate that the Deer Commission for Scotland should have some statutory duties relating to deer welfare".
The federation then says what it thinks deer welfare means and goes on to say:
"Having heard the Minister's reply at Committee stage to the debate on whether the Commission should have a duty to further the welfare of deer, we agree with the Minister that the Commission should not be given such a duty. We do think, however, that it would be very useful to include deer welfare in the balancing duties of the Commission in the proposed new Section 1(1)(a) of the principal Act. The Commission would therefore have a duty to take such account as may be appropriate in the circumstances of deer welfare".
Those comments seem to me interesting in view of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. They relate to the same point. I should be interested to know whether my noble friend the Minister has anything to say on that matter.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I suppose that I should repeat the declaration of interest that I have made at every other stage of the Bill; namely, that my family owns a deer forest, although I do not have any direct financial interest in it. Also, perhaps I might mention, on the other side of the fence, as it were, that in another part of the country I own plantations which are now quite well grown. The contractors who put up the fences before we planted managed to fence in a buck and two does, and as a result I had very great difficulty in growing them in the first instance. Therefore, my interests are in two directions. Needless to say, as my name is on Amendment No. 2, I support it.
The Earl of Buchan: My Lords, I too support the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, in the amendment, despite the fact that at Committee stage he accused me of not paying attention to what he said and not listening. Having been in the noble Lord's presence for four days, I can assure him that it is absolutely impossible not to hear him. I support him on this amendment.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, it is nice to hear further unanimity around the House on this amendment. My noble friend Lord Pearson was a little unfair to me when he said that I was the only person in Committee to break the unanimity in that I acknowledged then—and I acknowledge now—that the sentiment behind the amendment tallies exactly with my own sentiments and with the policy that lies behind the Bill.
I shall not repeat what I said in Committee. Noble Lords may read it all in Hansard. The point is that "welfare" appears throughout the 1959 Act and indeed in this Bill in specific provisions made, for instance, for night shooting and out of season shooting regarding the firearms with which one can take deer and so forth.
I repeat the fact that welfare is a key element of our deer legislation. If it can be incorporated in such a way as to be consistent with the rest of the Bill, I shall be very pleased to accept it. Consequently, I have been looking very carefully to see whether a formula can be found to ensure that the commission can take into account welfare considerations across its range of functions, while not conflicting with the general functions that we lay upon it through this Bill.

1415
I wanted to hear the thoughts of noble Lords on this amendment and also to give my draftsman a little more time to work out suggestions regarding the inclusion of welfare in Clause 1. There will be serious legal difficulties if we get it wrong. Therefore, I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn on the basis that I shall bring forward an amendment on welfare at Third Reading.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I apologise if I was unfair in suggesting that he was not entirely with us in our unanimity in the Committee stage proceedings. On the other hand, what he has said tonight would not go far enough unless he agreed to bring forward at the next stage some version of the word "welfare" and the duty that the commission should have towards the welfare of deer.
I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Buchan, if he thought I was accusing him of not attending to what I may have been saying in Edinburgh. My suggestion was that he was not fully aware of the extent to which the committee discussed the question of tagging at that time. I repeat any apologies which may be in order.
I thank all noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendment and I am sure that they join me in wishing my noble friend on the Front Bench every success in bringing forward at our next stage of the proceedings an amendment which will be acceptable to all sides of the land use and deer debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 6, after ("total") insert ("of whom six shall form a quorum").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister may wish to add something to this amendment. It is a question of trying to get a quorum into the arrangements for the new commission whereby we are suggesting a minimum of six. Having read my noble friend's amendment, he may be about to suggest a minimum of five. I feel sure that we would welcome that. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord. Pearson of Rannoch, in this amendment. Indeed, I thought we had agreed that our amendment would say "five". I shall be happy therefore to have the amendment withdrawn in favour of that of the noble Earl.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I intended to support the amendment because the commission contained representations from so many interests. On many occasions a quorum is often only three and that would not be acceptable. However, I am happy with the noble Earl's suggestion of five.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, at the appropriate moment I intend to move Amendments. Nos. 74 and 75 which do exactly what noble Lords anticipate; that is, ensure that the minimum quorum is five. I would add that the commission may determine to have a quorum of a greater number than five if it so wished and that option will remain open to it. On that basis, I look forward to moving Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 and hope that Amendment No. 3 will be withdrawn.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 6, after ("total,") insert ("with such knowledge or experience of deer,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 to 10 and 12. I shall speak briefly in support of Amendment No. 5, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, when he moves it and I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 7 and 10 separately when I have concluded what I wish to say about the other amendments in the group.
We come now to the composition of the new commission for which the Bill, as drafted, may hold a major change from what we have at the moment. It should be remembered that the 12 members of the present Red Deer Commission have to be appointed entirely from nominees of the various interested parties, apart from the chairman who is appointed by the Secretary of State.
The present Act requires that the 12 other members shall be appointed, one from nominees of the Nature Conservancy Council—that probably means Scottish Natural Heritage nowadays; one from nominees of the Natural Environment Research Council; three from nominees from organisations which appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of owners of land used for agriculture or forestry; two from nominees of organisations which appear to represent the sporting interest in deer; three from nominees which represent the interests of farmers and crofters and two from nominees of such organisations that appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of hill sheep farmers. That makes 12 in total.
It is generally accepted that this system has proved rather inflexible. It has not proved possible to appoint some good people to the commission because they were not nominated by one of the interests quoted. It may be generally accepted therefore that the Secretary of State needs more flexibility in making future appointments; but not the almost total flexibility envisaged by the Bill.
My noble friend the Minister was good enough to guarantee in our Committee proceedings that at least one member should be someone who manages deer for sporting purposes. I hope therefore that he will not think me ungrateful if I say that some of us feel that the Secretary of State should be further constrained. Indeed, at our hearings in Edinburgh there was widespread, if not unanimous, support for the suggestion that the Bill

1417
should reflect a halfway house between inflexibility and flexibility of appointment. That is what the amendments attempt to achieve.
Amendment No. 4 suggests that everyone on the new commission should have,
"such knowledge or experience of deer",
as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. I hope that that does not seem unreasonable when one considers that the commission will be dealing with matters wholly concerned with deer. That is its entire remit.
Amendments Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 12 have the effect of obliging the Secretary of State to appoint at least three-quarters of the commission from people who appear to him to have knowledge or experience of one of the interests covered by Clause 1 (3)(3A)(a); that is to say, deer management which, under the Bill, is not necessarily the same as the sporting interest in deer. We therefore include that as a separate heading with Amendment No. 8.
The other categories of interest which are included are,
"agriculture (including crofting) (iii) forestry and woodland management; and (iv) the natural heritage".
That would still leave one-quarter of the commission which the Secretary of State could appoint with a large degree of flexibility, constrained only by the suggestion under Amendment No. 4 that he should believe that they all have some knowledge or experience of deer. I accept that Amendment No. 4 may go a little too far; it may prevent the concept of the non-executive director or even perhaps two non-executive directors. I use that expression to describe someone who may be wise and generally knowledgeable in other fields and who could bring that authority to the commission. Nevertheless, I hope my noble friend will accept the amendment in the spirit in which it is offered.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 10 are in a slightly different category but, as they are part of this group, I shall speak to them briefly. They are tabled to enable me to ask my noble friend the Minister whether we really want people on the commission who have knowledge "or" experience of the interests mentioned. Surely we want people on the commission with experience of these matters, for the simple reason that experience gives knowledge which will be of value in its deliberations. I am not sure that knowledge per se will be quite so helpful. I shall be grateful for my noble friend's view on that matter. I hope that people with only a theoretical knowledge of deer will be in a small minority and that my noble friend can reassure me on that point.
I conclude by reminding your Lordships of how important it is that the interested parties in Scotland have confidence in the new commission. If all the various disparate interests which now bear upon deer in Scotland have confidence in the composition of the commission, it will find its remit very much easier to carry out. It is in that spirit that I have tabled the amendments. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am very grateful to Lord Pearson of Rannoch, as my Amendment No. 5 was included in his group of amendments. I am most grateful to have his support.
I want to give a slightly different view on the question of the balance of the commission. At present it appears that the deer commission tends to have a bias in favour of deer management or landowning interests. This can often be a conflicting interest with that of, for example, the crofting interest, and the crofting people are the people who have suggested that we put this amendment down. One group wish to control deer causing damage and the other wish to maintain deer for sport. Both of them are perfectly reasonable, but they can have conflicting objectives.
At present, there are many who feel that estates routinely ignore the reports of damage by deer. For example—again, this is in the experience of the Crofters' Commission—following reports of damage by deer in North Uist over a period of more than 12 months, there was no action by the estate. It was only on the personal intervention of the Chairman of the Red Deer Commission that the estate could be persuaded to take action. In this instance the action of the chairman was very welcome, but there is no obligation on the Chairman of the Red Deer Commission to engage in such action. It is difficult to envisage a deer commission with a bias of interest in favour of deer management interests being at the forefront of pre-emptive control agreements. Yet, a better balance of representation on the commission would encourage and foster a sustainable approach to deer management, taking account of all factors, without there being a bias towards one set of interests over another.
It would also allow the development of a proactive and pre-emptive approach to control agreements under Section 7 of the principal Act which, of course, is amended by Clause 5 of the present Bill.
Overall, it would begin to move away from deer being the domain of the few, and would provide a forum for tackling problems that would have the confidence of all groups. In other words, a well balanced commission could talk and begin to understand and appreciate the other point of view rather better, perhaps, than a smaller one.
A simple and practical suggestion is that it may be appropriate to look at Section 3A(a), and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, referred to this. It lays down four distinct areas of interest, and with between nine and 12 persons on the commission, three representatives could be drawn from each interest group. That would be one way forward, but I am interested to hear from the Minister, who has gone a fair way with us so far, whether he is willing to insert this amendment in order to get a balance in the Deer Commission.
Earl Peel: My Lords, my noble friend has a point in his amendment. Like my noble friend Lady Carnegy, I also received a letter from the Scottish Landowners'

