Sitting of 4 December 1997

Preamble
The house met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
Madam Speaker[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  The Minister was asked—
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Fishing
    Mrs. Humble: When he last held discussions with representatives of the fishing industry. [17665]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I regularly meet fishing industry representatives and I last met the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations on 19 November.
    Mrs. Humble: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware from our recent correspondence that the Fleetwood fishermen welcome some aspects of the new decommissioning scheme but are concerned about the separation of licence and track record from the value of the boat itself, which may result in loss of quota to the port and, indeed, to the country. In his discussions with representatives of the fishing industry, has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to consider this matter?
    Mr. Morley: This year's decommissioning round was a pilot scheme. It allowed for the first time the separation of track record from the value of the vessel. This was generally welcomed by the industry. There is an issue, however, about the socio-economic effects of this approach. My hon. Friend has been a leading campaigner on the issue, along with the local authority in the area she represents, and she has convinced me that it is a matter that we need to bear in mind in future to ensure that we protect the interests of fishing ports along our coasts.
    Mr. Gill: In the Minister's discussions with the industry, has he found anyone who supports the notion of reducing the minimum landing size of plaice, for example, from 27 cm to 22 cm? Given that so much of the regulation that stems from the common fisheries policy is ostensibly to do with conservation, how can the Minister justify reducing the minimum landing size to below that at which the fish could reasonably be expected to breed? What will he do about it?
    Mr. Morley: I do not justify that. I spoke against it at the Council of Ministers, and submitted a reservation on the basis that the minimum landing size was too low. I argued that it sent out all the wrong signals to the fishing industry at a time when we were arguing for conservation. The logic behind the move was to match mesh size with discards so as to reduce discards, which is a sensible objective. The answer, of course, is to increase mesh sizes if we want to increase the minimum landing size. Fishermen can do that voluntarily now and I hope that more of them will follow the example of those who do, who are concentrating on quality, not quantity.

    Bananas
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What actions he is taking to ensure that the terms of United Kingdom agreements with the Windward Islands regarding banana imports remain in force. [17666]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): When I met the Prime Ministers of the Windward Islands recently, I gave them my assurance that I will do all in my power to ensure that we meet our historic obligations to their countries. I have told Commissioner Fischler and my colleagues on the EU Agriculture Council of my concerns and of my determination to do everything I can to secure agreement on acceptable new arrangements during the UK presidency in the first half of next year.
    Mr. Chapman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I say how disappointed we are at the World Trade Organisation's decision in relation to banana producers in the Caribbean? I thank my right hon. Friend for his principled stand on the issue and urge him on in his efforts to ensure that our European partners join us in seeking a solution to the problem. What progress is my right hon. Friend making in getting backing from our European partners?
    Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I share his disappointment at the World Trade Organisation's ruling against the existing banana regime, which is so important to the Windward Islands, Belize, Jamaica and other African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.
    The reality is that we shall have to negotiate a new regime that, first, is agreed by our European partners and, secondly, is agreed by the WTO. It is our determination that we should succeed in these objectives.
    Mr. Wells: Does the Minister realise that it was a commitment by the Labour Government of 1945 to 1951 that enabled the Windward Islands to diversify out of sugar and into bananas and that that is the historical background against which he is working? Does he also realise that only he, with his enthusiasm, drive and determination, can get a satisfactory settlement out of Europe?
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes, and I recognise the hon. Gentleman's personal experience and expertise in these matters in the Caribbean. He is right. We have an historic obligation to these tiny countries. I cannot for the life of me see why the powerful nations of the west, with their

    471
    huge economies, should take any satisfaction in placing in jeopardy the economies of these tiny Caribbean countries. We shall work, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested I should, to seek a satisfactory solution to the problem. I have already made it clear to my colleagues in Europe and to the ambassador of the United States that we shall look to them for help.

    Hill Farming
    Mr. Greenway: If he will visit the North Yorkshire Moors national park to discuss the current state of hill farming. [17667]
    Dr. John Cunningham: I have no immediate plans to visit the North Yorkshire Moors national park, although I do admire it. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has a number of visits planned to Yorkshire and Humberside.
    Mr. Greenway: If and when the Minister comes up to North Yorkshire, I think that he will find the farmers there more responsible, perhaps, than some of their Welsh colleagues, but every bit as angry. I have never known them so angry. Let us be clear: they are angry with him for his failure to take any action in response to the rapid decline in hill farm incomes of recent months and the fact that many farmers now face bankruptcy. It is not just about beef; lamb prices are also under pressure. I appeal to him to use the hill livestock compensatory allowances and the European monetary compensation arrangements. Frankly, if the present unprecedented crisis does not justify the use of those schemes, how bad must things get before he will act?
    Dr. Cunningham: I am well aware of the problem with the incomes of farmers in less favoured areas generally and of beef producers on the hills in particular. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but total livestock subsidies to all farmers in the less favoured areas are estimated to be worth about £530 million in the coming year. I hope to make an announcement about hill livestock compensatory allowance decisions soon. He is wrong to imply that we are doing nothing about this matter. As he would expect, these matters are under active discussion with my colleagues. As for his point about agrimonetary compensation, I remind him that because of the Fontainebleau compromise negotiated by Baroness Thatcher, for every £100 that we might pay under that heading, £71 would have to come from the United Kingdom taxpayer.
    Mr.Quinn: Does my right hon. Friend agree—I am sure that my colleague from North Yorkshire, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) does—that the real challenges facing hill farmers lie in the future of the common agricultural policy? Farmers in my constituency, which is not many miles from that of the hon. Gentleman, are concerned that we are throwing the baby out with the bath water. I commend to my right hon. Friend an early visit to North Yorkshire, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
    Dr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend that at the root of these problems—and the causes of the difficulties that farmers face—is the failure of existing
    472
    provisions in the CAP to provide a long-term, viable income for farmers. It is to that problem that we must look in the longer term, although we shall try to deal with the immediate issues in a different way.
    Mr. Curry: When the Minister visits North Yorkshire, will he make two very important points to farmers and consumers? First, it is undoubted that scientific research has shown that bovine spongiform encephalopathy is a much nastier disease than we first thought but, secondly, exposure to it is dropping like a stone because of the measures that have been taken. There is therefore no reason whatever why people should cease to eat beef or to regard it with suspicion.
    Dr. Cunningham: I agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is not the Conservative party's concern about hill farm incomes rather synthetic? Only two years ago, the average net income of a hill farmer was £10,500 and at the beginning of the decade, under the Conservative Government, it was just over £8,000. Is it not a bit rich for Conservative Members to complain about hill farm incomes?
    Dr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is astonishing how quickly Conservative Members have flipped. Each time we come to the Chamber, they demand more and more public expenditure at the taxpayer's expense.
    Mr. Jack: Is the Minister aware that North Yorkshire hill farmers looking at cattle prices in Banbury yesterday would have realised that they had hit a 20-year low? Does he recognise that, 20 years ago, there was a Labour Government? That is why beef farmers have lost all confidence in the Minister. Will he give us his reaction to the leader article in The Daily Telegraph, which yesterday accused him of going over the top? Instead of pouring more tea and sympathy down the throats of hard-pressed beef farmers, will he tell the House what he intends to do to help them? Will he maintain the level of hill livestock compensatory allowances? Will he remove the extra costs of the Meat Hygiene Service from the backs of farmers? Will he get rid of the upper limit on weight in the over-30-months scheme? Will he mitigate the effects of the new cattle passport scheme on hard-pressed beef farmers?
    Dr. Cunningham: No.
    Mr. Jack: The Minister has just shown a "couldn't care less" attitude towards the British beef farming industry. He knows, because he and the Treasury have confirmed it to me, that Britain's Fontainebleau rebate will increase next year due to underspend on community programmes in dairy, cereals and livestock. Those are the facts. Why is the Minister not asking for this money for the beef industry now?
    Dr. Cunningham: As ever, the right hon. Gentleman has not only got the facts wrong, he cannot even present them coherently. He has just made, yet again—for the fifth or sixth time—a long list of demands for more and more public expenditure. The previous Government,

    473
    of which he was a member, made no provision for that expenditure. Not for one penny of it did they make any provision. We are operating on the plans that the previous Government prepared for this financial year and for which Conservatives Members voted. It is a bit late for them to change their minds now.

    Farmland Birds
    Ms McCafferty: What measures he is putting in place to protect and encourage birdlife on farms. [17668]
    Mr. Morley: Extensive measures are currently in place to protect and encourage birdlife on farms.
    Ms McCafferty: Although I congratulate the Government on their commitment to biodiversity, which is in stark contrast to the almost lack of interest shown by former Conservative Ministers, I urge my hon. Friend to take particular account of the rapid decline in certain species of bird. In particular, the skylark population has declined by 54 per cent. in the past 20 years.[Interruption.] What further plans do the Government have to protect endangered species, so that bird lovers—[Interruption.]—can continue to enjoy all the species that are found in our country?[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should be able to put her question properly. I shall have no nonsense from male Opposition Members. Put your question properly, Ms McCafferty, and do not be intimidated.
    Ms McCafferty: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am not intimidated—perhaps slightly confused, but certainly not intimidated. What are the Government's further plans to protect endangered birdlife so that it can continue to be enjoyed by bird lovers not only in my constituency but throughout Britain? What measures will the Government take to encourage farmers to take up such schemes?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend asks an important question about the decline of many formerly common farmland species. The Government are to introduce an arable stewardship pilot scheme that is designed to assist farmland bird species. We are also encouraging the pesticides forum to promote integrated crop management, which will reduce the amount of pesticides used. In addition, we are supporting a number of research and development schemes that address some of the issues behind the decline.
    Mr. Baldry: The Minister will appreciate that it is much easier for farmers to have regard to birdlife when their holdings are being run profitably. It is difficult for many beef farmers to concentrate on birdlife or anything else when they face considerable economic difficulties. That was clearly evidenced by the prices in Banbury market yesterday because they were the lowest that anyone has known for a long time. Farmers are entitled to know what help the Government intend to seek for them from the European Union.
    Madam Speaker: Order. That is not relevant to the question, which was about birdlife on farms. We shall take the next question.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Robathan: If he will make statement on progress on reform of the CAP. [17669]
    Dr. John Cunningham: The November Agriculture Council called upon the Commission to table early proposals for CAP reform. I will aim to make as much progress as possible on these proposals during the UK presidency of the EU.
    Mr. Robathan: I wish the right hon. Gentleman well. Does he agree that birdlife is being damaged by the intensive practices that are encouraged by the CAP? Gentlemen farmers—[Interruption.] Ordinary farmers from Ireland and, I am sure, gentlemen farmers who attended a meeting of the British-Irish parliamentary group this week told us that their landscape, their environment and their birdlife are being damaged by the intensive farming practices that are encouraged by the CAP. As the Minister knows, farmers' incomes are being dramatically damaged by the CAP and the consumer is paying through the nose for it. What dramatic steps does the Minister intend to take to reform the CAP because some of us think that it is not reformable in its current form?
    Dr. Cunningham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. He is right: under the CAP as presently constituted, we spend about £30 billion a year and end up damaging the environment, threatening wildlife and infuriating farmers and consumers alike. It must be a fairly stupid policy that, at such a cost, produces such results. We are seeking dramatic reforms to the arable, beef and dairy regimes. The hon. Gentleman must know our position, because it is almost completely coincident with that of the previous Government. We must get agreement, or at least a majority, for reform among the 15 members of the Council. That will not be easy.
    Mr. Pike: What are my right hon. Friend's priorities for CAP reform in the context of eastern European nations that are on the fast track for joining the Union?
    Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government seek and are working for a successful enlargement of the European Union into central and eastern Europe. However, unless we take action now, as the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) said, to change the common agricultural policy, that successful enlargement will not be possible.
    Mr. Tyler: Does the Minister agree that whatever may be happening to the incidence of BSE, the incidence of memory loss among former Tory Ministers is quite dramatic? Does he acknowledge that within the framework of the CAP, under the previous Government and, I fear, under the present Government, competitor countries have received a great deal more assistance in dealing with the livestock sector than we have? Does he agree that a number of countries, including Ireland, are effectively subsidising their beef farmers to export their products to this country? Does he agree that other countries are taking similar steps to assist their livestock farmers in a way that our farmers are not assisted, and that in other countries hill support is much more effective than it is in this country?

    475
    Has the Minister seen this morning's headline in The Western Morning News: "For God's sake help us"? Does the Minister acknowledge that we now have a major crisis in the livestock sector? Although it is true that the former regime must bear their share of the blame, some responsibility now lies at his door.
    Dr. Cunningham: I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's view that collective amnesia is a dangerous form of affliction on the Conservative Benches.
    I recognise that the problems described by the hon. Gentleman are extremely serious for hill farmers in particular. I emphasise that we are discussing how and whether we may be able to provide extra support for them. When I am able to make an announcement about that decision, I shall do so.

    Beef Ban
    Mr. Ainger: What progress has been made on lifting the European ban on the export of British beef. [17670]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We expect the Commission to present a draft proposal for the export certified herds scheme to the Standing Veterinary Committee shortly. This UK-wide scheme would operate initially only in Northern Ireland until the British computerised tracing system is fully functional.
    In October, we submitted proposals for a UK scheme to export beef from cattle born after 1 August 1996. We are expecting an opinion from the Commission's Scientific Steering Committee on that proposal next week.
    Mr. Ainger: Both sides of the House will welcome that statement, as it clearly indicates progress towards a lifting of the beef export ban. I have two questions following my hon. Friend's answer. First, can he assure the House that the beef quality standards now enforced in Britain will be rigorously enforced on any meat imported into this country? Secondly, bearing in mind the crisis that is hitting beef producers, will he review the current compensation regime—within the cash limits that he inherited—to ensure that compensation is targeted at beef producers who are clearly suffering enormous difficulties?
    Mr. Rooker: On my hon. Friend's first point, the statement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food included imported beef. It remains the case that, from 1 January next year, the decision made in the summer regarding the removal of specified risk materials by importers must apply, so that all beef sold in this country from January will be of the same high standard as beef grown in this country.
    The answer to my hon. Friend's second question is yes, we would review the compensation scheme within the totality of the existing spending limits. We are constantly searching for alternatives, although few organisations are proposing alternatives. Last week, in Crewe, members of the National Farmers Union pointed out that, in the old days, a clapped-out old milker at the end of its life would be worth a fiver, whereas under the over-30-months scheme it is worth several hundred pounds—money that could equally be transferred to beef cattle.
    Mr. Tom King: Does the Minister accept that, in his efforts to have the export ban lifted and in his consultation
    476
    about further potential problems associated with BSE, there will be wide public support for the adoption of option 1—informing the public of the minute risk that might exist, but not introducing further measures that might inhibit the activities of the meat industry and of farmers?
    In my experience as a Member of Parliament for more than 25 years, I do not recall such a serious crisis in the farming industry as the one now facing it. I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the Minister that this is a time when the concerns of the farming industry must be recognised. I strongly urge that efforts be made to help with the compensatory amount. I believe that sterling will stay high, so the problems of the farming industry will continue.
    Mr. Rooker: I respect the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. In my modest 23 years' experience in the House, no Minister would have been taken seriously if he had stood at the Dispatch Box and said that he had knowingly allowed infected material into the food chain.
    Judy Mallaber: I welcome the statement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that the Government are considering the case for a full inquiry into the development of BSE and its links with CJD, as requested by families such as the Warnes in my constituency whose son, Chris, tragically died a few weeks ago. Does my hon. Friend accept that that could help to restore confidence in the beef industry and in our standards of safety? Will he ask our right hon. Friend for an early statement on whether there will be an inquiry, because many families will be waiting for such a statement?
    Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend raises the issue in another way. This is a moral issue; people are dying. I know that that is dismissed by Conservative Members, but people are dying. It is incumbent on the Government to take all possible steps to find out how this came about. We hope to make an announcement shortly.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I welcome the confirmation from No. 10 Downing street this morning that, in due course, there will be an independent inquiry into the whole tragic history of BSE. However, will the Minister acknowledge that, although we hope that that will bring clarity to bear, it is a matter of profound regret that the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did not bring such clarity to bear on the issue with which he was dealing? That is clear from the overnight surveys conducted among the public, supermarkets and restaurants, for example.
    Against the backdrop of the deepening crisis at our ports, the statements made in the Dail today by the Irish Premier, the fact that the Irish Agriculture Minister is having discussions today with officials from the Minister's Department and the fact that farmers in Scotland, Wales and England have been moved to such uncharacteristic behaviour during the week—a situation that is liable only to be inflamed by yesterday's announcement—will the Minister recognise the deep seriousness of the issue?
    Will he perhaps go further than his right hon. Friend and say whether, in terms of HLCAs, the cuts that the Government have proposed and implemented on the

    477
    OTMS or the access to European funding because of green pound revaluations, there was a hint that something will be done as a matter of urgency to help the income problem now and to try to calm events at the ports, which is liable only to thwart national efforts to lift the BSE ban?
    Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman asked about an inquiry. I can tell him that the report this morning is clearly not true because no final decision has yet been made. When we are able to make a decision—it is being actively considered across Whitehall—about an inquiry into the BSE legacy that we inherited on 1 May, we will be at the House pretty quickly to announce it. I can give the House that promise.
    On the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question, we cannot govern by hint. Yesterday' s statement was crystal clear about the proposals that had been put, the recommendations that had been made and the Government's action. We have to condemn, as I hope would all hon. Members, illegal activities taking place at the ports.
    Mr. Beard: Can my hon. Friend say what progress has been made in developing a means of diagnosing BSE before the symptoms become obvious?
    Mr. Rooker: I cannot give details on that, but plenty of scientists are looking into it. There is to be a meeting shortly of independent scientists, my officials and independent assessors, who will examine a protocol to take forward a particular experiment in which it is claimed that there may be some advance warning of BSE. This is an issue about which the scientists have been arguing among themselves. I have done everything I can to facilitate progress on this matter, and as soon as we have anything to report, we will do so.
    Mr. Paice: Contrary to what the Minister said a few moments ago, if there is an underspend on European programmes leading to an increased rebate, using the increased rebate to support agriculture will not be an increase in public expenditure.
    On yesterday's statement, now that the Minister has admitted that there will have to be consultation on the deboning issue—[Interruption.]—he said it yesterday, and he admitted it again this morning—will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why the Minister did not consult before choosing the most extreme option? He knows full well that he is consulting on green top milk, because he has received a recommendation that it should be banned. He is consulting ahead of a ban in that instance. Why did he not follow the same pattern in considering the matter of deboning beef and BSE?
    Will the new consultation include a review of the Government's decision in the light of the three other available options—realising, as the Minister of State rightly says, that every Minister must have the utmost regard for human health, but also that the proportionate risk is very small compared with many other issues? Will he now re-examine the three options, perhaps ask the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee to re-examine them, and narrow them down to one recommendation—particularly because of widespread concerns expressed today by industry, the media, consumers and almost everyone who has been affected by yesterday's decision?
    Mr. Rooker: I have to dismiss outright the hon. Gentleman's analogy between both consultations on
    478
    green top milk and on SEAC's advice and recommendations, because there is no comparison, and the view that the Government should consult on all our decisions. We have made our decision based on common sense judgment and the independent scientific advice that we have received. We do not intend to review the decision, but we are consulting on the best way forward. It will be a very short consultation. My right hon. Friend the Minister made it clear yesterday that we would consult.
    SEAC proposed options, and it was our responsibility as a Government to choose the preferred way forward—the one that would be most practical and most understandable by the public. We had to choose the option which placed public safety first and was easy for the public to understand—requiring all meat to be taken off the bone—and not an option that would be less than clear, because that way is chaos. I know that that it is difficult for Conservative Members to understand although they were in government a short time ago. The issue could have festered for weeks, causing uncertainty and massive damage to the industry. The Government are not prepared—as is implied in the hon. Gentleman's question—to put public health at risk.
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is very real concern, approaching despair, in many less favoured areas—particularly in Wales—and among the ranks of beef producers? Does he agree also that, although there is real and genuine concern and hardship, it is in the best interests of those farmers to works together with the Government by refusing to take part in lawless acts and by developing a long-term strategy, including reform of the common agricultural policy and the restoration of confidence in beef products? Is that not the best long-term solution?
    Mr. Rooker: I whole-heartedly agree with my hon. Friend's views, and I hope that everyone outside the House will take the message. Our beef—as my right hon. Friend the Minister and others have made it absolutely clear—is safe and, we claim, the safest anywhere in Europe. There are more checks on our beef before it reaches the shop than there are anywhere else. We have no problem whatsoever about that. The beef and beef products produced by farmers in my hon. Friend's constituency are good quality meat. Farmers damage their own industry and the confidence that we are trying to rebuild in it by actions at the ports.

    Dairy Farming
    Mr. Gray: What steps he is taking to support the dairy farming industry. [17671]
    Mr. Rooker: My right hon. Friend the Minister is pressing for radical reform of the dairy regime in Brussels. This will be in the long-term interests of the UK dairy industry as a whole.
    Mr. Gray: Does the Minister not realise that the 250 dairy farmers in North Wiltshire are now close to desperation? Does he accept that his failure to apply for EU compensatory payments is painting the bleakest possible picture for mixed family farms in my constituency—the worst in the history of modern agriculture—and that his

    479
    mishandling of yesterday's announcement will contribute to that feeling of desperation among my farmers? I challenge the Minister to join me in Chippenham market, where I shall be tomorrow, to explain to those farmers why he chose the safest possible option under the SEAC recommendations—the option that will mean more desperation for beef and milk farmers?
    Mr. Rooker: We plead guilty to choosing safest options. I do not know the specifics of the hon. Gentleman's farmers—he seems to claim ownership of them—but the fact is that dairy farming is one of the most profitable sectors of British agriculture—[Interruption.] I repeat, it is one of the most profitable sectors of British agriculture.
    The EU dairy regime is a major obstacle in the way of our dairy farmers getting their products on the world market. That is why my right hon. Friend is working hard in Brussels to remove that obstacle.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Was not option 1 the easy option—the option that the Conservatives adopted over the past 10 years and which created the crisis in agriculture today? Now they complain about it and demand that we spend public money on it.
    Mr. Rooker: I completely agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister accept that dairy and beef farming go together and depend on each other? There are a great many dairy and beef farmers in Macclesfield and Cheshire, and my family have been involved in and associated with farming for more than 150 years. I am deeply depressed by the problems facing the industry at the moment. I am pleased that the Minister of Agriculture is on the Treasury Bench to hear me say that every sector of the UK farming industry is depressed—a phenomenon that I have never known in my 25 years in the House, and which my family have not known in their 150 years of association with farming. Will the Government do something to alleviate the plight of agriculture?
    Mr. Rooker: I will not bandy family memberships of this House with the hon. Gentleman, except to say that he does double up in a way that I cannot—
    Mr. Jack: Cheap.
    Mr. Rooker: It was not cheap: the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) raised the issue himself. There are problems with fluctuations in the currency. Livestock premium payments, however, will be wholly unaffected by the 14 per cent, change in the sterling rate this year, and arable payments for 1997 will be only 3 per cent, lower than in 1996. I repeat again: dairy farming is one of the most profitable sectors in British agriculture.

    Animal Welfare
    Mr. Coleman: When he last met representatives of the major animal welfare organisations. [17673]
    Mr. Morley: My colleagues and I have had a number of meetings with the major welfare organisations.
    Mr. Coleman: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will the Government be supporting the Bill introduced by
    480
    my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) to improve the welfare of animals in quarantine? Can he confirm that the days of animals being kept away from their owners for long periods will soon come to an end? That would be particularly welcome to elderly residents in my constituency.
    Mr. Morley: I can confirm that, we support the principle behind the Bill—improving welfare standards in quarantine establishments. Furthermore, we shall publish a list of the establishments that have signed up to the MAFF voluntary code.
    Mr. Blunt: Is the Minister aware that, when I go to my constituency tomorrow to meet representatives of the National Farmers Union—the organisation that looks after more animals than any other—I shall take a copy of today'sHansard to show how much the Government care about agriculture?
    Mr. Morley: I am not sure what that has to do with the question. The message that the hon. Gentleman should take to the farmers is that the Government are aware of their concerns and are following the budget for farm support laid down by the previous Government.