1419
Federation. On this particular point which is, perhaps, one that your Lordships ought to consider, it says:
"As deer management comprises most or all of the Deer Commission's activity we do not think that 'deer management' should be one of four specific interests to be represented".
That is a point, because deer management really goes right the way across the whole duties of the Red Deer Commission, and it is rather a vague phrase whereas it should be very specific. I would have thought that my noble friend's suggestion of the sporting interest being a specific representation is an important one because, at the end of the day, if this Bill does not have the confidence of those people who will actually have a direct management interest in the deer, then it is not likely to be the success that we would want it to be.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I would particularly like to support Amendment No. 6, which seeks to replace "may appoint any person who appears" with "shall appoint persons who appear". I am not English by birth, but my understanding of "may" is that it is a very vague request to the Secretary of State. It is important, if this Bill is going to be meaningful, that there are also duties laid on the Secretary of State. The word "shall" is more appropriate.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I apologise that the first time I did not declare an interest. In fact, I own a deer forest on the Island of Mull in the Hebrides. I am very glad to see that the sporting interests are going to be represented on this new commission, because something that has not really been brought home is that deer are an extremely valuable natural resource. They bring in a lot of foreign currency. Currently it costs around £250 to shoot a stag and around £60 to shoot a hind. If at all possible, they should be shot commercially rather than just culled out of hand.
The noble Lord mentioned crofters. I know of a crofter who shot 17 beasts and just left them on the ground. As far as I could see, they were not doing any real damage, as he only had grass. That was a very considerable waste of a natural resource.
The Earl of Woolton: My Lords, as this is my first intervention in this debate since Second Reading, I shall start by declaring the interest that I declared then, in that I own an estate in the Angus glens which, although not a traditional deer forest, winters large numbers of stags.
I would like to make a few general comments about what I see as the key issue here. Much has been said on this subject throughout the passage of the Bill and it is clear that there still remains not a little gap between the Government and other noble Lords. As has been said many times already, the issue here is for the future, as we all have a great deal of confidence in the current chairman and his team. There remains a genuine concern, with the current wording of Clause 1, that those with the day to day management of deer on the ground—the owners and occupiers of the deer range—could be under-represented on the new commission.
At Second Reading I had not seen this as a legitimate concern, but my views have hardened somewhat since then. I must confess that I was more than a little
1420
surprised by the number of different organisations who were called to give evidence, either in person or in writing, by the Select Committee in Edinburgh. I counted 22; there may have been more, all representing a legitimate involvement in deer management and having, in the words of the Bill, "knowledge or experience of deer management". I emphasise the word "or" here.
Interestingly, of those organisations, only a quarter seemed directly to represent those people with a sporting interest in deer, although a number of others enjoy the economic benefits from sport. This alone raises concerns among deer managers about their future representation on the new commission.
I know that the Association of Deer Management Groups and others believe that this is a real outstanding issue. Although I am broadly in favour of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, I have some reservations about seeing the phrase, "the sporting interest in deer" on the face of the Bill. I would prefer a phrase such as, "economic interest in deer". My reservations spring partly from reasons that killing for sporting purposes is now somewhat controversial and may not have been something that would have concerned those who drafted the 1959 Act.
Also, and this may be somewhat more controversial, as I said at Second Reading, there is a belief in certain quarters that those who have managed deer in the past only for sporting purposes may not have done a particularly good job. Nevertheless, the new commission, as other noble Lords have said, needs to bring with it as wide a range of interested parties as possible. It seems to me that there must exist a compromise position, although I am still undecided on this issue. I am therefore most interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I should like to back up what my noble friend Lord Woolton has said. He lives very close to where I live and he knows all about deer and I do not. He is right to recognise the need for balance on the commission. For that reason I see the merit in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and I see why the crofters want to include such a provision in the Bill. At the same time, the sporting interest in deer is an enormous factor in the economy of the deer country in Scotland. Where I live it is very important indeed.
The people whose main interest is tie economic side of the sporting interest need to have confidence in the commission. We have to look for balance. I have said before that the new body will probably not speak entirely according to the balance that is held. You do not want teams of people opposing each other on such a body. You want a blend of discussion over the whole subject. I am sure that that can be achieved without necessarily making sure that one group has more representatives than another.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, we have just heard a very interesting suggestion from the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, and I shall be interested to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, thinks of it later on. I do not

1421
know whether I am right or wrong about this but I think I am right that under the Bill as presently worded, in Clause 1—in subsection (3A) of the 1959 Act—it will be quite possible for there to be no more than one member of the commission who had any knowledge or experience of deer management. I may be quite wrong about that—the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, will be able to tell me whether I am right or wrong—but if I am right that is one of the reasons why I support these amendments.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, this is one of the most important parts of the Bill. I hope that through a combination of clarification and compromise we can achieve a Clause 1 which suits all interests.
Perhaps I may start with the clarification. Amendment No.4, moved by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch and spoken to by a number of noble Lords, proposes that members of the commission shall have such knowledge or experience of deer as the Secretary of State considers appropriate to represent the interests groups set out in Section 1(3A).
Section 1(3A) already sets out that the Secretary of State may appoint persons with knowledge or experience of those areas of interest—here I stress the wording,
"in so far as that matter may be affected by the Commission's exercise of their functions".
Now the commission's exercise of its functions all relate to deer, so it follows that it is knowledge or experience of how deer matters affect those four interest groups that is relevant here. I would stress to the House that the point raised by the amendment is therefore already covered. There must be knowledge or experience of how deer affect the interest groups concerned. I would submit, therefore, that the amendment is unnecessary.
The main aim, as noble Lords will know, of new Clause 1 on appointments is to ensure that future Secretaries of State have the flexibility they need to choose a commission which reflects a fair balance between the various interests in deer and also to choose the best candidates for the job, whoever they may be and whichever interest in rural land use issues they may have.
Amendment No. 5, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, spoke, sets out that the Secretary of State shall endeavour to establish a balance of interests between those appointed to the commission. Maintaining a balanced commission is indeed essential so that all those in Scotland who have an interest in deer can have confidence that the commission will take decisions which reflect a fair and balanced approach to the various issues raised. However, Amendment No. 5 is unnecessary. The appropriate balance is achieved by the stipulation of the four interest groups set out in Section 1(3A)(a), by the stipulated proportion of deer managers set out in paragraph (b) and by the Secretary of State's obligation to carry out consultation before making appointments. My lawyers advise me that to go further would effectively mean a reversion to the 1959 formula which, I think most of us agree, is too
1422
restrictive. I shall double check that advice but that was the initial advice I received when we considered the noble Lord's amendment.
Amendment No. 6 is also unnecessary. Clause 1 as drafted has the effect already of replacing "may" with "shall". Moreover, the subsection would then become grammatically incorrect. The Secretary of State is already obliged by subsection (3) to appoint persons to represent the interests of the four categories mentioned in new subsection (3A). If we were to introduce the word "shall" instead of "may" to the beginning of subsection (3A) the Secretary of State would be obliged to appoint any person with the requisite qualities rather than those he considers most suited to the task from these four categories. In a sense "may" means "shall" because he has no surplus discretion in this area.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 10 would remove knowledge of a relevant subject as a reason to justify an appointment to the commission. Amendment No. 7 proposes the removal of knowledge from the general provision on appointments. I am uneasy about the inflexibility that this implies. It must surely be open to the Secretary of State to appoint, for instance, academic people who might have in-depth interests but have no experience. Amendment No. 10, when taken in conjunction with the other proposed amendments, has the same effect of excluding persons with knowledge only from appointment, and I cannot accept that principle.
Knowledge and experience are overlapping concepts and I believe that from a legal point of view it would be quite difficult to distinguish where knowledge stops and experience begins or where knowledge might be otherwise termed as experience. The flexibility of this part of the Bill is important. I do, however, understand the concerns over the distinction between knowledge and experience. Both may be equally valid depending on the circumstances. Our aim is that individual members of the commission should be able to contribute to the work of the commission and that collectively the commission has the necessary range of knowledge, expertise and experience.
I turn to Amendment No. 9. I have said that it is important that the commission retains the confidence of those who have the general duty to take or kill deer on their land and therefore hold both the rights and the responsibilities of managing deer throughout the country. Only if these people can be confident that their interests are represented to a significant proportion on the commission will they be confident that the commission is acting in their best interests. It was for that reason that in Committee I moved an amendment to ensure that at least one-third of the commission have knowledge or experience of deer management.
To make the issue even more clear I have decided to add a further stipulation to the effect that those chosen to represent the deer management category should be chosen from nominees of organisations representing deer managers. This will ensure that all those who manage deer on a day-to-day basis can have confidence that those chosen to represent them on the commission

1423
well understand the priorities and practices of all deer managers throughout the country. I shall be bringing forward an amendment at Third Reading to that effect.
Amendment No. 8 dealt with the sporting interest in deer. I do not consider it necessary to include a separate category to represent that interest since we have already made it clear in an amendment moved in Committee that deer management includes sporting interests. I believe what is of much greater relevance is the undertaking that I have just given to noble Lords to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading whereby the deer management members of the commission will be nominees nominated by the deer management organisations. Therefore, the priorities of deer managers can only but be represented by that element.
Perhaps I may make one quick comment on the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Woolton about economic rather than sporting interests. I am happy to talk with my draftsman about such terminology, but I suspect that "economic interest" is even more difficult to define in that the taking of deer, for instance, which are perhaps damaging crops or trees, could in a sense be classed as taking deer for an economic interest. I suspect that it is rather a wide title to use in the Bill.
I hope that through explaining some of the terminology in Clause 1; by promising to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading on that clause; and in quite genuinely looking at the debate we have had tonight on the various amendments moved as regards the appointments system that may give us further inspiration to bring forward further compromises on Clause 1, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I say to my noble friend Lord Woolton that I take the point that a sporting interest in deer is not all that popular in some quarters. But he is right when he says that I took what I said straight from the 1959 Act. I also have to say that I am not one of those who is ashamed of enjoying a sporting interest in deer. It is common agreement that a large number of deer has to be shot in Scotland and perhaps more than have been shot before. Personally, I have never understood why they should be shot by people who are not enjoying themselves as opposed to those who are. I hope that those comments will not be received as being too politically incorrect.
I agree with many noble friend the Minister that the economic interest might also be difficult to define because there are a number of climbing and tourist organisations which enjoy the hills for other reasons and who also have a very powerful economic interest and effect on the economy, particularly of the Scottish Highlands.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, asked whether the Bill, as drafted, before the amendments which my noble friend the Minister proposed, would give only one deer manager on the new commission. My understanding is
1424
that at the moment it would give only one person with a sporting interest in deer because deer management includes the sporting interest.
I come to the very gratifying remarks of my noble friend the Minister. I do not quite accept that the amendments, as drafted, would take us back to the 1959 position. I intended to have only three-quarters of the commission representing categories which the Secretary of State thought were already represented on the face of the Bill, and for the other quarter it would have been up to him in a way which the Bill requires for the whole commission.
That being said, perhaps I may take it from my noble friend the Minister that one-third of the commission will be appointed from deer management organisations—that is to say, on nominations from them; and if I may take it that deer management organisations means principally such organisations as the Association of Deer Management Groups, then what he has said is very helpful. However, if deer management includes people who go around counting deer droppings in dense forests in order to work out how many deer there may be, and that sort of thing, then I have to say to my noble friend that I am not sure that his amendment will carry us much further forward.
There does not appear to be anything else I can say at the moment unless my noble friend wishes to clarify the position as to what organisations will be consulted. For my own part I am perfectly happy to leave the matter there. I shall read what he has said in Hansard and possibly have further discussions with him at an early date before we move to the next stage of these deliberations.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it might help if I say that the aim behind the proposed amendment at Third Reading is that the Association of Deer Management Groups will be the nominating organisation. However, life is never so simple that that can be translated straightaway into the legal terminology required for the face of the Bill. So definitions and other considerations wi11 take place, but I shall liaise with my noble friend between now and Third Reading to make sure that we understand exactly what is happening.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. I look forward to those discussions. I hope the other interests which bear upon deer and which are on the face of the Bill, will be represented. Perhaps before we have our deliberations my noble friend will double check the legal advice which he received some time ago so that the anxieties, for instance, of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and others, can be met. With that stipulation I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 12 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Appointment of panels]:
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 43, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, had tabled an identical amendment to Amendment No. 13 on the Marshalled List. But to the great disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and myself, he did not move it. I do not know whether or not we could have moved it ourselves when our names were not to it; that is a detail I shall have to discover. Anyway, we have tabled the amendment again because it is really the other half of Amendment No. 14. Together they form a little package.
The effect of these two amendments is to oblige the commission to seek the advice of interested persons with knowledge and experience of deer management, agriculture, including crofting; forestry and woodland management and the natural heritage, as well as that of any Tom, Dick or Harry they may think fit before appointing a panel.
The importance of this is that if the panels are not composed of people with those kinds of knowledge and experience, the advice they are going to be able to give to the commission will not be worth having. While we are very glad that Amendment No. 89 of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, at Committee stage removed Section 6 powers from the panels, we are still of the view that perhaps the noble Earl is rather more starry-eyed over the possible future composition of the commission than we are and consequently of any appointments that it might make.
I shall look forward with great interest to the amendments the noble Earl said he will bring in at Third Reading on the question of the composition of the commission because, perhaps, we shall be more in line by then. At Committee stage he said he would give further thought to the composition of the panels. I wonder whether he has had time to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I support these amendments which also stand in my name. Once again, one is brought up against the importance of getting the composition of the commission right. If one succeeds in that, no doubt the commission will exercise its powers in the manner suggested by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, but just in case it does not fully live up to expectations in that regard, I cannot help feeling that the amendments would be useful at the local level. Precisely the same philosophy applies to these amendments at the local level as applied to the amendments to Clause 1 that we have just debated but at the national level. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to accept them.
7 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, perhaps I should say a word since I did not move my identical amendments at an earlier stage. I imagine that both the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, who served on the Committee will realise that there was some exhaustion at that point and that we
1426
wanted to speed up matters a little. I should be happy if the Minister could accept this amendment or at least find some words to meet its sentiments.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I have a confession for noble Lords, and especially for the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. She and others gave me so many things to think about between Committee and Report that this matter received slightly less of my attention than did some other clauses.
However, I should stress that I am sympathetic to what the amendments seek to achieve. It is important to remember that the commission itself is already balanced with appropriate representation from the main categories of interests. I hope that with the undertaking that I have given about tabling further amendments to Clause 1, some of your Lordships will feel that the commission will become even better balanced. It is that fully representative body which is to make decisions on the representation of local panels. With that in mind, I believe that the commission can be left to make balanced decisions on the appointment of panels. My concern is that in being too prescriptive we will make it more difficult for the commission to set up panels, should it wish to do so. As noble Lords will know, the local panel power has not been used since it was created in 1959.
I want to retain flexibility for the Deer Commission for Scotland. I hope that the composition of the commission commands the confidence not only of noble Lords but of Scotland as a whole that it can be trusted to set up such a local panel. I remind noble Lords that the panel has advisory powers only. It cannot exercise delegated executive powers. A local panel would be set up only subject to permission from the Secretary of State.
I shall now put this matter to the top of the list of those to be pondered between now and Third Reading, having realised that it occupied possibly the bottom place previously. With that undertaking and with possible further discussions with the noble Lady on whether the assurances that I have given tonight carry any weight, I hope that we can reach a decision about what to do on Third Reading.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the noble Earl is absolutely right and I am sure that we all agree that the composition of the commission is crucial. If the composition of the commission—I am sorry, but it is rather a tongue-twister—is right, everything else will fall into place. I look forward to hearing what the Minister may say on the subject on Third Reading. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Particular powers of the Commission]:
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 16, after ("the") insert ("welfare,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Clause 3 we come to a particular power of the commission. The clause states:

1427
"The Commission shall have power … to conduct … any experiment, trial or demonstration, relating to the conservation, control or sustainable management of deer, or to any other aspect of the Commission's functions".
In Committee some of us were anxious to make sure that those experiments, trials or demonstrations could not take place without the consent and approval of the landowner in question. We have been reassured on that point. However, Amendment No. 15 would make it possible for the experiments, trials or demonstrations to relate to welfare, conservation, humane control or sustainable management of deer. We suggest that the two words "welfare" and "humane" should appear on the face of the Bill in this clause.
I do not think that at the moment I can speak to Amendment No. 17 which stands in the name of my noble friend the Minister because, frankly, I do not really understand it. I note that it states that,
"the Commission may exercise the powers conferred by subsection (1) … in relation to the general welfare of deer".
I should have thought that it should state that the commission "must" exercise those powers. However, as I have not yet understood where subsection (1) occurs in the legislation, if your Lordships are agreeable, perhaps I may wait to hear my noble friend's explanation of that amendment before I comment on it. In the meantime, in moving Amendment No. 15, I am speaking also to Amendment No. 16 and am seeking include "welfare" and "humane control" in the experiments, trials or demonstrations which the commission shall have the power to conduct. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, in responding to Amendment No. 15, which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Pearson, and to Amendment No. 16, to which he also spoke, I should like to refer also to my Amendment No. 17. For the avoidance of doubt, Amendment No. 17 will make it clear that the commission can use its research and advisory powers under Clause 3 for welfare purposes. That has the same effect as Amendment No. 15, which has been tabled by my noble friend Lord Pearson and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept Amendment No. 17 in place of Amendments Nos. 15 and 16. The crucial point is that the amendment is drafted so as to remove any doubt and to allow explicitly for a whole range of welfare issues to be addressed through the powers and provisions of Clause 3.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. I accept it and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 18, at end insert—
("(2) For the avoidance of doubt, it is provided that the Commission may exercise the powers conferred by subsection (1) above in relation to the general welfare of deer, in so far as that matter is not otherwise included in their functions under this Act.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Emergency powers of Commission to authorise killing of deer causing damage]:
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 19, leave out ("authorise killing of") and insert ("deal with marauding").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 18, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 19, 21 and 56 which stand in my name. We now come to Clause 4, which used to be entitled "Marauding deer" but which is now unfortunately called "Emergency powers of Commission to authorise killing of deer causing damage". This is the clause which still causes some of us the most worry about the Bill. That worry occurs because of the immediacy of the powers that can be used and the fact that they can be used without any public inquiry and even, as I read it, without the agreement of the landowner or occupier in question.
In Committee my noble friend gave us a new safeguard—that the emergency powers of Clause 4 could be used only if the commission was satisfied that none of its other powers was adequate to deal with whatever the situation was. That strikes some of us as perhaps not being much of a safeguard. We come back to the composition of the commission. If the commission is composed of sensible and honourable people who have the welfare of deer uppermost in their minds, together with their other balancing duties, the problem will not arise. But it seems to me that all they have to do—at least on the face of the Bill—is to say that there is not enough time for their other powers to deal with the situation in question. I take it that the other powers are mostly those written into Clause 5 which, in the absence of the agreement of the owner and occupier, give rise to a public inquiry. That takes a very long time.
Although this is not the place to debate it now, I have noted with great satisfaction my noble friend's amendment (Amendment No. 29). I would have thought that if that amendment were to be inserted into this clause, as well as in Clause 5, it would be a great help.
In attempting to define what marauding deer really are, I have tabled a new definition in Amendment No. 56. It reads as follows:
"'marauding deer' means deer which are not being effectively controlled and are causing damage on land or which they are not normally established at the time of year in question".
I have somewhat more confidence in that definition than the definition produced at Committee stage, because it is the definition which appears in the Government's Notes on Clauses on the Bill. I believe that it is also the definition that my noble friend used in the Committee proceedings. Therefore, some of us think it important to have that on the face of the Bill in the definitions, and that Clause 4 should be brought back to where it was before and refer firmly to "marauding deer".
There is a feeling going around that the deer problem in the Highlands of Scotland is perhaps more urgent than it really is. I have had informal discussions with the Red Deer Commission since the Committee proceedings. I understand that at the moment the red deer population, where it is believed chat most of the

1429
problem has arisen, particularly with regard to the natural heritage in the Highlands of Scotlandߞthe regeneration of the Caledonian Forest and so onߞis steady. Based on the latest deer count in Caithness and Sutherland, the number is steady. In the east of Scotland, where most of the problem has arisen in the Angus glensߞdeer having moved east over the past few years, for reasons that nobody completely understandsߞit appears that over the past 12 months the voluntary control schemes, in collaboration with the deer management groups, have stabilised the numbers. In some areas in the east of Scotland the numbers are down. I gather that in West Invernesshire there has been a slight increase over the past six years in some areas, but that may be because sheep have been taken off the ground in question. Therefore, deer do better when sheep come off.
The level of complaints appears to have fallen in recent years. The cull of hinds has clearly increased. For all of those reasons, I believe that the situation is under control. I believe that we should be careful before we sanction a clause that appears to contain draconian powers. I would be grateful if my noble friend could enlighten me as to the kind of area to which this clause might be applied. After all, the commission has merely to be satisfied that the deer are causing serious damage, whether directly or indirectly, to the natural heritage generally. It seems to me that that could cover a very large area of ground. There are later amendments to try to narrow the definition of "natural heritage", but the value of a deer forest depends on the number of stags that can be shot on it every year. I do not deny that some deer forests have too many of them. But if we have a clause that can in effect remove the possibility of an area of ground continuing to be a sporting estate, we have to look at it very carefully. I feel that these amendments will be very beneficial. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I acknowledge the importance that my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch attaches to Clause 4. It is an emphasis that we have taken into account. Clause 4 remains an important backstop power when emergency action needs to be taken and no other method of control is appropriate. To safeguard land management interests, we have built in a balancing duty in Clause 1 which the commission cannot ignore when it is relevant. Even assuming the worst, there are important safeguards in the general law, including judicial review, open to those who may be affected by the operation of an unreasonable commission, if a future Minister were so unwise as to appoint one.
I am fully confident that these powers must be exercised responsibly. As I indicated on Second Reading, I have listened carefully to comments made by noble Lords and have been prepared to make adjustments to the Bill in Committee to meet the concerns expressed. In particular, I have added the important rider in new subsection (1) of Section 6, that this power can be used only when no other power of the commission is adequate to deal with the situation. That
1430
makes it crystal clear that this can only be an emergency power. I have also removed the original reference to "any land" to make certain that this power can be used only in locations where it is essential to take action in this way. If a draconian Secretary of State wants to ride roughshod over owners' rights then he will have to change the law. I remind my noble friend of the safeguards and guarantees in Section 6 of the 1959 Act. For instance, the owner, or person who has the right to take or kill deer on the land from which those deer come, must first be contacted by the commission and given the opportunity to solve the problem before the emergency powers in Section 6 of the 1959 Act can be triggered. There are two or three safeguards which involve efforts to contact owners, and so forth. The interests of the landowner are fully recognised.
My noble friend made reference to Amendment No. 29. That government amendment will have a bearing on Clause 4. If he can be patient, I will be able to explain to him why a reference in Clause 5 can have a bearing on Clause 4. I hope that he will be able to take some comfort from that.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 19 and 56. Some noble Lords have urged us to make this power expressly limited to use in the case of marauding deer only by including a specific reference to "marauding deer" in the text of the Bill. I explained in Committee that the term "marauding deer" was not included in the text of the 1959 Act because of real legal uncertainties as to what constituted "marauding" in each case. What constituted "marauding" to a farmer might be normal behaviour to a landowner or somebody with sporting rights. For example, a biologist might take a very different view as to what constituted a normal area in which deer might be established compared with a crofter.
I have received clear legal advice that to include the term "marauding" on the face of the Bill, and to try to define it in respect of range, would lead to such legal uncertainties as to tie in knots a well-intentioned future commission.
I am sympathetic to the anxieties that lie behind the amendments moved by my noble friend today and in Committee. I am conscious of the need to respond to the concern that the power should be used only where deer are causing serious damage or danger on land upon which they are not normally established, and where deer management measures are not normally taken. Such circumstances might occur while outwith the normal deer range where deer arrived suddenly in search of food in large numbers, within an enclosure from which deer are normally excluded by a deer-proof fence or where they are clearly not meant to he as in a farmer's inbye land or in a school playground. I shall therefore propose on Third Reading an amendment which, if any doubts remain among your Lordships about the effect of the provisions, should put them to rest.
The assurances that I have given on the clause on successive occasions will, if we write them into Clause 4, give comfort to my noble friend and to others.

1431
I believe that my noble friend spoke also to Amendment No. 21. This further amendment raises the question of which land would be mentioned in a Section 6 authorisation issued by the commission.
Under Section 6(2) of the 1959 Act, where the commission is satisfied that the deer which are causing the problem are coming from particular land, the commission shall, first, make a request to any person having the right to kill deer on that land to undertake the killing of the deer. Only if that person is unable or unwilling to comply with the request may the commission issue a Section 6 authorisation to follow and kill the deer.
The protection is precisely that the authorised person can only follow and kill the deer on the land mentioned in the authorisation. Under Sections 6(5) and (6) the commission has to give notice to the owner of any land mentioned in the authorisation, or anyone likely to be on such land, of its intention to issue the authorisation. That is an additional safeguard.
With the assurance I have given about our intention to bring forward an amendment on Third Reading properly to define the deer which could be the target of the Clause 4 powers, I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to hear from my noble friend that he intends to bring forward some further modification to the clause on Third Reading. The point that I put to him still stands. Although it is helpful to have the new paragraph (c) which my noble friend inserted in Committee, that the commission can only use the immediate powers of the clause when:
"none of their other powers is adequate to deal with the situation",
that does not get round the problem which I have raised of the commission saying that it does not have time to use the powers in Clause 5.
I appreciate that it is difficult to define "marauding"; but we have a number of definitions in the Bill, one of which attempts the definition of the "natural heritage". If we can have a definition, of "natural heritage" on the face of the Bill, I should have thought that we would be able to have a definition of the word "maraud".
As to Amendment No. 21, I have taken out the words that suggest the authorisation could mention almost any land, because that seems to allow the commission to authorise the deer to be killed where they are. In that case, we must be sure that they are marauding, and that they cannot be killed where they are normally established. What my noble friend has been saying is helpful and hopeful. I therefore hope that when we have our discussion we may be able to discuss what he is thinking of bringing forward on Third Reading. In the meantime, I have much pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved..]
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 29, leave out ("the natural heritage generally") and insert ("enclosed land of natural heritage value").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments may well also become redundant in the light of what my noble friend the Minister has just said. They are an attempt to define the natural heritage within the powers of Clause 4, because although the interests which Clause 4 has been able to protect since 1959 are easy to understand—woodland, agricultural production, including any crops or foodstuffs, and injury to livestock, and so on—the definition of "natural heritage" is much more difficult to understand.
There is in the Bill now an acceptable definition of "woodland", and most of what we are talking about, certainly in the Highlands of Scotland, under the heading of natural heritage would be covered by "woodland".
It was after my noble friend the Minister was good enough to spare me a few minutes for a meeting since our Committee proceedings that I thought the definition of "natural heritage" could be more precise as to exactly what Clause 4 is aiming at. Therefore where we are invited to give the commission power over the "natural heritage generally", I have suggested:
"enclosed land of natural heritage value".
That would not be land which was necessarily enclosed against deer; it would be natural heritage which was enclosed for any purpose. However, as I say, if we can get the concept of marauding deer clearly understood within the terms of Clause 4, then these amendments become less important. I should like to hear what my noble friend has to say. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I can give my noble friend a simple and short answer. It is my hope that the amendment to Clause 4 that we shall bring forward on Third Reading may well satisfy his anxieties in this area. There may well be pressures on the natural heritage outwith an enclosed area. One thinks of grouse moors, and areas which are beyond the normal fringes of deer areas; but, because of specific weather conditions, large plantings, or enclosures, the deer are pushed into areas where they do not normally roam. In such circumstances, it will be important to protect something in an emergency, even if it was not fenced because it was not normally part of a deer range.
I assure my noble friend that at the heart of Clause 4 is a proper definition of when the powers can be used. It is something that I hope to be able to deliver to noble Lords on Third Reading. I shall give my noble friend good notice of how we intend to draft the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may raise a point with him that was raised in Committee. It is the question of the erection of fences. We are aware that different interests are involved. I have a brief from the RSPB. I was surprised to see that the annual mortality rate of capercaillie killed by collisions was 32 per cent. That indicates that the fencing about which we are talking is a major cause of death. Forestry Commission research information has shown that where deer culling can be sustained in sufficient intensities and over sufficiently wide areas, it is possible to establish native pinewood without deer fencing. The Minister has offered to look

1433
at this whole question and I hope that he will take cognisance of the mortality rate of some birds, particularly capercaillie, in relation to fencing.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, with regard to the statistic of 32 per cent., I believe that the mortalities have reduced considerably because the fencing has been modified and the position of the fencing has been changed. I still believe that the figures are relatively high, but not as high as those which the noble Lord is suggesting.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, when the plantations mature, the Forestry Commission allows the fencing to fall down. The deer, naturally being forest animals, come into the forest, where they are promptly shot in large quantities by the Forestry Commission. In other words, it is shooting its neighbours' deer.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Courtown is on the verge of giving us a lecture about when one can and cannot speak on Report. He knows a great deal more about that than I do.
All the points made by noble Lords about fences and capercaillie are taken on board. Our view is that it is not for Ministers, the Deer Commission or any other public agency to be prescriptive about where there should or should not be fences. Circumstances and conditions vary considerably in different areas. I understand that in some areas unfenced projects make a lot of sense, whereas in other areas fencing is required. However, as my noble friend Lord Peel implied, one needs the right sort of fencing to avoid mortalities. As I said, all the points made by noble Lords will be taken on board.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I apologise to the House. It was probably my fault that the batting order got confused because I offered to withdraw from the wicket before a number of other more skilful batsmen had had their turn.
I am most grateful for what my noble friend said. All I can do at the moment is to await the outcome of what he is able to do about "marauding" and the "natural heritage" and the immediacy of the powers in Clause 4. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 5, after ("instead") insert ("take and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 23, 27, 31, 32, 38 to 41, 49, 58, 61 to 70, 72, 73 and 76 to 78.
Noble Lords may recall that we are preparing a consolidation Bill in parallel with the programme Bill. Consolidation of all the existing legislation will undoubtedly make it more user friendly for deer managers and others who have to deal with the law on a regular basis, not least your Lordships.
In a strict consolidation exercise, the draftsman is limited in what he can do. He can modernise terms, correct obvious errors and improve layout, but he must adhere to the substance of the law as it stands. If the law is unsatisfactory or open to substantial doubt, the draftsman may simply have to reproduce those inadequacies or doubts in the consolidated Act.
The main reason for proceeding with the consolidation exercise in parallel with the programme Bill is that substantial amendments to clarify the law can be incorporated in the programme Bill and then consolidated. So far, the amendments I have proposed that have arisen from the consolidation process have all been relatively minor.
There is, however, one area of substantial doubt and uncertainty in the present legislation which has been brought to my attention. We can now take the opportunity to clear this up. This will, however, go beyond the scope of what is allowed on consolidation and will involve amendments in the programme Bill to clarify the law based on the Government's policy.
The difficulty centres around the use of the word "take" which appears throughout the legislation usually in the phrase "take or kill". It may seem obvious at first reading that the term "take" offers some alternative to killing; for example, the taking of deer alive. However, when one looks in detail at the Act, this is not always so as the law stands at present.
However, we know that from time to time persons who have the right to kill deer take the deer alive instead, usually with a view to selling the deer on. In terms of our policy, provided the animals are humanely treated, there seems to be no reason to object to this. The effect as regards, for example, damage to crops is the same—the deer are removed and prevented from causing further damage.
Moreover, we know that the courts have interpreted the term "take" as meaning "take alive" with particular reference to Section 22 which deals with poaching. Under the circumstances, it is clear we will lose something from the legislation if we simply delete all uses of the word "take".
I am therefore proposing that we standardise the language across the Act. In general, we will refer to rights to "take of kill" and taking will mean "taking alive". This will be consistent with the interpretation of the courts and with current practice. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I merely comment on this group of amendments that the taking of a live deer is not at all the same thing as shooting it dead with a modern rifle, when one bears in mind the welfare of the deer. Deer are extremely difficult to dart into a state of unconsciousness and when they are taken in the least bit violently, until they can be enclosed in the dark, they can he very uncomfortable and distressed, to the extent that they can die of distress quite easily.
Therefore, all I would say to my noble friend is that, although I am sure that I am not able to stand up to the complexity of the draftsman and the consolidation of the

1435
Bill and this long string of amendments, the taking of wild deer is a matter which must be considered with great caution.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that that is the intention of our policy. The animals must be humanely treated. It may well be that other deer management procedures not unrelated to the taking of live deer will be discussed later on other amendments and I shall be able to reassure him further on that point. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 4, leave out lines 8 to 10 and insert—
(""(9) Where any deer has been killed or taken and removed from land under an authorisation granted by the Commission under this section the Commission shall have power to dispose of it by sale or otherwise.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 4, line 10, at end insert—
("(10) This section may not be used by the Commission in any attempt to enhance the natural heritage without the agreement of the landowners in question.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again Amendment No. 24 may be rendered somewhat redundant if my noble friend can deliver on the purposes of Clause 4, especially as regards marauding deer and the natural heritage.
The object of the exercise in Amendment No. 24 is to make sure that the powers of Clause 4 cannot be used to enhance the natural heritage without the agreement of the landowners in question. But I think that I should say no more about it now because I look forward with hope to my noble friend's Amendment No. 25 and, further, his Amendment No. 29 which appears to do for Clause 5 what this amendment is designed to do for Clause 4. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, in responding to Amendment No. 24 moved by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I shall speak to government Amendments Nos. 25 and 29.
I have made it clear in presenting the Bill that our intention is that the compulsory powers of the commission in Clause 4 and the latter part of Clause 5 could be used only as a last resort to protect the existing natural heritage against serious damage and that they could not be used to enhance the natural heritage; that is to say, to change its fundamental character.
Following our discussion at Committee stage on the question of whether enhancement of the natural heritage could be pursued under the terms of the Bill, I asked my legal advisers to check again to ensure that the provisions of the Bill as they stand meet our intention. They have advised me that that is indeed the effect of the provisions as they stand.
Moreover, they have raised some doubt as to whether the provisions of revised Section 7(1) in Clause 5 (on control agreements) could be used to bring about
1436
enhancement if that resulted in a fundamental change in the character of the land—such as, for example, upgrading moorland or scrubland.
It was always our intention to allow such enhancement if the control measures required could proceed by voluntary agreement among the parties concerned. At least one of the existing voluntary control schemes being promoted by the commission is concerned, among other things, with the re-establishment of woodland. It seems to me important that, for the avoidance of doubt, we should ensure that such action can proceed where it is considered appropriate by the commission; and, indeed, where it is welcomed by the parties involved.
As a consequence I am introducing Amendment No. 25 to make it clear that enhancement of this sort can proceed under Section 7(1) of the 1959 Act. The effect of the amendment will also be to reinforce the point that such enhancement cannot proceed under Clause 4 and the compulsory powers in Clause 5. As this amendment would not apply to those provisions, the legal effect is to create a clear implication that such fundamental change in the character of the land is excluded from them; in other words, it is excluded from Clause 4 and from the control orders in Clause 5.
Amendment No. 29 delivers part of that purpose. It is necessary because the wording of Section 7(6) in Clause 5 contains specific mention of "control agreements" as preconditions for moving to control schemes. The effect of the second amendment will be to make it clear that control agreements which have enhancement as their object will not be capable of being transformed into control schemes.
There is a well-established legal principle that when a qualifying provision is mentioned in one section, but not in another, it does not apply to the section where it is not mentioned. Consequently, there is no need to make any reference to Section 6 of the principal Act because the exclusion is already made. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 24 since the Government Amendments Nos. 25 and 29 will, I believe, answer the concerns expressed by him and, indeed, by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that response. From what I heard, I believe that the amendments do answer my concerns. However, if the effect of Amendment No. 29 in fact bites into Clause 4 of the Bill as proposed by Amendment No. 24, I do not really see why it should not also be put on the face of the Bill. But, that is something that my noble friend and I can perhaps discuss. In the meantime, I am happy to accept the legal position that my noble friend put forward.
As I understand it, the effect of Amendment No. 29 would not allow the commission to enhance the natural heritage value by using the control scheme mechanism which is set out at the end of Clause 5; in other words, any such enhancement would have to come under a management agreement of some kind, presumably with Scottish Natural Heritage or, perhaps, the Deer Commission. I do not know. In any case, I believe