    Farm Incomes
    Mr. Prior: What assessment he has made of the impact of the strength of sterling on farm incomes. [17674]
    Mr. Rooker: Figures published earlier this week indicate that 1997 total income from farming in the United Kingdom has fallen by around 37 per cent. compared with 1996. It is exceptionally difficult to determine the extent to which that fall is due to currency factors or to predict how durable those income effects might be.
    Mr. Prior: The scale of the problem facing British farming today is exceeded only by the complacency and indifference of the Government. Does the Minister accept that we have lost vital export markets and that our farmers are having to compete with heavily subsidised imports from Europe? What is he going to do about that?
    Mr. Rooker: We are working for reform on a wide front. We are not wholly in control of the agenda. During our presidency next year, we shall push forward reform of many aspects of the common agricultural policy. The present system is unsustainable and very unfair to British agriculture. We believe that the Opposition agree with us on that.

  The Attorney-General was asked—
  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Justice Ministry
    Mr. Burnett: What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues about the proposals to bring the justice functions of Departments which are at present separate under a single Ministry. [17694]
    The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): I frequently discuss with colleagues possible ways of improving efficiency in the administration of justice. The Government have no plans to create a single Ministry of justice.
    Mr. Burnett: During those discussions, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be mindful of Sir Peter Middleton's recent report on the reform of legal aid and civil justice, which says:
    "A single Government Department should be responsible for all aspects of civil justice."
    The Attorney-General: Sir Peter Middleton confined himself solely to civil justice. The Lord Chancellor has responsibility for procedures in civil courts and their administration, so that is a matter for his Department. Sir Peter may have been casting his mind over a wider area and may have thought of tribunals and similar matters, which are without the Lord Chancellor's Department. We have no such proposals at present.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make clear what is happening in his Department, let alone any other justice Departments, in relation to the Crown Prosecution Service? Does he accept that it is in a thorough mess, following the U-turn that he announced last week on the appointment of the 42 Crown prosecutors—one for each police region? Does he accept that he was hasty in ordering the Director of Public Prosecutions to implement that at the same time as setting up Sir lain Glidewell's inquiry? He has had to back-track on the policy on Sir lain's advice. Will he clarify what is happening, when he expects action to be taken and what regard he intends to have to Sir Iain's report? Will he publish the correspondence between him, the DPP and Sir Iain, or put it in the Library?
    The Attorney-General: I will certainly put in the Library the letter from Sir kin Glidewell, which went to every senior member who had applied for one of the new posts in the CPS.
    The mess was created, I regret to have to say, by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) himself and those acting under his stewardship. It eventually emerged under Sir lain's interim conclusions that he realised that for the job to be carried out properly and to ensure that the mess that we inherited was dealt with adequately, more important and greater figures were needed in each of the 42 areas than had been envisaged when we took office.
    The problem is the magnitude of the task, the need to devolve, and the need to ensure that each of the 42 areas has a figure comparable with a chief constable so that the public know who is in charge of prosecutions locally. It is entirely due to the situation that we inherited.

    Cruelty to Animals (Prosecutions)
    Mr. Baker: in what proportion of police investigations into alleged cases of cruelty to animals referred to it, the case was prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service in the last year for which figures are available. [17695]
    The Attorney-General: The Crown Prosecution Service does not record the number of prosecutions by offence type. The information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost by a survey of case files held by the Crown Prosecution Service. Most cases of this type are investigated and prosecuted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
    Mr. Baker: Does the Attorney-General recognise that the public give a high priority to cases involving animal welfare in general, and especially to cases involving cruelty to animals? I am sure that hon. Members have postbags full of letters of concern from constituents about instances of animal cruelty. Does the Attorney-General share my disappointment that so many prosecutions are left to the RSPCA? That organisation does a wonderful job, but in a sense the fact that the RSPCA rather than the police undertakes the prosecutions downgrades the seriousness of the offences in some people's eyes. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear that he and the Government take cruelty to animals extremely seriously, that they will do all that they can to ensure that there are more prosecutions with longer sentences, and that cruelty to animals will be eliminated as far as possible?
    The Attorney-General: I fully share the hon. Gentleman's concern about cruelty to animals. Traditionally, the RSPCA has carried out investigations thoroughly and has prosecuted. The hon. Gentleman may have seen in The Times today a report of a substantial prosecution carried out successfully by the Crown Prosecution Service in which the RSPCA gave evidence. I myself used to prosecute on behalf of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; prosecution was the society's role and it was happy to carry it out. I am sure that if there is a need for further co-ordination, it can be done. The Crown Prosecution Service plays an important part, with the voluntary organisations, in the law enforcement steering group which co-ordinates the approach of all the agencies involved. I fully share the hon. Gentleman's concern.
    Mr. Kidney: In Stafford the RSPCA does excellent work across the whole range of animal welfare including, as the Attorney-General said, the prosecution of cases of cruelty in the magistrates court. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) is that the Crown Prosecution Service should work closely with the RSPCA and similar organisations to ensure the prosecution of cases of cruelty?
    The Attorney-General: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Crown Prosecution Service does so. As I said, there is a group called the wildlife law enforcement steering group, which was convened by the Department of the Environment some years ago. The Crown Prosecution Service is a member of that group, as are the Association of Chief Police Officers and the relevant statutory and voluntary agencies. I am confident that regular work has been done in the field; I rely on my professional experience as a young man.
    Mr. Sayeed: I am sorry that the Attorney-General is following the example of his ministerial comrades and not answering the substantive question, which was a simple one about how many cases of animal cruelty were

    483
    prosecuted by the CPS. All that his Department needed to do was to pick up the phone and ring the RSPB and the RSPCA. The right hon. and learned Gentleman could then have said where the majority of cases came from and how many were being prosecuted. Why can we not have some clear answers for a change?
    The Attorney-General: I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman either was not listening or is hard of hearing—[Interruption.] I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. I said specifically that the figures are not available. They were not available under the previous Administration, and they are not available now.

    Rape Cases
    Mr. Lock: What discussions he has had with the legal profession concerning cross-examination of complainants by unrepresented defendants in rape cases; and if he will make a statement. [17697]
    The Attorney-General: This is an important issue, which is being carefully considered by the working group on vulnerable witnesses, on which my Department is represented. The group is consulting very widely with the legal profession. I personally have had discussions with counsel in the case that has recently caused such concern. One of the counsel is a chair-designate of the Bar.
    Mr. Lock: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer and the care that is clearly being invested in the matter. It is very important that victims in rape cases should not have to undergo torture in court a second time unless it is absolutely necessary. Does he accept that a further problem is that counsel who prosecute cases for the Crown undertake a valuable job and are, to use an analogy from the other place, very much the thin cats of the Bar? Is there any evidence that cases—especially rape cases—are being lost because fees are too low to ensure adequate representation?
    The Attorney-General: I assure my hon. Friend that the prosecutors are certainly not fat cats. They are very hard working and are chosen exceedingly carefully to ensure that the best counsel is available; they are sympathetic, understanding and have experience of handling exceedingly difficult cases, especially when the issue of consent is raised. That is certainly my professional experience.
    There is no evidence whatever that cases are lost due to lack of remuneration. In fact, generally across the board, the conviction rate in contested cases is about 60 per cent—five percentage points higher than in 1991–92. A recent survey of rape cases shows that the conviction rate in jury trials is 48 per cent., even though such cases are evidentially much more difficult to prove. That is certainly my professional experience.
    Mr. Rowe: Given the very unhappy increase in the number of juveniles appearing in rape cases, does the Attorney-General agree that protection of juveniles in court cases is essential? Will he give an assurance that the Piggott report will be implemented in full? What other steps is he taking to ensure that juveniles especially are not subjected to such horrendous experience?
    The Attorney-General: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. I was engaged only a year past July in a case involving a number of juveniles in his part of the world. There is a working group which deals with vulnerable or intimidated witnesses. It has consulted far and wide and asked for comments. It is examining and calling evidence from the Law Society, the Criminal Bar Association of England and Wales, the Council of Circuit Judges, the Association of Provincial Stipendiary Magistrates and the Magistrates Association, among others. I very much hope that the report will be available before too long.
    A great deal can be done in the meantime. As regards children, applications can be made for evidence to be seen on video. As regards other vulnerable witnesses, applications can be made, in accordance with the guidelines of the Court of Appeal, for a screen to be erected to protect the victim witness from the defendant. That is frequently done and works exceedingly well. I am sure that the Lord Chancellor will listen very carefully to the working group if there are improvements to be made.

    Perjury
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of bringing prosecutions for alleged perjury. [17698]
    The Attorney-General: I meet the Director of Public Prosecutions frequently to discuss matters of mutual interest. It is not my practice to disclose the subject matter of our discussions.
    Mr. Prentice: Why is it that journalists from The Guardian can research, write and publish a book called "The Liar" about the arms dealer and former Conservative Cabinet Minister Jonathan Aitken, but the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis seems congenitally incapable—six months after the trial, which collapsed when Jonathan Aitken withdrew—of getting a report to the Crown Prosecution Service with regard to possible prosecution? What is the problem?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has been diligent and has tabled six questions for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The matters that my hon. Friend raises are being investigated by the police and are entirely a police matter. If the time comes, the police will report to the Director of Public Prosecutions. There is no obvious reason why I should be consulted, and in this case it would be expected that I would not be consulted.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Can the Attorney-General seriously expect any improvement in morale in the Crown Prosecution Service until such time as its lawyers are given rights of audience in the higher courts?
    The Attorney-General: The question is on the subject of perjury, and the hon. Gentleman raises a wider issue.
    Mr. Taylor: It is about the DPP.
    The Attorney-General: If the hon. Gentleman tables a question on rights of audience, I will seek to answer it. Procedures laid down by the previous Administration for consultation on rights of audience, including asking the
    486
    views of judges, have taken an interminably long time; years and years go by before any determination. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman, as a former Whip, voted for that measure six or seven years ago.
    Mr. Taylor: I am a Whip now.

Madam Speaker's Statement
3.31 pm
Madam Speaker: I wish to inform the House that I held a meeting this morning with the Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) and for Mid—Ulster (Mr. McGuinness), at their request. I do not normally comment in public on meetings that I have with Members, but I think it appropriate to do so on this occasion, as the matter is of general interest to the House. The Members concerned made representations to me about the restrictions on the use of House of Commons services and facilities at Westminster that apply to Members who do not take their seats.
Having listened carefully to their representations, I reaffirmed my decision of 14 May that those who choose not to take their seats should not have access to the benefits and facilities available in the House without also taking up their responsibilities as Members and participating in the democratic process. I reminded them that, as Speaker, I am bound by the law. Swearing the Oath, or affirming it, is a legal requirement that cannot be set aside by whim or any administrative action. Primary legislation would be needed to change the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866 or the form of the Oath. I told them that it was their refusal to swear or affirm that prevented them from taking their seats, not any action by the Speaker.
I pointed out that my decision does not discriminate against Sinn Fein: it applies equally to any Members not taking their seats for any reason. Those who do not take up their democratic responsibilities cannot have access to the facilities at Westminster that are made available to assist Members who do. I declined to allow those Members passes to the Palace of Westminster, because that would provide automatic access to many of the facilities not open to them. I told them that they were in effect asking for associate membership of this House. Such a status does not exist. There is no halfway house: they are part of the all. I reminded them that they are
488
allowed, of course, the use of free stationery and postage, which enables them to take up issues on behalf of their constituents, and they also have access to Ministers, as we all have.
Mr. Tony Benn: May I ask you a question arising from your statement, Madam Speaker? I appreciate the authority of the Chair, but I put it to you that, in May, the proceedings of the House were completely altered by your statement then, because the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) was previously a Member of Parliament under the rules which would have allowed him to take advantage of the facilities of the House.
The effect of the law to which you referred—the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866—is to deny people who have elected a Member of Parliament a Member who is able to use the House, and to deny us access to the views of Members who have been elected. The whole question of the Oath needs to be considered. At one time, Jews, Catholics and humanists were kept out of Parliament. There is no oath for the European Parliament. Privy Councillors take an Oath of obedience to the Queen, and then take contrary oaths when they go to the Commission and say that they take no notice of any other Government. The time has come for the matter to be looked at.
Finally, Madam Speaker, will you recognise that even your statement today is of such major constitutional importance that you would be helped if the House had a chance to debate it and to reach a decision, rather than rely solely on a statement made from the Chair?
Madam Speaker: I am not taking questions on my statement—I am simply reaffirming what I said in May. I met the two Members at their request, and it is right that I should tell the House factually about the exchanges that took place. If there are to be any changes to the Oath, that is not a matter for me. I am sure that the House has listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—I certainly have.

Long-term Care
3.35 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
As people approach old age, many become anxious about how they will be looked after, how much it will cost and who will pay. At the general election, we promised that we would establish a royal commission to work out a fair system of funding long-term care for the elderly. Today, I can announce that the Queen has agreed to the setting up of the royal commission, whose terms of reference will encompass the United Kingdom as a whole. The new Government are keeping yet another of their election promises.
The royal commission is to be chaired by Professor Sir Stewart Sutherland, principal and vice-chancellor of Edinburgh university. I am confident that he will bring to the commission the skills and experience necessary to ensure rapid and vigorous scrutiny of the issues involved and practical cost-effective proposals to deal with them.
Sir Stewart will be joined by 11 other commissioners: Professor Dame June Clark, professor of community nursing at the university of Swansea; Sir Nicholas Goodison, deputy chairman of the Lloyds TSB Group and former chairman of the stock exchange; Dr. Iona Heath, a GP in Kentish town who represents the Royal College of General Practitioners on the British Geriatrics Society; Joel Joffe, a human rights lawyer, founder director and former deputy chairman of Allied Dunbar Assurance and chairman of Oxfam; David Lipsey, political editor of The Economist and a public interest director on the Personal Investment Authority; Professor Mary Marshall, director of the dementia services centre at the university of Stirling; Claire Rayner, writer, broadcaster and president of the Patients Association and a former nurse; Paula Ridley, the chair of the Liverpool housing action trust; Professor Robert Stout, professor of geriatric medicine at Queen's university Belfast; Robin Wendt, the former secretary of the Association of County Councils and a former civil servant at the then Department of Health and Social Security; and Len Woodley QC, a recorder who chaired the Laudat Mental Health Act inquiry.
Briefly, the commission's terms of reference will be to examine the short and long-term options for a sustainable system of funding of long-term care for elderly people, both in their own homes and in other settings, and to recommend how, and in what circumstances, the cost of such care should be apportioned between public funds and individuals. I have placed the full terms of reference in the Library of the House.
The commission will consider the implications of its recommendations for younger people who have long-term care needs because of illness or disability, and will have regard to the Government's continuing review of pensions.
The Government want both sound and swift advice, so the commission has been asked to report within 12 months—thus it will be different from previous royal commissions. This royal commission will be different from its predecessors in other ways, too. In the past, some royal commissions have included representatives of
490
pressure groups that were involved in the topics to be covered. This one does not. The commissioners are not supposed to be representatives. They are there to take a fresh look. However, pressure groups and representatives of users and carers should have their say, so the commission will establish a reference group of organisations to help to gather views and receive advice.
The chairman of the commission is today inviting a range of organisations to serve on that reference group. It will include charities and other groups that are involved in long-term care, the financial services sector, the health service, local government and other service providers, together with representatives of the major religious faiths in the United Kingdom. By that means, the commission will be able to draw on the most up-to-date experience of users and carers.
The commissioners will make visits throughout the country to listen to other users and carers. They plan to be "out and about," so that they can really get the full flavour of the current concerns in different parts of the country.
The task of this royal commission is neither simple nor easy, but it is important. The present situation cannot go on much longer. People are entitled to security and dignity in their old age, so we must find a way in which to fund long-term care which is fair and affordable both for the individual and for the taxpayer. With the independent advice of the royal commission, I hope that we shall be able to establish a consensus from which we can fashion a sustainable system of long-term care that will meet the needs of elderly people well into the new century.
Mr. John Maples: This is a very serious problem; a long lead time is required to do anything through policy changes. Before the election, the Labour party was critical of the means test and of people being forced to sell their homes, but its only policy was to set up a royal commission. I am concerned about the use of a royal commission. It is usually a way of kicking things into the long grass for a long time.
Will the Secretary of State assure us that he will ensure that it sticks to the 12-month timetable, unlike the previous royal commission that was set up by a Labour Government, which was asked in the 1970s to examine the health service, and which succeeded in reporting two months after Labour had lost the 1979 general election—although, if that sequence of events is followed this time, we shall be happy to wait five years for it?
We also need a cast-iron guarantee on the timetable because of the Department of Health's failure to meet its timetable on the White Paper, which we expected in September, were told we would get in October and were promised in November. Will the Secretary of State assure us that we shall have it before Christmas? Is it true that the Prime Minister is so dissatisfied with the White Paper that he has taken over the drafting? Does that mean that the Secretary of State will be overruled on this, as he was on the formula one exemption? Will he assure us that his Department will not make as big a shambles of this as it has of the tobacco advertising directive? Today, his party's proposals have been contemptuously rejected at a meeting in Brussels, where he has succeeded in putting a new blocking minority in place.
Anyone who fought the election knows how important long-term residential care is for the elderly. People feel that it is desperately unfair that the present system often

491
requires them to sell their homes before they qualify for public funding, but we all know that, without a means test, public spending would soar, and, with an aging population, the problem is getting worse.
During the previous Parliament, the previous Government raised the means test threshold substantially and, in May 1996, they published a White Paper entitled "A New Partnership for Care in Old Age". We proposed a partnership scheme to encourage people to take out insurance, enabling them to protect an additional £1·50 of assets for each £1 of insurance. Our Community Care (Residential Charges) Bill would have achieved that.
As the royal commission will take some time to report, will the Secretary of State consider bringing that Bill back before the House as a Government Bill, because it would give relief to many elderly people who will not be able to afford to wait for the royal commission to report? Will he ensure that the Bill's proposals are put before the royal commission?
We know that about 5 per cent. of 75 to 85-year-olds and 20 per cent. of people aged over 85 go into care for an average of about three years, at an average cost of £15,000 to £20,000. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is a clearly insurable risk, and that the solution in the long term must lie, at least in part, in greater private provision, via increased saving through pensions or life insurance, or some similar arrangement? Will he ensure that the royal commission examines how private savings might help to finance long-term care for the elderly, whether such provision should become a required part of people's pension packages, and, if so, how that might be encouraged?
Saving against the possibility of requiring long-term care through a working lifetime is feasible for a great many people, but it will take a generation to have a noticeable effect. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need schemes now that will enable more people to bear the costs of their care, while protecting their assets from the means test? Will he ensure that the royal commission looks carefully into possible ways to achieve that?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also ensure that the royal commission looks objectively at the relative merits of local authority and private sector provision and, in particular, at the way in which such competition is often stacked by local authorities in their own favour? Is he aware that several Labour-controlled local authorities are flying in the face of the law by giving active preference to their own homes? Will he ensure that the royal commission considers our proposals to separate the functions of commissioning care, providing care and acting as the inspector of private care homes? Does he agree that it is not right for all those functions to be in the same hands?
Finally, will the Secretary of State give the royal commission an honest estimate of the additional cost of running such homes that will arise from the imposition of a minimum wage?
Mr. Dobson: The chairman of the royal commission has been asked to complete the work of the commission within 12 months, and has said that he will. I have a suspicion that he will convince the other members of the
492
commission that they had better do what he wants, so I am confident that, subject to the usual caveats, they will do it within 12 months. I am not prepared to speculate on the conclusions that they may come to. There would be no point in appointing a group as distinguished and independent-minded as these people are, if I were to lay down the law as to what they could conclude before they had even met. We were used to the Tories as a Government of know-alls, and it appears that they are now the Opposition of know-alls and they want to tell the royal commission what to conclude. That is not our approach, even if it is that of the Tories.
We and older people in this country want a properly thought-out system—not a few spatchcocked arrangements— that will work to their advantage, will stay in place and will preferably commend the consensus support of all parties and thinking people at the end of the process. That is what we are aiming to do.
Mr. John Austin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the question to be addressed by the royal commission is not whether we can afford adequate long-term care, but how it is paid for? Does he share the view of the Select Committee on Health that we do not face a demographic time bomb that requires panic measures? Does he also share the view of that Committee that nursing care is a function of the health service and ought to be provided free, no matter what setting it is provided in?
Mr. Dobson: Again—forgive me for my laryngitis or whatever it is, Madam Speaker—my hon. Friend is certainly right to say that the question that has to be addressed is how we put in place arrangements for looking after elderly people properly. I am sure that that is what everyone wants. As for the demographic time bomb, it is worth pointing out that we expect an increase in the number of the very old of about 100,000 in the next decade, whereas that number has increased by 300,000 in the past decade. Therefore, in some senses at least, if one describes the next decade as the immediate future, the pressures will be declining rather than increasing. The object must be to ensure that all those who are growing old are looked after properly whatever their incomes, wherever they live and whatever their circumstances.
Mr. Simon Hughes: As distinct from the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, I welcome the creation of the royal commission and will not take issue with the Secretary of State today on matters that have nothing to do with his announcement.
First, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the commission is to consider long-term care for the elderly alone, or whether that is intended to include the care of other members of society, such as people with disabilities and the frail, who are also in need of such care? Secondly, will he say that the commission has been asked to study the needs both of present pensioners, who are in an established position in terms of what they expect, and of those who will become pensioners, as the two groups are in different situations?
Thirdly, and very important, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Commission pays particular attention to those who are being looked after at home?

493
That raises issues not only of domiciliary care and carers, but of the provision of care local to home. Take a constituency such as mine: many of the places to which one can go for care are in Eastbourne, which is hardly any good to someone who wants to stay with family in south London. The situation is the same in many other parts of the country.
Fourthly, will the commission have a remit to look into issues of prevention, rehabilitation and medication, which are relevant to how people can best be looked after? Is the commission to have the responsibility of ensuring that the quality of care is assured? I have been to many places that allegedly give care, but are more than grim and basically consign people to a live of inactivity—dead ends, which have nothing to do with care, loving support or attention.
Finally, I want to pick up on the question asked by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin). Will the Secretary of State make it absolutely clear that, among the options that the commission may put forward, it will be able to include the option that either national health service care or all care should be publicly funded? Will he make it clear that there will be no assumption on anyone's part—not least that of the Government—that all future care for the elderly will have to be privately funded through private insurers? Unlike the Tories, we do not think that that is an automatic solution to everything.
Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his general welcome. I thought that I had made it clear in my statement that, although the royal commission will focus on long-term care of the elderly, it will bear in mind the impact of any propositions that it puts forward or principles that it enunciates on other, younger people who are in need of long-term care. The commission will certainly address the needs of present pensioners and, even more certain, it will address the needs of those who, like everyone in the Chamber, have every intention of becoming a pensioner. We also want it to look at care provided either in people's homes or outside. That applies to local services that can make it possible for people to live in their own home, provided that it is just down the road and is of decent quality.
On the issues of health care and prevention, at least four people on the commission are professional experts in geriatric care and are concerned not only about the generality of provision, but about the quality of provision. I am sure that they will go into those issues. The question of funding remains open: we want the advice of these people of intelligence, who have knowledge of various spheres. It is fairly likely that, in the end, there will be a proposition that some of the funding should be paid by the individual and some by the taxpayer. I am not telling the members of the commission that they should come to that conclusion, but I would be amazed if they did not.
Audrey Wise: May I, too, give a fairly cautious welcome—but a welcome nevertheless—to the setting up of the royal commission? There are some knotty problems to be sorted out and, as long as the commission's work is not distorted into deciding how to design private insurance schemes, it might well be a valuable exercise. In the meantime, does my right hon. Friend accept the principle that there should be national standard setting and registration of those who go into
494
people's homes to give domiciliary care? That is not currently regulated. Surely those who are vulnerable are entitled to that protection.
Mr. Dobson: I can give my hon. Friend the guarantees that she requires. We have already made it clear that we intend to put in place a national setting of standards and a national enforcing of standards for domiciliary care. That will be spelled out in a White Paper, to be published next year, before the royal commission has reported.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Secretary of State is right to recognise that the way in which we are enabled to provide for ourselves in old age is one of the great challenges of our generation. Therefore, we welcome his announcement to that extent.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise also that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently made a series of attacks on pensions and seems to threaten a series of further attacks on savings? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the royal commission's recommendations are borne carefully in mind by the Chancellor before he makes any such further attacks, lest he should weaken the opportunity of individuals to care for themselves, which the right hon. Gentleman clearly recognises is one of the solutions to a difficult problem?
Mr. Dobson: I have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has attacked pensioners by giving them extra money for this Christmas. He has attacked them also by reducing the rate of value added tax on fuel. I cannot tell the royal commission what to do, and when it reports, I have no doubt that its findings will have an impact on what the Government do. If we are really fortunate, its report may influence even the Opposition's thinking.
Mr. Robin Corbett: May I commend my right hon. Friend's statement, as will 20,000 elderly residents in my constituency? May I urge the royal commission to pay particular attention to the essential component of consulting both public and private providers of housing? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to consider transitional arrangements until any recommendations that the commission may make are put into place, which could be three or four years away?
Mr. Dobson: The royal commission will be putting in place, at my request, a great deal of machinery for consulting people in both the private and public sectors as well as the voluntary sector. I cannot give my hon. Friend any guarantees about putting temporary arrangements in place, because I do not know what the commission will recommend. As I have said, we believe that the present situation is so unsatisfactory that it cannot be allowed to continue for much longer.
Mr. John MacGregor: Everyone recognises the importance of new policies and actions to deal with the new challenges that we face in these areas in the years ahead. However, there is often wide suspicion that setting up a royal commission is a means of procrastinating instead of introducing policies and actions. Can the Secretary of State possibly justify spending seven months setting up a royal commission and then asking it to report within 12 months? How can he possibly justify