1437
that the following amendments will probably clarify the question of compensation and any payment for the enhancement and the change of use of the land in question. In view of the assurances made by my noble friend, I am happy to withdraw Amendment No. 24.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
Clause 5 [Control agreements and control schemes]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 4, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of subsection (1) above "the natural heritage" includes any alteration or enhancement of the natural heritage which is taking place, or is proposed to take place, either naturally or as a result of a change of use determined by the owner or occupier of the land in question; and "damage" shall be construed accordingly.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 26, I should point out to your Lordships that there is an error in the amendment as set out in the Marshalled List in that the word "occupies" should be "occupiers".
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 5, line 1, after ("measures;") insert—
("(cc) the compensation payable to the owners and or occupiers of the land in question;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment opens up for the first time the question of any compensation that might be paid when the provisions of Clause 5 are activated. I should point out that we have not tabled amendments for compensation for when the provisions of Clause 4 are activated because we assume that we will get those provisions right, and that they will not be able to be misused against deer which are not really marauding and damaging the natural heritage.
Therefore, so far as I can see, the question of compensation or payment in return for a management agreement arises at present only in regard to Clause 5. Indeed, as I said when my noble friend moved the previous amendment, it seems to me that any management agreement would probably be struck with Scottish Natural Heritage and that a payment in return for a change of management, such as the removal of deer forest status from an area of ground, would be the subject of such a management agreement.
However, I am not clear as to whether it is proposed that the Red Deer Commission might have the power to make such an agreement. My understanding at the moment is that its budget would probably not stretch to such largesse. I believe it is really Scottish Natural Heritage which one would see coming into play here. I tabled the amendments to find out from my noble friend the Minister whether or not the Government
1438
propose that any enhancement of the natural heritage under the Bill will be the subject of a management agreement and subject to compensation. I beg to move.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend has moved the amendment because I believe it raises a number of rather important points. I am quite happy to admit that there are certain aspects of the Bill with which I am not yet fully familiar. However, if I fail to grasp an important point, I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will put me right. It seems to me to be rather unjust at the very least if the Red Deer Commission is to have such powers to remove deer from a given piece of land without providing financial compensation to the owner. Indeed it is rather odd and would set up a precedent which I find rather disturbing. I accept that there are certain procedures through which the commission would have to go in order to exercise such powers; but, nevertheless, my interpretation of the Bill is that I believe such a position could arise.
As has already been identified, red deer are, for all intents and purposes, a commercial crop. Red deer are not the only creatures which overgraze. We have plenty of examples in both England and Scotland where sheep have created considerable difficulties through overgrazing. But I know of no provisions where the Ministry can remove sheep. I realise that the Ministry has powers of cross-compliance to remove subsidies in cases where sheep overgraze, but there are no subsidies attached to deer.
Non-compensation appears to go against the spirit of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. As I am sure noble Lords will know, under that legislation—it has worked extremely well—the old Nature Conservancy Council, now the Scottish Natural Heritage, would be obliged to enter into a management agreement with an owner or occupier if it wishes to see the habitat restored. Unless I have misinterpreted this section of the Bill, it seems to me that the Red Deer Commission would have powers to enter land to remove deer without compensating the landowner.
If that is so, it is clearly a dangerous precedent. One could envisage a situation where Scottish Natural Heritage might say to the Red Deer Commission, "There is a problem of acute overgrazing on this land. You have the powers to remove and not compensate. We have not. Will you do the job for us?" If that is right—I look forward to hearing what my noble friend says—we have a very real problem.
The financial importance of deer has already been touched upon. In many parts of the uplands of Scotland, the grouse population has declined to a point where a proper level of management cannot be sustained. The deer now provide such management. If the deer are to be threatened through removal without compensation, that management tier, which in many cases hangs on by its fingernails, may decline even faster. Many of the processes of management which are so important to deer—I refer to heather burning, and so on—may decline further. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend says on an important matter.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, when speaking of enhancing the habitat, I daresay that we are thinking of re-establishing the Caledonian Forest which our ancestors destroyed. That is a laudable aim. To accomplish that, the deer should be fenced out rather than shot out of the area. Deer would have to continue to be shot out of the area. They would come naturally into that area because nature abhors a vacuum. The area to be enhanced would have to be heavily fenced and looked after otherwise it would just be scrub and couch grass. The area would have to be properly planted and managed.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words about deer fencing and capercaillie. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, said earlier that there had been problems with capercaillie flying into deer fences and being killed. Much depends on two things. The first is where you put the deer fences. If you put them straight through or alongside the leks, the capercaillie will fly into them. If chicken wire fences are used, the chances are that the capercaillie will be temporarily stunned but they will not be killed. On the other hand, if you use chain lock fences, the capercaillie will be killed because for them it is exactly like flying into a brick wall.
In a number of places, the reason that capercaillie have declined and vanished is nothing to do with fences but with vermin, and foxes in particular.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly support my noble friend Lord Pearson and say how much I endorse what my noble friend Lord Peel said about the importance of compensation.
As I am sure my noble friend on the Front Bench is aware, the economy of the upper parts of Scotland which my noble friend described is never as secure as it should be. There are many reasons for that, some of which my noble friend touched on. However, if what appears to be possible under this Bill were to take place in the way described, a large economic burden would fall on the shoulders of those who would otherwise have the benefit of the crop, as my noble friend Lord Peel described it. Therefore, it is essential that my noble friend clearly addresses the issue; otherwise the already fairly difficult situation could be made almost intolerable.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 26 and 28 have generated some important and useful debates. I listened carefully to the points made. I fully understand the issues which noble Lords have illustrated.
Perhaps I may stress two or three points before dealing with the text of the amendments. First, there is a clear distinction—it is made clearer with government Amendments Nos. 25 and 29—between enhancement and protection against serious damage. It is important also to point out that we are excluding enhancement as an objective from any of the compulsory measures available to the commission. They cannot be used to enhance the habitat. The management agreements
1440
flagged in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 deal with enhancement and improvement. That is where compensation is quite rightly paid to owners.
Secondly, I promised to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to make it obvious that Clause 4 powers are activated only in circumstances where the deer involved are out of control, are not normally resident on that ground and are not subject normally to deer management measures. I hope to establish beyond doubt when those Clause 4 powers can be used. The distinction between serious damage and enhancement is critical in understanding the issue of compensation. In that sense, the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, is in some senses against the basic principles on which the Deer Commission operates and on which the Bill is based.
It has always been clearly established that both the benefits and the costs of deer management should fall on those with the right to shoot deer on their land. The Deer Commission is not a grant-giving body, and nothing in the Bill or in these amendments would change that.
In preparing the Bill, my officials met representatives of the Scottish Landowners' Federation and the Association of Deer Management Groups to clarify the position on compensation. Those bodies accepted that compensation for the simple act of protecting existing features against serious deer damage was not appropriate. The distinction was made then and we will continue to reinforce it, that protecting against serious damage is not and cannot be an excuse for projects which are designed to enhance the landscape or change land use.
The SLF and the ADMG also accepted that compensation was not suitable for a control agreement where deer control measures are agreed between the relevant parties. However, they believed that if enhancement of the natural heritage was to be the result of compulsory deer control measures, then compensation should be payable. We have made it clear in Amendments Nos. 25 and 29 that such enhancement is not possible under compulsory measures, under either Section 6 or Section 7 of the 1959 Act. Therefore, there is no case for compensation to be paid in that way.
We wish to see enhancement of the natural heritage and woodland in certain areas but only with the agreement of the parties concerned. SNH and the Forestry Authority are willing to support enhancement measures through management agreements and forestry measures such as the new native pinewoods scheme. The Deer Commission will be able to use its powers to support such measures only by agreement with the landowners concerned.
In preparing the Bill, my department prepared a compliance costs assessment in keeping with the Government's deregulation initiative. That was prepared in consultation with deer managers and their representatives. It showed that for the most part the Bill would impose no extra costs, but in exceptional circumstances, under control schemes, estates might be faced with extra costs of up to £11,000 over three years. Any impact on the capital value of estates was omitted

1441
from the calculations, with the agreement of the SLF and the ADMG, on the grounds that the simple act of protection should not affect the capital value of the estate.
The distinction to which I draw noble Lords' attention is the fact that there is a clear difference between protection against serious damage and enhancement. Enhancement through the voluntary control agreements will often attract compensation or the funds which act as an incentive and which can be paid by the Forestry Commission or Scottish Natural Heritage.
I shall be speaking to my noble friend Lord Pearson before Third Reading about various matters and I suggest that we put this on the agenda so that if there is serious doubt remaining on where and when money is made available, we can clear it up in sufficient time to address the issue at Third Reading.
8 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before my noble friend sits down, is he able to answer the question of who will define "serious deer damage"? Is that a task for the Red Deer Commission itself or for Scottish Natural Heritage?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the definition would be primarily for the commission, in the light of the balance of interests on the commission. I hope that by the time the Bill leaves this House the commission will command your Lordships' confidence. It may wish to take on board advice, possibly from Scottish Natural Heritage. A decision has been made that Scottish Natural Heritage should not be the statutory adviser to the commission, in case there were circumstances where SNH was not the appropriate body to use for such advice.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. On his last point, I repeat that the difference between "damage" and "serious damage" must be in the eye of the beholder. On this occasion, the beholder will be the Red Deer Commission. I was also grateful to hear my noble friend say that the capital value of the estates in question would not be put at risk by this clause without compensation being agreed, if not by the Red Deer Commission then by SNH or the Forestry Authority.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should explain that the SLF and the ADMG agreed that the compulsory powers which might be employed under Clause 4 or the end of Clause 5 simply protect that land against serious damage and should not affect the capital value of the estate. The way my noble friend summarised what I said was different.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend does not think I am trying to pick him up on what he says. I would certainly not accuse him of trying to pick me up. I accept that often deer can be reduced on an area, to the benefit of the interests mentioned in the Bill. I accept that the capital value of the estate may not be affected because if there are too
1442
many deer and you shoot quite a lot of them, their breeding rate goes up and quality can improve. I accept that. However, I have to disagree with the Association of Deer Management Groups and the Scottish Landowners' Federation if the clause could be used in such a way as to reduce the deer population to a level where the land in question no longer had the sporting value of the deer forest or whatever it was before. In those circumstances, I imagine that the matter of a management agreement of some kind would come in with Scottish Natural Heritage.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, with the leave of the House, if what had been a deer estate supporting a certain established number of deer were transformed through the compulsory powers to a different type of estate altogether, supporting half the number of deer, I do not believe that the means for accomplishing that could possibly be the compulsory powers in the Bill, from the way they are phrased. The compulsory powers cannot be employed to change an existing situation or continuing damage; they can be employed to prevent sudden serious damage.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the word "sudden" is very important. On that basis, I am happy to accept what my noble friend said. I and, I am sure, other noble Lords will read it carefully in Hansard. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Peel and Lord Glenarthur for supporting me. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Peel for bringing sheep back into our discussions, even briefly. I should confirm that in the regions of Tayside, Highland and Angus, at the moment there are 3 million heavily subsidised sheep eating at least six times as much as the 250,000 red deer which are principally the object of our discussion on this clause. With that comment, which is perhaps slightly off the centre of the amendments, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 26.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 5, line 16, after first ("or") insert ("taken and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 22. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 6, line 3, at end insert—
("() Subsection (6) above does not apply in relation to any control agreement proposed or entered into for the purpose of altering or enhancing the natural heritage.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this important amendment when I moved Amendment No. 25. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—