495
such a delay in setting up the commission? Given this further example of dither and delay on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, will he give an assurance that when the commission reports, he will demonstrate much more urgency than he has shown in setting it up?
Mr. Dobson: I shall quote some figures. We had 18 years of the Tories doing nothing, and within seven months the Labour Government have recruited an extremely distinguished group, led by an extremely distinguished chairman, who is happy with the proposition that the work should be done within 12 months. If the work is done within 12 months, that will be 18 times better than that which the Tories did.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the constant problems of Members of this place is dealing with the complaints that we receive from our constituents whose relatives are residing in residential homes that are not run as well as they should be? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that that is a likely area to be examined, given that there is a distinction between homes that are controlled by the local authority and inspected by it and those that are controlled and inspected by the health authority, where there is no democracy?
It is my experience that I can cause inspections to be carried out much more quickly when the local authority has accountability and there is democracy than I can when the home comes under the health authority, where those responsible are either indirectly elected or not elected at all. Will the royal commission's attention be drawn to that matter, so that we can assure people in future that we in this place will be able to take up their complaints in a proper manner?
Mr. Dobson: I can give my hon. Friend the guarantee that he requires. We are determined to improve the regulation of provision for old people in residential homes, whoever provides those homes, because it is not satisfactory at the moment. I shall go further and say that, because we are dissatisfied with the treatment of some old people in general hospitals, I have asked the Health Advisory Service to produce a report on the treatment of elderly people in general hospitals. The situation is simply not satisfactory, and must be changed.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I wish the commission well. Will the Secretary of State ask it to look urgently at the nightmare in Essex and some other places, whereby a huge amount of public money is wasted and a great deal of distress is caused within families because of people being retained in hospital beds for the simple reason that local authorities cannot afford to fund retirement homes? Will he ask the commission to look at that serious problem, which also existed under the previous Government, and, perhaps, consider whether the remedy might be to transfer the responsibility for paying for homes from local authorities to health authorities?
Mr. Dobson: I agree that the situation is unsatisfactory. Beds in general hospitals are occupied by people who would be better off, safer, more secure and healthier at
496
home. We took considerable steps over the summer—in preparation for this winter—to try to make it easier to get people back into their own homes or other residential care. Some of the additional £300 million that we have given to the national health service for this winter will be spent on social services. I made it clear that no one would get any of that money unless they had a joint programme with their local social services department to stop old people being taken into hospital unnecessarily or staying too long in hospital unnecessarily.
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. The timetable that he has set the commission is indeed tight, but is not one reason why we are having a royal commission the political dogma of the Conservatives when they were in government? They would not let local authorities keep homes that provided good accommodation and services, and they pushed everything into the private sector and caused a great deal of concern among elderly people.
Mr. Dobson: There is a great deal of truth in what my hon. Friend said.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I personally, from the Conservative Benches, warmly welcome the Secretary of State's announcement. It brings the prospect of an end to the grotesquely unfair situation today, in which many elderly people who have worked hard during their lives, who have saved and been wise and thrifty, have to spend all their savings—sometimes including the asset of their own home—on paying for residential care. That is grotesquely unfair and causes a great deal of resentment.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the very talented people whom he has appointed to the commission. Professor Robert Stout, from Belfast, is a man for whom I have great regard, and Robin Wendt was not only the secretary of the Association of County Councils but chief executive of Cheshire county council. Will the Secretary of State give me an assurance that when the royal commission reports to him and to the House, legislation will very quickly follow?
Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome and for his very appropriate but generous comments about the members of the royal commission, who, indeed, are very distinguished. I cannot give him a guarantee that legislation will immediately follow. He is an older hand than me, and he will know that I cannot guarantee parliamentary time, but I can say that my statement was made on behalf of the whole Government, and we believe that the present situation cannot be allowed to continue for much longer.
Mr. John Gunnell: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Is he aware of the fact that many social services departments are now under such pressure that they do not make assessments if they feel that they will be unable to meet the need? The Select Committee on Health intends to produce its report on the relationship between health and social services during the current Session. The timing of that report will ensure that it is available to the commission that he has announced. I hope that he will do his best to ensure that the commission is ready to take advantage of that thorough

497
study of the way in which the structures could help to provide for the part of the service that should remain in public hands.
Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He draws on a vast depth of experience in those matters. I am sure that the royal commission will welcome the report of the Select Committee on Health as soon as it is available.
Mr. Simon Burns: May I say in passing that one of the right hon. Gentleman's political knockabout lines was extremely unfair to the dedicated civil servants in his Department? I know from first-hand experience that they have worked hard on long-term care.
Last winter, the previous Government made a number of announcements on regulation, registration and improvements on the split between residential homes and nursing homes. The Labour party, which was then in opposition, warmly welcomed some of those moves. Why is a White Paper required next year, given that time could be made up by going ahead with some of the proposals that the Labour party welcomed?
Mr. Dobson: I made it clear in reply to what was purported to be the Opposition's official response to my statement that we want a well thought out, comprehensive proposal, and not merely odd bits and pieces introduced as and when. We shall produce a White Paper that will spell out our comprehensive response on certain aspects. I expect the royal commission to do a good job, and we shall carefully consider its report. We are under an obligation to do something about this problem, which has gone on for far too long. It certainly went on for a long time under the previous Government, who may have made proposals, but they never got round to doing anything about them.
Ann Clwyd: As a member of the last royal commission to be established by a Labour Government, may I say how much I welcome the announcement of this royal commission? I particularly welcome the speed with which it is to report. The commission of which I was a member spent three years working on its report. I remember the chairman saying that it would be different from all the others because it would not gather dust. That report had the misfortune to fall on the desk of an incoming Tory Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if that Government had acted on the report's recommendations, the NHS would not be in the mess that it is in today?
Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I shall say no more, because I need to save my voice.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I know that the Secretary of State is aware of the difficulties that occur between health services and social services, especially when it comes to care of the elderly. Will he give us an assurance that the commission will examine ways of forging permanent links between health services and community health services, because that is where the delay occurs?
Mr. Dobson: I confirm that the commission will examine that issue. At the risk of falling foul of you,
498
Madam Speaker, I predict that our forthcoming White Paper on the national health service will emphasise the importance of that issue, as will the other White Paper to which I referred.
Mr. Denis MacShane: In warmly welcoming the Secretary of State's announcement and in deploring the rather churlish and mean-minded response by the official Opposition, which shows that they have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing, may I invite my right hon. Friend to ask the commission to consider that the founding premise, indeed promise, of the national health service—our insurance system of cradle-to-grave protection—has never, through its 50 years, been properly financed? In particular, the refusal of the previous Government to oblige all citizens to pay their fair share of inter-solidarity support has undermined it.
Can he assure me that the commission will look at collective provision, tax provision, mutual provision, compulsory insurance provision, such as exists for motor cars, and voluntary private provision? Finance is the key, and it must provide the answer. Labour can provide that answer, but the previous Government, because of their hatred of the NHS and local authority provision, refused to tackle the problem.
Mr. Dobson: I cannot guarantee what the royal commission's recommendations will be, but I can guarantee that it will examine all the options to which my hon. Friend refers.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Does not the Secretary of State realise that his statement will be cold comfort to one of my constituents who, at the general election, was reduced to tears at the prospect of having to sell her home to pay for residential care? Does not he realise that the Prime Minister used exactly that kind of example at the general election and said that he would do something about it? A scheme based on partnership funding through insurance was available. The Secretary of State has said nothing to show why it is not necessary and desirable to proceed with exactly that kind of scheme, which would provide assets for long-term care and give hope to people in that situation. He took seven months to initiate the commission and is allowing 12 months for it to sit. Heaven knows how long the Secretary of State will take to act.
Mr. Dobson: All I can say is that the old people in the hon. Gentleman's area and in the rest of the country will not be impressed by a Tory party that apparently thinks that it can carry conviction when it shifts from being Genghis Khan to Mother Teresa in the space of seven months.
Mr. John Bercow: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. While he is wise not to seek to prejudge the royal commission's conclusions, will he put it on the record that the terms of reference allow a thorough study of the private insurance and personal provision options? Will he take this opportunity—one that he has not been afforded to date—to acknowledge that much of what is already provided by the public and private sectors is admirable and that those who provide it should be congratulated? Does he accept that I genuinely

499
hope that he shortly recovers from laryngitis, because we on the Conservative Benches wish him a long, healthy and happy retirement from the Front Bench?
Mr. Dobson: I can guarantee few things in this world, but I can guarantee that the royal commission will look at all the options that have been mentioned and perhaps many more. I certainly pay tribute to the quality of care and treatment that are provided for the majority of old people. Sadly, not all are in that majority. There are failings, and the present regulatory system has been quite unsatisfactory for a long time. We are sorting it out before the royal commission reports.
Dr. Peter Brand: I am sure that anyone who has had to work within the present muddle of continuing care will welcome the statement. Will the royal commission also consider day care and its quality and funding as part of the continuing care package?
Mr. Dobson: I can guarantee that it is imperative that the commission looks at all aspects of care. Most people would rather stay in their own homes, where they have lived for donkeys' years and where they feel comfortable and know the neighbours, than have to be moved out because they are no longer capable of being sustained at home. The ambition of all hon. Members is to stay in their own homes, and that is what most other people want. We must provide services to people's homes and perhaps local services that they can just about toddle out to, provided crime and disorder are not at such a level that they are frightened to do that. That is a major consideration for old people. We must improve the quality and availability of those services. I expect, but I cannot guarantee, that the royal commission will make recommendations on those lines.

Business of the House
4.14 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 8 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Government of Wales Bill.
TUESDAY 9 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Government of Wales Bill.
At 10 pm, the House will be asked to agree the winter supplementary estimates, the votes on account and supplementary defence vote A.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
WEDNESDAY 10 DECEMBER—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Social Security Bill.
THURSDAY 11 DECEMBER—Remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
FRIDAY 12 DECEMBER—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week is as follows.
MONDAY 15 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill.
TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the National Minimum Wage Bill.
WEDNESDAY 17 DECEMBER—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will include the usual three-hour pre-recess debate.
Until 7 pm, there will be a debate on the common fisheries policy, on a Government motion.
Progress in Committee on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
THURSDAY 18 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Public Processions etc (Northern Ireland) Bill[Lords].
FRIDAY 19 DECEMBER—Debate on welfare to work on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 22 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the School Standards and Framework Bill.
The House will rise for the Christmas recess.
The House will also wish to be reminded that on Tuesday 9 December there will be a debate on Agenda 2000: structural and cohesion policy, in European Standing Committee B.
On Wednesday 10 December, there will be a debate on Agenda 2000: reform of the common agricultural policy, in European Standing Committee A; and a debate on Agenda 2000: a new financial framework, in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Tuesday 9 December:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 9984/97, Agenda 2000: Structural and Cohesion Policy. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-vi (1997–98).

501
wednesday 10 December:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 9984/97, Agenda 2000: Reform of the CAP. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-vi (1997–98).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 9984/97, Agenda 2000, New Financial Framework. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-vi (1997–98).]
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement. I also thank her for arranging that there should be no Government statement on last Monday's Opposition day.
I note that the right hon. Lady announced provisional business for Monday 22 December. As she knows, my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) expressed concerns last week, which I share, about the necessity for making the House sit on that day, causing unexpected inconvenience for those who serve the House. However, a debate on educational matters would put the day to good use, although I note that it is only provisional at this stage.
I should be grateful for information from the right hon. Lady on her proposals for handling the Welsh and Scottish devolution Bills. As she knows, the Opposition feel strongly that all stages should be taken on the Floor of the House, as they are self-evidently Bills of major constitutional importance. She has mentioned some ideas to me on the matter, and I should be grateful if she would tell the House where matters stand.
I think that the right hon. Lady was present in the House yesterday for the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who pointed out that journalists had been faxed at 3.55 pm full information on the statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Scottish Grand Committee at 4.30 pm. She will also recall that yesterday I complained to her and to you, Madam Speaker, that Opposition Members read on Ceefax that there was to be a Government statement on BSE, some 20 minutes before the Government told us about the statement.
The Government persist in treating the House, its procedures and its Members with contempt. We know that the Government have a large majority, but that should mean that they respect parliamentary democracy, not that they despise it. I continue to be saddened by the fact that the right hon. Lady does not answer straight questions on such matters from me and from others and that, unlike her distinguished predecessors, she seems to see her role as defender of the Government and not defender of the House and the interests of its Members. I hope that this afternoon the right hon. Lady will address those points and the others that I intend to raise.
Will the right hon. Lady arrange for a statement by the Paymaster General on individual savings accounts? He should have made his announcement on Tuesday to the House rather than outside it. Had he done so, he might have been able to give some helpful advice on avoiding tax to the nearly 1 million savers with savings of more than £50,000 who will be worse off as a result of his proposals. I am sure that all those savers will have been interested to hear themselves described as rich by someone who has his savings safely locked up in a £12 million offshore trust.
502
Will the right hon. Lady please explain to the House why the Secretary of State for Social Security is the only such Secretary of State in the past 10 years not to have bothered to make the social security uprating statement to the House? Was it because she was too busy; was it because she could not quite manage the detail; or is she merely discourteous? We should be told.
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the right hon. Lady for the compliments at the beginning of her comments. As I said to her hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) last week, we will try to avoid statements on Opposition days, but, as she knows from the previous Administration, sometimes situations arise in which that is unavoidable.
I am glad that the right hon. Lady thinks that we are putting Monday 22 December to good use. As she said, the business is provisional, but I do not expect it to change.
The right hon. Lady asked about the handling of the Wales and Scotland Bills. I cannot yet say anything about the Scotland Bill because it has yet to be published and we have had no discussions with the Conservative party or any other party about its handling. I said last week that we would consult other parties in the House on the handling of the Government of Wales Bill and we have done so. That is one reason why we are now providing two days for its Second Reading debate next week.
Many people in the House have strong views. The right hon. Lady has outlined her strong view that the entire Bill, in all its stages, should be completed on the Floor of the House. Others have equally strong views that better scrutiny would be achieved by using the procedure adopted for the Finance Bill and splitting consideration between Committee of the whole House and a Standing Committee, taking points of principle on the Floor and the detail upstairs.
The majority view expressed to us is that the Committee stage of the Bill should be split and that that would achieve better-quality legislation. We intend to hold discussions with other parties about how that might be achieved and what issues need to be discussed on the Floor of the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will tell the House at the opening of the Second Reading debate on Monday how we intend to proceed.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the social security statement that was made on Tuesday. Usually, such a statement is made at the time of the Budget. This year, because the Budget was at a different time, different arrangements were made. It was appropriate for a junior Minister to make that statement. He was available to make that statement on Tuesday, the day on which we thought it appropriate for the statement to be made.
The right hon. Lady also mentioned the short notice given of the statement on BSE made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday. I know from speaking to her that she understands the difficulties that can arise with that particularly difficult issue and that she understands why decisions sometimes have to be made late in the day if information becomes available, as it did yesterday.
I thank the right hon. Lady for mentioning the point of order raised yesterday by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). I, too, was concerned—as I know

503
you were, Madam Speaker—by the events that he related to the House. Somehow, however, he got his facts wrong. The information that the journalist showed to him at 3.55 pm had been available to every Member since 3.30 pm—when it was distributed as a parliamentary answer and was therefore in the public domain.
On ISAs, the Chancellor intends to include enabling legislation in next spring's Finance Bill. I remind the right hon. Lady that one of her noble Friends in another place said that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General has acted as Ministers in the previous Administration had.
Mr. David Winnick: We are to discuss the remaining stages of the Social Security Bill on Wednesday. Even at this late stage, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will explain to Ministers how much many hon. Members hope that the Government's policy on single mothers can be changed. We do not want to be facing an undoubted dilemma. Speaking for myself, I will be faced with such a dilemma. Therefore, I trust that, even at this late stage, it will be possible for Social Security and Treasury Ministers to reconsider, and to consider the feelings of a good number of hon. Members.
Mrs. Taylor: As my hon. Friend knows—he is a regular attender in the Chamber and will have heard most of the exchanges in recent weeks—the simple fact is that we inherited a difficult situation and have had to make very difficult decisions. One thing is clear: under Conservative Governments, lone parents never had a choice, because training, child care and employment opportunities were not available. That is why the Government have set in train the mechanism to ensure that such a choice is a reality.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I thank the Leader of the House for acceding to some requests for minor changes in provisional business. It will help not only Liberal Democrat Members but those in other parties. Specifically, I thank her sincerely for affording two full days for the Second Reading of the Government of Wales Bill. It will be very helpful and much appreciated.
May I press the right hon. Lady on how the Bill will be handled thereafter? Does she accept that there seems to be a strong consensus on both sides of the House—which was represented fairly by the majority view in her Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons—that sensible programming at the outset of the Bill's Committee stage on the Floor of the House, followed by a sensible programme of detailed consideration in Committee upstairs of its specific points and schedules, would be a much better, mature and more intelligent way of dealing with it than to impose a guillotine halfway through its passage, with inadequate consideration in some of its latter stages?
Will the Leader of the House explain the apparent confusion over the Government's response to our request for an inquiry into BSE? Yesterday, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the Prime Minister said that no decision had been taken. This morning, No. 10 Downing street briefed the press that a decision that there would be an inquiry had been taken in principle, and that it was simply a question of what type of inquiry would be held. This afternoon, a
504
Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said that no decision had been taken. Is she aware that there is not only confusion over the matter but pent-up anger on both sides of the House, represented by early-day motion 413?
[That this House welcomes the confirmation of the President of the Council that the Government is actively considering the case for a judicial inquiry into the decade of mishandling of BSE; and urges its early establishment to reassure both farmers and consumers that objective lessons have been learnt from this catalogue of disaster.]
The motion has been signed by hon. Members of all parties and urges that it is time to get on with the job, so that we can learn the lessons.
Will the Leader of the House give the House an undertaking that early-day motion 451—a humble prayer to the sovereign to have the council tax benefit regulations re-examined—will be discussed fully on the Floor of the House? That motion also expresses cross-party concerns and requires urgent attention in the House.
Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his earlier remarks. I announce business provisionally in the hope that it will not be changed, but also with a willingness to listen to representations.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been some strong feeling about how the Government of Wales Bill should be handled. Many hon. Members have said that the Bill would be better scrutinised if part of it were dealt with in Committee but the principles were clearly established on the Floor of the House. I agree that if we can pace consideration of the Bill in what the hon. Gentleman described as a mature and intelligent way that will be to the benefit of all concerned. I will certainly bear his comments in mind.
The hon. Gentleman used the word "anger" in the context of BSE. There is anger in all parties and in Government circles at the fact that the situation is so desperate and is causing so many problems for consumers, farmers and taxpayers. There is still a lot of information that has yet to see the light of day. We should all like to know more about exactly how the crisis developed in the early stages. I can say no more than my right hon. Friends have said about the timing of any decision on an inquiry.
Any debate on council tax benefits would be subject to decision through the usual channels. I will await the hon. Gentleman's representations.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is there to be a statement on the Further Education Funding Council and on certain decisions that were made before I May? It seems that many of the qualifications that were supposed to be handed out to tertiary colleges using FEFC money were taken up by a firm called Link, which was a subsidiary of CRT, which in turn is backed by the junk bond dealer Michael Milken from across the water. Under the Tories, hours were being duplicated across the country and there was fraud on a massive scale.
I want the matter dealt with now because people such as Milken, and others, might want to get their greedy paws on the windfall tax and make a lot more money.
Mrs. Taylor: I cannot comment because I do not know the details of the specific allegations that my hon. Friend

505
has made. He has had a good opportunity to voice his concerns, and I will make sure that the relevant Minister is aware of what he has said.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Allowing for the excellent way in which the right hon. Lady has enunciated the difficulties of BSE—anyone who has had anything to do with it will appreciate the difficulties faced by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday on receiving the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee's advice—is it not important to have a debate in the House on the problems facing the beef industry, and on the process of decision making?
The decision taken yesterday dealt a further body blow to the beef industry. Would it not have been better—this could be discussed in such a debate—if the Secretary of State had advised consumers of SEAC's recommendations, acknowledged that the risk involved was infinitesimal, and left it to consumers to make up their own minds? Will not yesterday's announcement lead to further destruction and to many of our wonderful specialist butchers, who have had such a difficult time in the past few years, being put out of business?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman raises serious matters of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Earlier today we had Agriculture Question Time, and Madam Speaker rightly allowed yesterday's statement to run longer than usual because of its significance to so many people.
There will be opportunities in the next couple of weeks for the hon. Gentleman and others to make their points about this issue. Indeed, today we have a debate on the European Union, and next Wednesday morning there will be one on the rural economy.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Following your ruling, Madam Speaker, that the Oath for Members wishing to take their seats in the House can be changed only by legislative action, should we not have a debate on that? There is a precedent in the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to change the Royal Ulster Constabulary oath from an oath of allegiance to the Crown to an affirmation to one's duty.
Constituents' cases should be dealt with by their Member of Parliament. The rest of us should not be expected to pick up cases from West Belfast and other areas, as some of us have had to do in the past.
Mrs. Taylor: Your said in your statement, Madam Speaker, that the hon. Members concerned could take up case work, that stationery would be provided for that and that they would have access to Ministers. My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 18 June;
"there are no plans to change the oath of allegiance."—[official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 305.]
Mr. Simon Burns: In the light of your ruling yesterday, Madam Speaker, in answer to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), does the right hon. Lady recall that at 4.30 pm on Tuesday the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) made his statement on uprating?
506
Unbeknown to hon. Members, an hour before, at 3.30 pm, the Secretary of State issued a press release to journalists outlining all the uprating details, as well as a written answer to the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell). As the right hon. Lady knows, no other hon. Members have access to those written answers, because many of them are not put in the House of Commons Library or on the letter board at 3.30 pm on the dot. The answer in question has not yet been published in Hansard. Does she accept that the press were given the information an hour before hon. Members on the Floor of the House? Will she apologise for what I suspect was a cock-up rather than a conspiracy?
Mrs. Taylor: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Normal practice was followed. The full technical details were given in a parliamentary answer at 3.30 pm. A press notice was issued at the same time. In an effort to be helpful, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State circulated letters to all Members at the same time, outlining the changes. I have checked that advance copies of the statement and the letter were given to the Opposition through the usual channels at 3.30 pm.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Further to the points raised by the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on behalf of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), will my right hon. Friend arrange for time—even Government time—to be made available for a debate on the misuse of the privilege of raising points of order, through the raising of points that the hon. Member concerned knows to be bogus?
The hon. Member for Woodspring is an experienced Member. He was a Minister in the last Conservative Government and he knows how the system works. I tabled a priority written question for 3 December asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to give details of his further expenditure plans for the years ahead. That was on the letter board and available to other hon. Members at 3.30 pm.
If my right hon. Friend cannot find time for a debate, the hon. Member for Woodspring should apologise to the House. The embarrassment caused to you, Madam Speaker, and to the House is clear from today's press. We require an explanation from the hon. Gentleman.
Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure that I shall be able to provide time for a debate. I think that the events were very unfortunate, although I do not know whether the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) knew that his point of order was bogus. However, all of us have a duty and responsibility to check with any journalists who supposedly give us facts that are not known to everyone else whether those facts are in the public domain. It is important that we try to follow procedures. Part of the problem may be that the hon. Member for Woodspring and other Conservative Members are not used to being in opposition.
Mr. John M. Taylor: With the permission of the Leader of the House, I should like us to have a proper debate on the Crown Prosecution Service. At every Attorney-General's Question Time, we hear that there are great difficulties in the CPS. My conviction is that the