1443
EXCLUSION OF DEER FROM THEIR NATURAL HABITAT
(" . Where there is exclusion of deer from their natural habitat due to enclosure of land previously unenclosed, the owner or occupier of that land shall take action to reduce the deer population accordingly.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the principle of this amendment was introduced in Committee on 6th March under Amendment No. 37. It received considerable support and sympathy. My initial concern was related to the increasing activities of forestry, but I feel that it is a principle that should apply across all instances where there is exclusion of deer from their natural habitat. I understand that the Government seek to establish powers for the Forestry Commission to refuse public support until such action is taken. While that power would be welcome, I feel that it is more appropriate to seek inclusion of this principle within the Bill. One can envisage other scenarios in the future such as super-quarries—which are certainly a topical issue in certain parts of northern Scotland—which would deprive deer of their habitat but where the Forestry Commission would have no jurisdiction. Thus, it is important to safeguard the natural heritage, deer welfare and agricultural interests. If the Forestry Commission has no power to do that, we should include a provision in deer legislation.
Furthermore, given that deer roam from mountain to glen there are situations where the enclosure of land will not immediately exclude deer, as they are not there at that particular time. However, that does not mean that there will not be an imbalance and potential pressure on grazing and welfare problems at a later stage in the year, particularly in the winter. By placing this amendment within Clause 5 on control agreements, it would be possible to put the onus on the commission to assess the impact of the enclosure on deer populations. Further, it places an onus on it to take forward a control agreement with other parties to reduce the deer population accordingly. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I should just briefly like to support this amendment, as I did in our Committee proceedings. It seems absolutely reasonable that if land that was open to the deer as their natural habitat becomes enclosed for other purposes, whoever is in charge of that operation ought to have the responsibility of reducing the number of deer.
I feel sure that, as the deer management groups and the Deer Commission become ever more professional in their knowledge of the numbers of deer that we have and where they move—and, as I hope, if my tagging amendment is accepted later on about the numbers of deer that we are actually killing every year—they should be able to form a good judgment as to the numbers of deer which ought to be excluded in the circumstances envisaged by this amendment.
I would just mention, too, that one of the problems in recent years of the deer population expanding is precisely that large areas have been enclosed for forestry. The deer on the whole have been driven out and have sometimes gone on to do damage elsewhere.
1444
That is a situation which is now coming under control, and I feel sure that this amendment is in the spirit of that improving position. I support the amendment.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for moving this amendment, the principle of which we fully support, as I stated in Committee.
It is a truism of the problems that face deer managers in Scotland today that the range over which deer are allowed is ever changing. I remember it was a point made by my noble friend Lord Woolton at Second Reading.
Our hope was to find the easiest way of achieving the objective of this amendment. Our position is that there is no need to change the legislation in order to achieve what the noble Lord's amendment seeks. We have decided that the Forestry Authority, on deer culling measures required before enclosure, will henceforth adapt its procedures to make compliance with Deer Commission advice a precondition of approval of woodland grant scheme applications. Such a change can be made by administrative means, and no amendment to this Bill is therefore required.
Applicants will be expected to carry out all pre-enclosure control measures prescribed by the Deer Commission on their land before an application is finally approved. In order to match the migratory patterns of deer, control measures required should be taken at the time of year when the deer are present on the land in question.
If necessary, the Deer Commission may be prepared to promote a voluntary control agreement, as provided for by Clause 5 of the Bill, to allow action to be taken in the most effective manner and, if necessary, provide for the interests of neighbouring land managers to be taken into account.
The effects of this change may, in certain circumstances, mean that woodland establishment is delayed by a short period to allow deer control to proceed. However, such minor delays as may occur will be more than compensated for by the confidence this change will create that the knock-on effects of enclosure have been anticipated before the work takes place; and that as a result no restorative action needs to be taken subsequently when the deer have been displaced.
I am grateful that, both at the Committee stage and today, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, raised this issue. It has prompted us to amend the arrangements we have for woodland grant schemes where this issue is relevant.
If substantial enclosure was taking place for a reason other than forestry, we would expect the Deer Commission to use its voluntary control agreement provisions and powers to promote such schemes to make similar arrangements to those I just outlined as being attached to woodland grant scheme applications.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. I am glad he included in the latter part of his remarks the reference that I had

1445
made to quarrying in parts of the Highlands. It appears that he has gone a long way to meet the desires of the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Deer killed under authority of Commission]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 31 and 32:
Page 6, line 12, leave out ("the carcases of").
Page 6, line 13, after ("deer") insert ("taken or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 22. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 7 [Close seasons]:
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 6, line 41, after ("person") insert ("knowingly").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am embarrassed to inform the House that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur has just pointed out to me that perhaps this amendment is superfluous. It is designed to exonerate anyone who shoots a deer of the wrong sex for the time of year in question—in other words, out of season—from the penalties which are otherwise imposed. This, unfortunately, can be possible, usually by shooting a young stag without horns when one is trying to shoot hinds. I am told, although it is not within my experience, that people have even been known to shoot a hind when in fact they were supposed to be aiming at a stag. I hope that is an extremely rare event all over Scotland, but I believe it has been known. That is what this amendment was designed to do. But if my noble friend the Minister is going to tell me that it is irrelevant because the word "wilfully" exists in paragraph (b) of this clause, I accept that and apologise for wasting the time of the House.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not think that I can add to my noble friend's remarks, except to say that there is a real problem. Unfortunately, this sort of thing can happen. I have certainly known of it happening. However, I see that in subsection (1)(b) one has to,
"wilfully kill or injure any deer".
Therefore, if any accidental contravention took place, presumably that would be a reasonable excuse.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am familiar with the circumstances that both noble Lords describe. Indeed, over the years I have witnessed the mistakes that can happen on the hills, especially in poor visibility.
The problem I have with this amendment is more basic than that which both noble Lords mentioned. It is that the amendment goes against the basic principle of the criminal law; namely, that a person should be assumed to know what the law is. We cannot provide someone with a defence that they are ignorant of the law.
1446
One hopes, in this day and age, that enforcement of the law is proportionate to the circumstances in which the enforcer finds the person who may have transgressed. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend is not too worried at the possible consequences of the circumstances he describes.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I accept what my noble friend has said, but I disagree with him on one point. I do not think that one can rely on law enforcement and other agencies not, in some cases, to exaggerate the law. If one were the owner of an abattoir one might not feel exactly like that as regards the way in which the meat hygiene regulations have been enforced. However, that is not the purpose of this amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 34:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DEER
(". For section 25 of the principal Act (unlawful possession of deer and firearms) there shall be substituted the following sections—
"Illegal possession of deer.
25.—(1) A person who is in possession of a deer or of firearms or ammunition in circumstances which make it reasonable to infer that—

(a) he obtained the deer by committing a relevant offence; or

(b) he had used the firearm or ammunition for the purpose of committing a relevant offence; or

(c) he knew that—

(i) a relevant offence had been committed in relation to the deer; or

(ii) the firearm or ammunition had been used for the purpose of committing a relevant offence,

shall be guilty of an offence under this section and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 months or both, and to forfeiture of any deer found in his possession.
(2) It shall be a defence in proceedings for an offence under this section for the accused to show that no relevant offence had been committed, or that he had no reason to believe that such an offence had been committed.
(3) For the purposes of this section a "relevant offence" is an offence under any of sections 21, 22, 23, 23A or 24 of this Act.
(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this section in respect of anything done in good faith, including conduct which would otherwise constitute a relevant offence in relation to any deer, where what is done is done for purposes connected with the prevention or detection of crime or the investigation or treatment of disease.
(5) It shall be lawful to convict a person charged under this section on the evidence of one witness.
Power of court in trial in one offence to convict of another.
25AA. If, upon a trial for an offence under any of sections 21, 22, 23, 23A, 24 or 25 of this Act, or any rule of law relating to reset, the court is not satisfied that the accused is guilty of the offence charged but is guilty of another of those offences, it may acquit him of the offence charged but find him guilty of the other offence and he shall then be liable to the same punishment as for that other offence.".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I appreciate many noble Lords are concerned about poaching and the illegal killing of deer. It is with that in mind that I am now proposing to bring forward a new offence to tighten the laws on poaching.
Section 25 of the 1959 Act, as it was originally understood, allowed action to be taken against a person found in the possession of deer, firearms or ammunition where there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that the deer had been taken or killed unlawfully. The section was intended to address the difficulty of catching poachers at work. As an exception to normal Scottish criminal law, only one witness is needed, recognising that a policeman or gamekeeper in remote areas is likely to be unaccompanied.
However, as a result of a ruling in the High Court appeal case in 1993 an accused can only be convicted under Section 25 if it is proved that he himself has committed the original poaching offence. This has consequently made it very difficult to obtain convictions under Section 25.
To restore the law to the position as it was understood before 1993, I am proposing to introduce a revised Section 25 into the 1959 Act. In addition, a new section, also based on the salmon legislation, would allow conviction where the court was not satisfied that the accused is guilty of the offence charged, but is satisfied on the evidence led that he is guilty of another offence relating to the illegal taking or killing of deer.
Amendments Nos. 51 and 71 are consequential amendments and therefore I beg to move Amendment No. 34.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Authorisation by Commission of certain acts]:
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved an Amendment No. 35:
Page 7, line 11, after ("authorise") insert ("any").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, I read carefully the noble Earl's answer to the various amendments that I moved at Committee stage. I note that his Amendments Nos. 42 and 44 make my Amendments Nos. 43 and 45 unnecessary. I prefer his amendments as they go further than mine. I was trying to compromise with the least I felt that might be acceptable to the Government, whereas the noble Earl is under no such constraints. Therefore I shall not move my amendments when the time comes.
Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 37, 46 and 47 would not affect the workload of the hardworking commission, which I fear I maligned disgracefully at Committee stage, when I accused them of working a five-day week from 9 to 5, which is not at all the case. I understand they work a seven-day week and often all the hours there are. The amendments would give the commission the option of authorising the owner, rather than the occupier, should it appear to them sensible to do so, or possibly at the occupier's suggestion. I think this might often be the best course where red deer are concerned and an experienced stalker is at hand. I appreciate that where roe deer are concerned the situation would often be very different. I still consider that it is quite inequitable that an owner, or
1448
his representative, having a prior interest in the deer, and a major interest in the land, should not be eligible for such an authorisation.
The noble Earl said at Committee stage that he was going to give the matter of owner versus occupier, with regard to out of season shooting, further consideration. I wonder if he has been able to do so and has reached any conclusions on the question. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, in Committee a number of amendments were moved as regards this important area, and I am grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, for coming back to the subject. I hope that in my explanation of the provisions of Section 6 of the 1959 Act, I demonstrated that, as far as this particular power is concerned, that point has already been addressed. The commission must first attempt to contact any person with the right to kill deer on the land from which the deer are coming and request that he take the necessary action. Only if such a request fails can the commission issue such an authorisation under the section. The commission must notify its intention to issue an authorisation to the owner of any land mentioned in it.
I undertook to consider how best to address the notification of the owner in the other cases of commission authorisation: night shooting, use of vehicles, and out of season shooting. As I explained previously, I am reluctant to create additional administrative burdens on the hard worked commission, however I accept the desirability of keeping the owner of the land informed.
To that end, I intend that the commission should revise its procedures on the granting of authorisations. Under the new procedures, the occupier will be required to notify the owner before applying for an authorisation. The occupier will certify on his application form that this has been done. This should achieve the desired end without creating additional work for the commission. It is not envisaged that this procedure will detract materially from the occupier's rights.
I undertook to consider all the other aspects of this subject, and noble Lords will appreciate that the Bill as drafted allows authorisations for these activities to be issued to any fit and competent person nominated in writing by the occupier. Where the owner or his agent or employee has the consent of the occupier, there seems to be no reason why he should not be able to carry out the work.
The priority of the occupier's interest is a standard theme running through the legislation at present, for example, Section 33(3)—out of season shooting on agricultural land and enclosed woodland—and Section 33(4) and (4A)—the existing night shooting provision. This is a feature of the legislation which I am reluctant to move away from without good reason, but I believe the very sensible adjustments made to procedures prior to authorisations will achieve much of what has concerned the noble Lady and others.
On night shooting there is also the serious concern that we have about public safety if more than one person has direct access to the commission in order to apply for such authorisation.