507
CPS will not recover its morale unless it is given rights of audience in the higher courts. A debate on the subject would be of great importance to the justice system.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I have heard criticisms of the Crown Prosecution Service on a number of occasions. I cannot promise the specific debate that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but I know that he has been able to raise the issue several times.
Mr. John Hutton: Will we have an opportunity in the near future to discuss the excellent news that after-school study clubs will be established at some of our leading football clubs? Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Pele, who is arguably the finest living footballer, on his recent award of an honorary knighthood?
Mrs. Taylor: The after-school care club initiative is extremely good. There are many ways in which we can encourage children to take their studies seriously. The endorsement of such activities by someone of the Pele's stature is significant; I am sure that it will have the desired effect. I understand that Pele is visiting the House today to meet some Members; I regret that I shall not be able to be there. I will not be drawn on other footballing points on this important day in the world cup competition.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) for a debate on the BSE crisis as soon as possible? I will go further than my hon. Friend and say that there is a crisis facing United Kingdom agriculture as a whole, as every sector is depressed for the first time in living memory and farming incomes have been dramatically reduced. There is a crisis.
On the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), I do not want to enter the debate about the Paymaster General and offshore trusts. What concerns me is the statement that the Paymaster General made outside the House about the taxation of savings, bearing in mind the fact that that is tantamount to legislation which will affect decisions already taken by people about PEPs and TESSAs—especially PEPs.
May we have a debate on savings, because the proposed changes are critical for the way in which people plan their future? We have just had a statement on long-term care, and I believe that savings changes will have an impact on that as well.
Mrs. Taylor: On the hon. Gentleman's first point on BSE and farming, he is a very experienced Member of the House, and I think that he will have no difficulty in finding opportunities to participate in debates in which he can raise those concerns.
In respect of the new savings plans that have been announced, as I said earlier, the Treasury hopes to introduce the appropriate legislation next spring and there will be plenty of time to debate it then. The basic policy is extremely welcome because it will help the many and not the few.
Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend will know that, some
508
time ago, the Department of Trade and Industry carried out a consultation exercise on opencast mining. When will the outcome be reported? Can she promise an early debate on opencast mining, because it is critical to the deep mining industry?
Mrs. Taylor: I know full well, not least from my constituency interests, of the concerns that many people have about opencast mining. The consultation period finished at the end of October and I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will make a statement on the matter early in the new year. There are opportunities to raise the issue in the near future, not least during the three-hour Adjournment debate just before the recess.
Mr. Michael Fabricant:Concerns have already been expressed by my hon.Friends the Members for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about the conduct of Ministers. The Leader of the House will be aware that the code of conduct was reissued in June or July this year and that it is now called the ministerial code. May we have a debate on the ministerial code? Does the right hon. Lady agree that the reputation of the House is put in doubt when Treasury Ministers have tax avoidance plans for £12 million and statements are made outside before they are made in the House? Those actions may have been taken in ignorance; perhaps such matters should be included in the code. They could well be included in the debate that I have suggested.
Mrs. Taylor: I agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that there is no need to discuss those issues.
Mr. Tony McNulty: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for outlining the work of European Standing Committee B next week. Yesterday, documents on shipbuilding were listed on the Order Paper. Will that matter be debated before the recess?
Will my right hon. Friend write to Liberal Democrat Members to remind them of their membership of European Standing Committee B, given that they have been absent, to all intents and purposes, from the past six sittings?
Mrs. Taylor: I am pleased that a new Member has so quickly come to terms with the detail of European Standing Committee B; I recommend that to others. The only debates that have been scheduled for that Committee so far are the ones that I have announced. The debates over the next week or so are extremely important. I remind the House that European Standing Committees are open to any Member of any party.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: It appears that the right hon. Lady made an illegitimate inference from the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). Has she seen this morning's leader in The Daily Telegraph which is headlined "Let them eat cake"? She should have seen early-day motion 555 on the conduct of the Paymaster General.
[That this House, mindful of Labour's pledge not to 'permit tax reliefs to millionaires in offshore tax havens', notes that the Paymaster General is simultaneously

509
abolishing PEPs and TESSAs, and is a beneficiary of the offshore Orion Trust; and calls upon him to clarify why he sold his rights to £10 million of Trans Tec shares to Stenbell, and how much of the latter he owns, and why these shares were then passed to Orion, whether he holds any other of his 30·4 million shares in Trans Tec in offshore trusts, whether Orion was the family trust noted in Trans Tec's 1996 annual report in which he held 9·8 million shares, and who increased this holding to 12·7 million shares in September 1997, and whether Orion holds any other assets, why and when he made a personal loan of $1 million to Roll Centre Inc. before its purchase by Trans Tec and whether any similar loans are extant, whether he is still in receipt of pension certification or other emoluments for Trans Tec, what agreement was conducted with the late Robert Maxwell on the 1991 company merger with Trans Tec, and why the latter sold back his shares just before his death.]
A debate on the taxation of savings next spring is not soon enough. I would welcome the opportunity now to discuss the possibility of giving England the same tax status as Guernsey, so that Treasury Ministers can invest in my constituency.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should have taken the advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton.)
Mr. Norman Baker: Will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on the number and range of experiments carried out on animals? Is she aware that, according to Home Office figures, 3 million animal experiments are carried out, many of which are repetitive, unnecessary and probably unreliable? I welcome the fact that the Government have banned cosmetic testing, but that will reduce the number of experiments by only about 200, leaving a huge number.
Is the right hon. Lady also aware that at Porton Down, the Ministry of Defence has almost trebled the number of experiments carried out on animals in recent years, many of which are deeply unpleasant and very painful for the animals concerned? Is she aware that the number of animal experiments there is now at its highest since 1982? Does she understand that this is a serious matter for the public? What steps can she take to ensure that hon. Members can debate the issue?
Mrs. Taylor: Again, the hon. Gentleman has used his time well to make his points. I cannot promise time for a debate. Many hon. Members on both sides and members of the Government are concerned about the total number of experiments, but it is never easy to reduce the number overnight. The hon. Gentleman has pointed to some of the facts that have led to the increase in recent years. Some progress has been made by the ban on cosmetic testing and I hope that there are other ways in which we can continue to improve animal welfare.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: Will the Leader of the House vouchsafe a debate on the quality and consistency of legal advice offered to the Government, especially in relation to European legislation? I understand that the reason why the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food rejected the first option under the SEAC proposals, and did not take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), was that he had received legal advice
510
against imposing a ban on under-30-months beef from outside the UK? That seems to fly directly in the face of his earlier threat to ban beef if it did not meet our stringent health requirements. There seems to be substance for a debate on legal advice.
Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that that is necessary. My right hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that he would have been acting irresponsibly if he had not taken the advice that he was given yesterday. To act quickly was absolutely essential. He also had to consider the options and decide which one was most practical and which one could be easily understood and implemented. On that basis, he made the right decision, he made it quickly, and most important, he published the advice—unlike the situation under the previous Government.
Dr. Liam Fox: First, may I make it clear to the Leader of the House that, in the comments that I made yesterday, I was not referring to the usual channels. I was referring to how, as an hon. Member, I was able to read not the written answer to which she referred—I apologise for missing that—but the text of the Minister's statement, which he was due to make in the Scottish Grand Committee later that day.
We would welcome a debate on the release of information to the House. There is a difference between a broad briefing—or even embargoed information—to journalists in advance and the ability of those outside the House to read full texts of ministerial statements before they are made.
The point is not one of Government against Opposition but of the reputation and standing of the House. I accept that embargoed pieces of information were made available to journalists when we were in government. The speed of, and the change in, the process are important. Debates are being conducted on ministerial statements outside the House before they are debated inside it. It is the standing of the House which matters. If we cannot control the release of information and defend the rights of Members of Parliament, who on earth will do so?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman doth protest too much. The simple fact is that the statement to which he referred was entirely based on the information that was available in the written answer, which was available to the public at 3.30 pm. He made a great deal of that yesterday, implying that my right hon. Friend the Minister had broken the conventions of the House. That was a serious charge, and I think that he ought to apologise for it.
Sir Patrick Cormack: On behalf of the official Opposition, may I say first, as the matter was raised during Question Time, that we are extremely grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for your clear, unambiguous statement earlier? That leads me to my next point.
Second only to you, Madam Speaker, in defending the interests of the House, is the Leader of the House. Her prime responsibility is to all of us. Will she rethink what she has just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)? Will she please take on board the very genuine concern among all parliamentarians—I use that word deliberately—at the manner in which several Government announcements have been made recently?

511
Will the Leader of the House also clarify her comments in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on the Government of Wales Bill? She referred to consultation and a majority opinion among Opposition parties, or words to that effect. What does she mean by a majority opinion among Opposition parties? Her Majesty's official Opposition comprise the majority on the Opposition Benches, and significantly so. We are emphatically of the opinion that the traditions of the House should be maintained and that all stages of all first-class constitutional Bills should be debated on the Floor of the House. We have had no full consultation with the right hon. Lady on this point. Will she clarify her position and assure the House that no final decision has been taken on the matter?
Mrs. Taylor: On the first point raised by the hon. Gentleman, the vast majority of hon. Members welcomed your statement, Madam Speaker. I pointed out earlier that we have no proposals to change the legislation on oaths of allegiance. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
In respect of yesterday's statement and the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), Opposition Members ought to cast their minds back. Being in opposition is different from being in government. One cannot assume that one knows everything all the time. The procedures that have been adopted by this Government are no less respectful of the House than any previously adopted. The hon. Member for Woodspring simply made a mistake yesterday. There have been occasions when Ministers have made mistakes, and I have stood at the Dispatch Box, acknowledged that fact and apologised to the House. Yesterday was not one of those occasions.
There have been discussions on the Government of Wales Bill through the usual channels with the party of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and minority parties. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that his is the only party which has expressed reservations about taking the Bill partly on the Floor and partly in Standing Committee. All the parties that are represented in Wales are in favour of splitting the Bill.
Mr. Burns: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There seems to be some discrepancy in an answer given
512
by the Leader of the House. She seems to rest her argument on the fact that written answers are put on the board for hon. Members at 3.30 pm. That is not so. The vast majority of written answers go on the board after 3.30 pm and at any time up to early evening. So that we can get to the bottom of the issue, would you, Madam Speaker, make inquiries of the House authorities about when written answers generally go on the board and when they did yesterday—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman talks about "generally go on the board" and precisely "at 3.30 pm". What is his point of order? It is either precise or general. Which is it to be?
Mr. Burns: The point that I am trying to make, however inadequately, is that the Leader of the House said that written answers go on the board for hon. Members at 3.30 pm. They do not. They might start going on the board at 3.30 pm, but they do so throughout the afternoon and early evening—
Madam Speaker: Order. This is an administrative matter, not a point of order. Of course, I always want to be helpful to the House. We have had a good exchange on this matter, and the hon. Member might leave it at that. I shall see what I can do, without any commitment. I always seek to protect the procedures of the House and to be helpful to hon. Members.

Business of the House
  BILL PRESENTED
    SCHOOL STANDARDS AND FRAMEWORK
    Mr. Secretary Blunkett, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Davies, Mr. Stephen Byers and Estelle Morris, presented a Bill to make new provision with respect to school education and the provision of nursery education otherwise than at school; to enable arrangements to be made for the provision of further education for young persons partly at schools and partly at further education institutions; to make provision with respect to the Education Assets Board; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 95].