1449
Turning to Amendments Nos. 42, 43, 44 and 45, it seems to me that the driving of deer for deer management purposes, is more likely to be undertaken by an owner, or group of owners, than by an occupier. The owner is normally the person with the right to take or kill deer and consequently is responsible for the overall management of the deer. For this reason, I am moving an amendment to revise this provision accordingly with the owner or his nominee being the person to whom authorisation would or could be given. As is the principle with other authorisations, the deer commission will expect an applicant to have notified the occupier, who would need to be aware for safety reasons that such work was to go ahead on his land.
I am grateful to the noble Lady for focusing us on this issue. We have, I hope, both on the face of the Bill and away from the face of the Bill made some useful improvements.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 46 and 47. Noble Lords will note that authorised out of season shooting to protect unenclosed woodland or the natural heritage, all in the interests of public safety, has also been drafted so as to be a last resort power. In most cases I would expect the person actively managing the land in question to have the prime interest in the state of the flora and fauna and the woodland. Nevertheless, I recognise that there may be occasions when the owner may have the beneficial interests in the feature in question rather than the occupier. Consequently, I am prepared to introduce an amendment at Third Reading to allow either the occupier or the owner or their respective nominees to be authorised.
In seeking an authorisation, the applicant will be expected to notify the respective owner or occupier before submitting the formal application. That is primarily driven by safety. On the basis of amendments that the Government are moving and hope to move, I hope that the noble Lady will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I think I am quite happy with that explanation. I shall read very carefully what the noble Earl said and discuss the matter with my friends. Possibly, we could talk about it before Third Reading. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.]
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 7, line 12, leave out ("shoot") and insert ("take or kill").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 38 to 41 when moving Amendment No. 22. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 7, line 12, at end insert (", and to sell or otherwise dispose of,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 40 and 41:
Page 7, line 16, leave out ("shooting") and insert ("taking or killing").
Page 7, line 19, leave out ("method") and insert ("means").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 7, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("subject") in line 23.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have just spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 7, line 25, leave out ("occupier") and insert ("owner").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 35. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 45 to 48 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 8, line 2, leave out ("method") and insert ("means").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 21. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 50:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
CARCASS TAGGING
("After section 25F of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Carcass tagging.
25G.—(1) For the purpose of monitoring the quality and source of venison sold in Scotland the Secretary of State may by regulations made by order subject to an approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament introduce a scheme to make provision for the identification of all deer carcasses sold within Scotland ("the scheme"), as may from time to time be defined in the regulations.
(2) The scheme shall require any such carcass sold to bear a tag in a form approved and issued by the Commission and bearing an individual mark or number for each carcass, identifying the producer, the year of issue and the carcass number.
(3) It shall be a requirement of the scheme that any person requiring to sell a deer carcass shall obtain in advance from the Commission the relevant tags and shall affix them to any carcass sold in such manner as may be specified.
(4) At the expiry of the year to which any unused tag relates, the producer or dealer to whom it was issued shall return the same to the Commission.
(5) It shall be an offence for any person to sell, offer or expose for sale or to receive or to have in his possession, transport or cause to be transported for the purpose of sale on any premises any carcass not bearing a tag in such form as may be specified by the scheme.
(6) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (5) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment proposes to introduce a system of tagging carcasses, subject to an order made at some future date by the Secretary of State. I emphasise that it is in that sense only an enabling measure. The latest version of the amendment makes those regulations subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament to introduce the scheme in question.
The amendment has also been slightly revised to make clear that the clause would apply only to carcasses. There would not be any question of various other parts of the deer having to be tagged. The advantage of the Secretary of State bringing in this system by regulations to identify such deer carcasses sold within Scotland as may from time to time be defined in those regulations is that it could start slowly. We should not have to have a system under which every deer in Scotland, including roe deer, would have to be tagged from the start. It would enable the scheme to start slowly, perhaps with red deer.
There has been strong support from all the major dealers in venison in Scotland; and even, I see, a large dealer in England has written to my noble friend the Minister saying that he feels that the scheme ought to apply in England. He was good enough to send me a copy. At Committee stage my noble friend said that he felt that such a scheme would be better introduced through a voluntary system rather than through an eventual statutory system. The problem with that approach is that a voluntary system would not cover those deer which are not regularly or properly in the system; in other words, it would not cover poached deer.
I do not in the least make a pitch for this new clause as a weapon to be used against poaching. However, with the poaching problem comes the problem of quality. I think I am right in saying that something like 15 per cent. of hinds which do not appear to have gone through estate hooks turn up in dealers' premises. It may be that a certain percentage, perhaps half of that figure, is given away locally or eaten by the estate in question. But it is perfectly clear that there is a substantial leakage in the system at the moment. That has an effect on the quality and traceability of the venison in question.
There is also the problem that at the moment we do not know how many deer are shot. I have made that point before but it is worth emphasising. If we are to have proper deer management in future in Scotland, we must know how many of them there are and how many are shot. A statutory tagging system would go a long way to achieving that. It would not perhaps be completely watertight, but it would be very much better than the system that we have at the moment.
We have many years to go with the Act. I do know how many years it is envisaged that it will last before it is changed—perhaps 25 years—and we may all come to realise that we need such a system in the future. It seems to me shortsighted not to have at least the very simple enabling power, subject to regulations, which are in turn
1452
subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament now. Therefore I continue to support this concept. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I said at Committee, although this amendment would introduce a number of complexities, we should miss a trick if we allow this piece of legislation to go onto the statute book without it encompassing the measure that my noble friend described. I said in Committee that this was an issue looked at in 1982 for the earlier Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.
A number of difficulties were identified at that stage but there seemed to be a very strong body of opinion—certainly it came from the venison dealers to which my noble friend Lord Pearson referred as well as from others—that such a scheme was highly desirable. Part of that concern at any rate addressed the matter of poaching and how poached deer could be identified as well as the enhancement of monitoring sources of venison and all those other elements that my noble friend describes in his amendment.
The amendment is enabling. It provides something upon which action can be taken if circumstances warrant in due course. I hope that this opportunity will be taken.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I also should like to support the amendment. It is an excellent idea, especially as regards making poaching more difficult or at least disposing of the carcasses. In fact, in properly run deer forests today all the carcasses are labelled for the game dealers. So in fact there would not be any extra aggravation at all.
The Earl of Woolton: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 50. On two occasions, both here and in Committee, my noble friend Lord Pearson set out powerful arguments for a mandatory tagging scheme. I do not intend to repeat them. However, I should like to make a few brief comments on the venison industry and how a mandatory system would benefit the marketing of venison.
My noble friend Lord Pearson referred to the feasibility study completed last year by the Association of Deer Management Groups. I received a more recent paper by the association on the administration of such a scheme which I hope has been seen by my noble friend the Minister as it addressed many of the anxieties he expressed in Committee. Both studies have taken the debate forward significantly and I look forward to hearing what he has to say on this.
Perhaps I may comment briefly on one issue associated with marketing wild venison to the major retailers. It was raised in passing by my noble friend Lord Pearson in Committee and relates to the demands that retailers can put on producers so that venison products meet the same standards of traceability required of other meat products. In the venison industry those demands can include the transfer of the carcass to the larder within three hours of killing; carcasses in the larder not touching each other or the larder walls; stalkers being trained in elementary food hygiene; larders being approved by local environmental health

1453
officers and stags and hinds averaging set weights and ages. Many of those demands may be sensible, but others are quite impractical.
My reasons for listing those demands are to show how important it is to retailers that venison meets the highest possible standards. I cannot see how, unless there is a mandatory scheme in place, it will ever be possible to raise the general standards of production to a level where retailers will accept wild venison. I recognise that even then they may not.
A clear and defined market has been identified for Scottish wild venison. It is a product of which we can all be justly proud in Scotland. Public acceptability of venison products generally is still patchy and will remain so until the major retailers can be persuaded that production and processing procedures are of the highest standards. A mandatory scheme will, I believe, along with the other initiatives being promoted by the industry itself, kick-start that process at a crucial time. The voluntary principle has worked only so far, and I fear that unless the Government are willing to assist, much of the progress made will be undermined. Given that this is only an enabling measure, I hope the Minister can be persuaded to accept the amendment.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for the eloquent way in which my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved the amendment and other noble Lords spoke of the various aspects that carcass-tagging raises.
In Committee I made it clear that I have an open mind on the subject of carcass tagging. I can see how a well-organised system of tagging of carcasses could bring benefits to those concerned about the origin of foodstuffs, as well as to those concerned about keeping more effective details on deer killed in Scotland.
I have considered very carefully the proposals made by the Association of Deer Management Groups for mandatory carcass tagging and have met Stephen Gibbs and Richard Cooke from the association to discuss them. I understand the points that they and others are making and am prepared to see them fully evaluated.
While carcass tagging would bring certain benefits however, it is also clear that it would impose burdens on those who have the right to shoot deer and, possibly, those who deal in venison. In the current deregulatory climate it is essential before proceeding with a proposal such as this to look very carefully at the implications of the proposal, to make a rational judgment as to whether the public and private benefits that would be gained from such a step would outweigh significantly the burdens it would impose.
While I would not want to prejudge any full consultation exercise that might be carried out on these proposals at present I am not convinced that the benefits would outweigh the burdens. In particular, I see real difficulties in enforcing such a scheme in a country where there are no statutory limits on the number of deer people can shoot and no obligation on those with the right to kill deer to register with any relevant
1454
authority or other body. Both those points must be major barriers to the effective operation of a worthwhile mandatory carcass tagging scheme in Scotland.
My noble friend Lord Woolton mentioned food quality and hygiene as being one of the benefits that would arise. In relation to food quality and hygiene, I can see how a tagging system would offer reassurance on the origin of deer carcasses if the system works effectively. But I am advised by my veterinary advisers that as far as they are concerned the current system of veterinary controls on handling venison is working in a satisfactory manner. The controls that they and environmental health officers operate focus in any case on procedures and practices in handling deer in larders and slaughterhouses. Where matching of pluck and carcass is concerned I am not advised that there is currently a problem on hygiene grounds, although I would of course be prepared to look at the matter again if evidence to the contrary comes to light.
In relation to information about deer kills, about which my noble friend Lord Pearson feels strongly, I acknowledge that there is no current source of entirely accurate information about deer kills in every part of Scotland. But the Red Deer Commission's current system of census returns by deer managers and analysis of venison dealers' records offers a reasonably reliable indicator of total deer culls which for the most part is satisfactory for the purposes to which it is put. I am not convinced that the adoption of a mandatory carcass tagging system would add significant value to the current information system.
My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard dealt with the poaching issue. I can certainly imagine that a mandatory carcass tagging system could be a significant addition to the current means used to deter poaching. It would impose a degree of discipline on the venison-handling chain in this regard which is currently lacking. I do worry, however, that the difficulties I foresee in enforcement of the tagging requirement could significantly detract from its effectiveness; we could find valuable police and other resources devoted to enforcement of the tagging requirement when the real culprits are allowed to get on with the act of poaching itself. The amendment I am proposing separately to recast the offence of the illegal possession of venison, at the specific request of the Crown Office, is likely to have more practical effect on the practice of poaching than would tagging.
I can see more reason for tagging if the industry was to choose to introduce it on a voluntary basis. I put it to Stephen Gibbs that a voluntary system allied to guarantees about handling as well as origin could achieve real benefits for participating estates and dealers; they would be doing what the retail and export trade is increasingly demanding and consequently improving their own market position for the long run at the expense of those who do not follow the tagging scheme. I still think that a properly funded voluntary scheme deserves full consideration and hope that those involved will give it such. The commercial advantage mentioned by my noble friend Lord Woolton is very relevant and is as much an incentive for a voluntary tagging scheme as a mandatory scheme.

1455
If, after all those points have been given careful thought, the conclusion of the industry and other concerned bodies is that a compulsory scheme is still necessary, then I will of course give that proposal the attention it deserves.
One suggestion that has been made is that we limit ourselves to an enabling provision to allow the Secretary of State to introduce a mandatory tagging system by order if, after full consideration, it appears to him sensible to do so. The argument why we should adopt such a provision now, even though the case for mandatory tagging is at best not proven, is that opportunities for deer legislation are few and far between and it would be wrong to miss this opportunity which may not come round again for many years.
I am reluctant to support a statutory provision of this sort when the principle has not been fully established. Parliament guards its prerogative of legislation with care and I do not see how an exception to this rule should be made on this occasion. In any case it is by no means impossible that parliamentary time could be found for a small Bill to introduce mandatory tagging at some point in the near future if the case is to be fully substantiated—as well as the normal Private Members' procedures.
I remind the House that recent reforms introduced a fast-track system for Scottish business. It is just such a small provision which is unique to Scotland that the fast-track system is designed to accommodate. I fully acknowledge this has been a useful debate and this is an issue that raises some very important consequences, be they benefits or costs that arise from deer management generally. I reiterate the fact that I am open-minded on this. If the sufficient consensus and evaluation can be delivered to us during the passage of this Bill, if there remains time, or in the fast-track Scottish system for legislation, then it is something that Ministers would be prepared to pursue.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend and also to the other noble Lords who were good enough to support me in this amendment which, as I mentioned at Committee stage has been strongly put forward by the Association of Deer Management Groups. I would just mention that they had their annual general meeting the day before our Committee proceedings and they were unanimous in their support of this scheme and also in their belief that a voluntary scheme simply would not work.
My noble friend mentioned that two of the difficulties are that there are no statutory limits on the numbers shot at the moment. Also there is the problem of knowing who has the right to shoot deer. I would not have thought that either of those are really serious difficulties because all people have to do is apply to the Commission for the tags which they are going to put on the deer. Then the Commission will very soon know the people who think they have the right to shoot deer of whom the Commission is not already aware.
My noble friend suggested that the present information system works well enough because the Red Deer Commission knows roughly what is going through the dealers and gets the returns from the estates. All
1456
I can say is that it may work reasonably well for the Red Deer Commission as to the numbers which are being shot, but it certainly does not work for the estates because the leakage is substantial—very often, I am afraid, from the estate larder itself when the owner is not there. That may be his fault for being an absentee landowner, but the situation where a van turns up at the larder door and the driver says to the stalker: "How many for you, Jimmy, and how many for the estate?" is not, perhaps, as rare a circumstance as it ought to be. Indeed, I suffered from that 20 years ago. Therefore, if the Red Deer Commission felt more able to reveal exactly which carcasses were going to which dealers from which larders, that might help us all.
I am most grateful to my noble friend for his helpful attitude in this regard. As I have mentioned, a number of dealers have come forward, saying that they strongly support this system, at least as an enabling measure. I do not know what further evidence my noble friend might require to get such a provision on to the face of the Bill during its passage, but perhaps we can discuss this. Maybe we shall be able to provide that sort of evidence. If not, I was most encouraged to hear him say that we might be able to have some short sharp legislation further down the road. I am personally fairly sure that within the next 10 years or so we are going to need a system of this kind. My own view remains that it would be a pity to miss the boat on this occasion. I am most grateful to my noble friend for what we said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Farmed deer]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 8, leave out lines 42 to 44.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this important anti-poaching amendment is an amendment I spoke to when moving Amendment No. 34. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Interpretation of the principal Act]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 9, line 16, at end insert—
(""animal foodstuffs", for the purposes of sections 33(3) and 33A(2) of this Act, includes foodstuffs intended for consumption by farmed deer;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 9 of the Bill disapplies the 1959 Act in respect of farmed deer with the exception of the provisions relating to dealing in venison and the use of firearms for slaughter.
Deer farming was relatively new in 1982 and there were no codes to regulate the management of farmed deer. However, there is now sufficient protection and regulation for farmed deer, which can now be generally excluded from the 1959 Act.
However, we do not intend that farmed deer, which are classed as livestock, should not be given the same protection as other livestock under Sections 6, 7, Section 33(3) and Section 33A(2) of the Act. These sections provide protection for livestock for injury, or overgrazing or competition for foodstuffs from wild

1457
deer. This protection is equally relevant to farmed deer as to other livestock, and this minor amendment will give them that protection. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 9, line 43, at end insert ("and, for the purposes of sections 6 and 7 of this Act, includes farmed deer.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with my apologies to the House, I omitted to say, when moving Amendment No. 52, that I was also speaking to Amendment No. 55, which is connected to the purpose of Amendment No. 52. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 10, line 13, at end insert—
("take", in relation to deer, means take alive, and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 22. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 10, line 14, leave out ("includes") and insert ("excludes").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment which, again, was moved in our Committee proceedings. It seeks to exclude the use of aircraft, hovercraft or boats in the moving of deer for the purposes of culling them. It goes back to our debate on welfare. Some of us remain convinced that the use of a helicopter, particularly to drive wild deer must amount to an abuse of their welfare. It is in that spirit that I move this amendment again.
When he comes to answer, I would be grateful if my noble friend could confirm the understanding which I thought I gathered at the Committee stage that, in fact, helicopters can only be used by the owners and occupiers of land to drive deer. They could not be used by the Commission in any of the exercises we have been discussing earlier on this evening under Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill.
That would do something to set one's mind at rest, I suppose, but the basic fact remains that to drive wild deer with helicopters is, in my view, unacceptably cruel. I beg leave to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I very much share the concerns of my noble friend Lord Pearson about this. I referred to it in Committee and I subsequently had the benefit of looking at the draft code of practice or code guidelines for moving deer by vehicle or aircraft with the intention of carrying out essential culling work.
1458
When one looks at them one realises exactly what is at stake and what an unattractive proposition it involves. I am only too well aware from my professional experience of just how valuable, because of their manoeuvrability on all sorts of terrain, helicopters are. I certainly do not know whether my noble friend has carried out any consultation with those who might be asked to undertake this task but, so far as I can tell, what the code of practice seeks to do or seeks to allow by means of helicopters, or to control by means of helicopters, leads to an unacceptable state of affairs which I think would be very much resented all over the place by a great many people who would feel it is an horrific way to treat deer.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, perhaps we should also consider scrambler motor bikes and quad motor bikes which can go pretty fast if they are driven professionally and would also harass the deer very cruelly.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Pearson and spoken to by my noble friends Lord Glenarthur and Lord Massereene is something to which the Government have given considerable attention. In fact, it is something to which the Red Deer Commission itself has given considerable attention in that it was seeking to take a long-term view as to what procedures in exceptional circumstances may be necessary over the next number of years. I do not think anyone who has put the amendment forward sees this as being something that will be a normal activity. It will just be used in exceptional circumstances.
I respect the experience on this subject of the three noble Lords who have spoken, especially as I remember my noble friend Lord Pearson saying that he had in the past sought to drive deer by helicopter, and I know that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur knows something about helicopters. Therefore, I am not impervious to the suggestions they have put to me.
The first point to make is that the definition of vehicles as it stands was taken from the Deer Act 1991 and is therefore a standard definition incorporating the types of vehicle which might conceivably be found in a rural or a remote setting. Whether a vehicle—for instance, a helicopter—would actually be used to move deer would depend on the practicalities of each instance and in particular the size of the task and the nature of the terrain. Any use of vehicles will be subject to the code of practice to be prepared by the commission which will have welfare at its heart.
It is also important to keep in mind when considering the question of deer and vehicles that deer can be moved at present using vehicles. It is only an offence at present to use vehicles to move deer if the operation is carried out on unenclosed land with the intention of taking, killing or injuring them. It is our intention that the use of vehicles to move deer for essential culling operations

1459
be subject to commission authorisation and a code of practice. The main aim of driving deer is to move them to areas where they can be more easily managed. It may simply be to move them to areas where the ground is less vulnerable to the numbers of deer involved. The commission will only consider issuing authorisations to drive deer when the provision of the code of good practice is met and there is a real need to take action in this way. I can reassure my noble friend Lord Pearson that only owners and occupiers can apply for this authorisation. The commission itself cannot, as it were, grant the authorisation to use helicopters.
I would encourage noble Lords perhaps to ponder my response to this amendment. The use of helicopters, hovercraft and so forth is something that we do not see as being an immediate need. I shall also ponder the amendment between now and Third Reading. If we are all thinking about this I am sure that we will come up with the wise and right answer.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I suppose we have no option but to ponder. My noble friend suggested that I had sought to drive deer by helicopter. What I have tried to do is to move them out of a modern plantation, and that does not work. The idea of moving deer by helicopter to a place where they can then be left and that that will be that is unlikely to be accurate. I should have thought that as soon as they get to wherever they have been moved to they will just turn around and go back to where they came from. I am afraid, as my noble friend Lord Glenarthur mentioned, that the draft code of practice for moving deer by helicopter with the intention of carrying out essential culling work remains a very disturbing document.
While my noble friend ponders, I must ask him to understand that a number of us have really made up our minds on this subject. I do not think we can be persuaded that it is an acceptable way to treat deer. However, in the meantime, I am most grateful for what he said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 61 to 75:
Page 11, line 33, after first ("or") insert ("taken and").
Page 11, line 42, after ("killing") insert ("or taking").
Page 11, line 43, leave out ("the carcase of").
Page 11, line 43, at end insert ("or taken"").
Page 12, line 1, leave out ("the carcases (if any) of").
Page 12, line 1, at end insert ("taken or").
Page 12, leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert—
("(ii) for the word "carcases" there shall be substituted the word "deer"; and").
Page 12, line 28, after ("poaching)") insert ("—

(a) in subsection (1), after the words "legal right" there shall be inserted the words "to take or kill deer";

(b) the proviso to subsection (1) shall cease to have effect; and").

Page 12, line 34, leave out from ("(2)") to end of line 35 and insert ("—
1460

(i) for the words "to take or wilfully" there shall be substituted the words "wilfully to"; and

(ii) for the words from "as" to the end of that subsection there shall be substituted the words "of a class prescribed in an order under section 23A(1) of this Act";").

Page 12, line 49, at end insert ("and—
(f) in subsection (5), the word "alive" shall cease to have effect.").
Page 13, leave out lines 5 to 11.
Page 14, line 4, leave out (""found on") and insert (""the carcases"").
Page 14, line 5, after ("words") insert (""any deer").
Page 14, line 44, at end insert ("and").
Page 15, line 3, leave out from ("determine.") to end of line 5.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 61 to 75 inclusive. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Repeals]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 15, line 46, column 3, at end insert ("In section 22, the proviso to subsection (1).").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 76 when moving Amendment No. 22. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 77 and 78:
Page 15, line 46, column 3, at end insert ("In section 23(5), the word "alive".").
Page 16, line 8, column 3, after ("33,") insert ("in subsection (3), the words "the carcases of," and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to both these amendments when moving Amendment No. 22. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Prescribed Proceedings) Amendment Regulations 1996
9.6 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th February he approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these regulations make provision for the uprating of eligibility limits and for other useful changes to the system of legal aid in Scotland. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1996
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1996
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1996
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

City of Westminster Bill [H.L.]
A Message was brought from the Commons that they had made the following orders:
That the promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as were made by him in the last Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during any previous Session to which they desire the concurrence of the Lords.
House adjourned at ten minutes past nine o'clock.

  Dunblane: Inquiry
  Dunblane: Inquiry
  Nitrate in Vegetables: EC Legislation
  Nitrate in Vegetables: EC Legislation
  Agriculture Council, 18th-19th March
  Agriculture Council, 18th-19th March
  Former Yugoslavia: UK Army Reservists
  Former Yugoslavia: UK Army Reservists
  Operation Granby: Chemical Warfare Agents
  Operation Granby: Chemical Warfare Agents
  Chemical Warfare Agents: Detection
  Chemical Warfare Agents: Detection
  Recruitment and Assessment Services: Staff Transfers
  Recruitment and Assessment Services: Staff Transfers
  Former Yugoslavia: US Forces and NATO
  Former Yugoslavia: US Forces and NATO
  Bosniac-Croat Federation Armed Forces: Funding
  Bosniac-Croat Federation Armed Forces: Funding
  Arctic Organisations UK Participation
  Arctic Organisations UK Participation
  Factortame: Judgment
  Factortame: Judgment
  Subsidiarity
  Subsidiarity
  European Court of Justice: Interpretations
  European Court of Justice: Interpretations
  Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and Chadrel Rinpoche
  Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and Chadrel Rinpoche
  Secure Accommodation: Expenditure
  Secure Accommodation: Expenditure
  US Military Intelligence
  US Military Intelligence
  Murder and Manslaughter Offences (Young People)
  Murder and Manslaughter Offences (Young People)
  Offences Committed by UK Nationals Overseas: Review
  Offences Committed by UK Nationals Overseas: Review
  Local Taxes: Debt Enforcement
  Local Taxes: Debt Enforcement
  Environmental Protection: Duty of Care
  Environmental Protection: Duty of Care
  Schools: Wheelchair Access
  Schools: Wheelchair Access