European Union
[Relevant documents: Developments in the European Union, January-June 1997 (Cm 3802), the Commission's Work Programme for 1998, the Political Priorities (Com(97)517), the Commission's Work Programme for 1998, new Legislative Initiatives (Sec(97)1852), European Community Document No. 9984–97 "Agenda 2000"and minutes of evidence taken by the Foreign Affairs Committee on 1 December, HC 387.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
4.57 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Last week, on behalf of the Government and Britain, I visited three of the larger countries in central Europe that are seeking membership of the European Union: Hungary, Czech Republic and Poland. I commend a similar experience to Conservative Members, who bring to this debate doubts about Europe, suspicion of foreigners and anxiety to have as little as possible to do with either of them. If they visit the countries that are trying to enter the EU, they will find a consensus across the major political parties, which is in no doubt about the importance of the EU and shows a determination that their country will acquire full EU membership as soon as possible. Nor do politicians alone share that ambition. The people also share that ambition.
In the relatively intimate setting of this debate, I can risk sharing with the House the news that there was an internal split in the Foreign Office on the way to Poland on to what extent I should be frank with the Polish Government about the discriminatory duty that they apply to Scotch whisky. There was a strong view that we should tell it like it was and that such duty could not survive EU membership. There was a contrary view that that would compromise our attempt to establish warm friendship with the Polish Government. I finally decided that I had to tell it to them like it was and, if they wished to join the European Union, they had to drink whisky. Therefore, at a conference on Britain and Poland attended by 400 people, I took a deep breath and said that it was wholly unacceptable that a bottle of whisky should cost twice as much in Warsaw as in Prague.
I have to report to the House that the roof caved in under thunderous applause from all 400 present. It turned out to be the most popular statement that I made in my three days in central Europe. It underlined the fact that the ordinary people also see attractions for themselves in membership of the European Union, as workers who can export to it, as travellers who can move more freely across it and as consumers who will have easier access to the goods produced within it.
Britain has an opportunity in central Europe to strengthen our standing in Europe. English is by far the second most common language of those who live in those countries, easily eclipsing German. Older residents of those countries have memories of the historic role of Britain in defeating fascism. Indeed, the Foreign Minister of Poland recalled as a child demonstrating outside the British embassy in support of our decision to enter the war as a result of the invasion of Poland. The younger people of those countries have great enthusiasm for the authentic western culture that they identify in Britain.
514
Britain has a strategic opportunity, especially during our presidency, to emerge as a sponsor and a patron of membership of the European Union for those countries seeking to apply. However, one condition applies—those countries must be convinced that we want them as members of the European Union to strengthen it, not to dilute it. I allow that the previous Government supported enlargement of the European Union. Unfortunately, they took little trouble to disguise that they wanted those countries in as part of a looser, wider and weaker Europe. Those countries do not want a weaker Europe: they want to be members of a stronger Europe. That is what we want too, and that is why we give priority to enlargement.
We want a bigger, stronger Union with 100 million extra consumers, who will make even larger what is already the wealthiest single market in the world and give us a bigger voice in the world and in trade talks. A bigger, stronger Union will end the unacceptable model of a fortress Europe in which affluent countries are within and poorer countries are outside. That model is unacceptable and, as we are discovering, unsustainable, as organised crime, money laundering and drugs trafficking undermine the walls we build around the fortress.
It is because we want those countries to join, to create that stronger Union, that repeatedly those whom I met in central Europe welcomed the fact that Britain is now back in Europe, playing the part that they want us to play as a leading partner in Europe—with influence, not isolation in Brussels and with respect, not resentment in other member states.[Interruption.]
As usual, the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) is making boorish remarks from a sedentary position, but if he does not believe what I am saying he should read what the European papers say about the new Labour Government in Britain. Let us review what has been written in those papers in the past six months. Those six months began with the Amsterdam summit. At that summit, Britain retained the legal right to retain border controls; we stopped the merger of the Western European Union with the European Union and prevented the European Union from becoming a defence organisation; and we secured new treaty language on our priorities of employment, the environment and fraud against the Union. On the Monday after the summit,la Repubblica ran the headline "Britain 4—Continent 0".
The past six months have drawn to a close with the special jobs summit in Luxembourg. Britain secured at that summit guidelines that fully reflect our economic priorities of raising skills, improving the labour market and raising competitiveness. On the Monday after that summit,Le Monde ran an editorial under the headline "Tony Blair's summit".
I know that it is too much to hope that Conservative Members read the leading newspapers of Europe. Probably they are right in suspecting that they are written by foreigners. However, Conservative Members are alone in Europe in representing the outcome of those two major summits as defeats for Britain. I know that Tories are in opposition, but they claim to be the great backers of Britain and the British national interest. Therefore, it is odd that they persist in seeing failure for Britain where the rest of Europe sees success for Britain.
A spirit of reciprocity is appropriate in foreign relations and I hope that that spirit will inform this debate. If we review the events of the past six months, I hope that it is

515
legitimate to roam over what they have meant for the debate on Europe in the Tory party. Those six months started with the general election and finished with the Winchester and Beckenham by-elections. In those six months, the Conservative party lost 21,000 electors in those two constituencies.
Mr. Nigel Evans: You lost your deposit.
Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman consults the results, he will find that we substantially increased our vote in Beckenham and reduced the Conservative majority. The magnificent response to the loss of 21,000 votes in the country by the leadership of the Conservatives was to dismiss one of the voters that they have at Westminster and to oblige the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) to cross the Floor. We are grateful for the hon. Gentleman's presence and we appreciate the generosity of spirit with which the Conservatives have lent him to us.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: You are welcome to him.
Mr. Cook: Such generosity of spirit is the hallmark of the modern Conservative party. Indeed, it has resulted in its support narrowing to the size of that of a sect, instead of a centre party, and is accurately reflected in the comments by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). We could probably have got by without the vote of the hon. Member for Leominster. We now have a majority of 177, but we could possibly have scraped through with the majority of 175 that we had before. However, the hon. Gentleman's dismissal has sent a signal to all the sane people in the centre of British politics—who share his moderate views on Europe and know that Britain must have sensible relations with its neighbours—that they are not welcome in the Tory party, as the hon. Member for Teignbridge made clear a moment ago. I offer those moderate people a message today—they are all welcome as supporters of new Labour and we invite them to support us in building a modern Britain and a people's Europe.
I am beginning to believe that some Conservative Members—possibly even the shadow Foreign Secretary—suspect that the majority of the population are on our side over Europe. The shadow Foreign Secretary spent the summer roaming the land and loudly demanding a referendum on the Amsterdam treaty. Now that the House has returned, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has tabled many questions to me, but he has not once asked me to put the Amsterdam treaty to the vote of the people in a referendum.
As amendments to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill poured in, we mounted a Howard watch. We scoured the amendments for one from him to require us to hold a referendum on the Amsterdam treaty. I have to tell the House that none has come in. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) is rescued from his indecision by the courage and vigour of the Euro-rebels on the Conservative Back Benches, who have tabled new clause 47 which calls for a referendum. Those hon. Members belong to the same
516
party and share, as yet, the same Whip as the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Those colleagues deserve to know how much support they will get for their new clause and I hope that, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman responds to my speech, he will tell the House whether he will vote for a referendum and recommend it to all his colleagues. I hope that he will tell us whether Conservative Front Benchers have the courage to demand a referendum on the treaty. However, the reality is that the Conservative party is now terrified of another drubbing in any test of electoral opinion and does not dare risk a referendum that would expose it as split from top to bottom. As Lord Howe wrote last month, Europe now presents a crucial litmus test of the Conservatives' capacity to act as a serious alternative party of government. So far, he added, it looked like a test that they were determined to fail.
By contrast, this Government will pursue a European policy that is in the interests of the British nation. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear in his recent statement on a single currency that we will judge whether we are to join on the basis of a hard-headed assessment of what is in the economic interests of the British people.
We will assess that by the five tests that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out: whether there is sustainable convergence; whether the single currency has sufficient flexibility; what its effect will be on investment; what its impact will be on financial services; and whether it will be good for employment. It is right that we should assess whether we join the single currency on those tests, which are in the real interests of the British people, not by the prejudice and dogma that obsess the Conservative party.
Dr. Liam Fox: Why do the five criteria that the Chancellor is using not include the vital criterion of the currency of denomination of trade? Is that unimportant? I should have thought that the currency in which we trade is a vital element in making objective decisions on economic and monetary union. The currency in which we trade is as important as whom we trade with.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has a perfectly fair point, but it is adequately covered by our five points, particularly the test of whether the single currency will offer sufficient flexibility. If he looks at trade, he will see that the fact is that the majority of our visible trade goes to Europe.
Dr. Fox: Yes, visible trade.
Mr. Cook: We have been here before. If we include invisible trade, visible trade still accounts for 47 per cent.—not a pass mark, I grant you—of our trade. For the Conservatives to pretend that 47 per cent. of trade is meaningless and can be passed over demonstrates the extent to which they are out of touch with reality.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Before the Foreign Secretary leaves his five tests—one of which is the effect of the single currency on unemployment—will he remind all his right hon. and hon. Friends of the effect on unemployment of fixed exchange rates in the past? Will he tell his supporters in the country that, when we joined the exchange rate mechanism in 1990, unemployment was at 1·67 million and rose to 2·85 million within 23 months?

517
If they do not believe that, will he remind them of what happened when we were on the gold standard between 1925 and 1931, when unemployment rose from 1·25 million to 2·9 million? Will he—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Interventions must be brief, and not speeches.
Mr. Cook: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would have been quite happy to let the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) continue, because he was referring to two miserable and unhappy experiences of two miserable and unhappy Conservative Governments, neither of which has any bearing on anything done by the present Government. Nor does a fixed exchange rate have anything to do with what one does within a single currency.
Mr. Gill: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand what he is doing.
Mr. Cook: I fully understand—the great shame is that the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member did not understand what they were doing.
If, at a future stage, we should resolve to join a single currency, we will put that to a referendum of the British people and let them have the last veto. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made clear, that is not likely to happen in the next six months, or even in the next four years. There is quite enough to occupy us in our European debates in the next six months.
In the foreground is next week's summit in Luxembourg. The key issue at the summit must be to obtain a mandate to take forward during the British presidency the Commission's proposals under Agenda 2000. What we require from the Luxembourg summit is a practical railway timetable towards enlargement which will enable the British presidency to start the train on 31 March.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend has talked about enlargement and the countries that are on the so-called fast track. Does he recognise that countries such as Romania are anxious—and have overwhelming public support—to get into the strong European Union to which he referred as soon as possible?
Mr. Cook: I very much understand that. We must be sensitive and recognise the strong ambitions in those countries not yet identified by the Commission as yet ready for negotiation. I am strongly of the view that the way forward towards enlargement is to commence detailed negotiations with those five central and eastern European countries, plus Cyprus, that have been identified by the Commission as ready for negotiation. Any other course would not be fair to those identified as ready for negotiation, as they would need to wait for others to catch up—a point strongly made to me when I visited the countries. Nor would it be fair to those countries that have been identified as not ready for negotiation, because membership of the EU will be a challenging and tough discipline.
We do not do any favours to countries that are not ready to withstand the market pressures of membership of the EU by prematurely bringing them in, with the disruption to their economies that that could entail. To
518
be positive to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), we must make sure that the enlargement process is seen to be inclusive and that those countries such as Romania that look to Europe for membership are given every possible encouragement, incentive and assistance to tackle the obstacles that still stand between them and detailed negotiations.
That is why the Labour Government, during the British presidency, will wish to create a permanent European conference to bring together all the applicants—including those that have not set out on detailed negotiations—and to hold political dialogue with them. Such a conference must be one of substance; it cannot fall into the popular model of a not-very-good family photograph followed by a rather good lunch. It must have real business and substance to it.
There are issues that we could discuss with those countries—organised crime and the drugs trade are obvious and relevant topics. The issue of the environmental problems and the pollution which we share is another that we could address without getting into negotiations about accession. There may be areas of common foreign policy that we could explore with those that are not in the front rank for membership of the EU. We need to make sure that those countries are given a real sense of belonging and welcome to the European family of nations.
Mr. Nigel Evans: The Foreign Secretary said that the European Union had to be inclusive. Will he say a few words about Cyprus, which is divided? I understand that that may not be a barrier to Cyprus entering the EU. If that is the case, what will be done to ensure that the population of the northern part of Cyprus will be consulted about joining the EU?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising an important part of the enlargement debate. The Government strongly support the right of the Government of Cyprus to apply for membership. We recognise that Cyprus has done a large amount over the past three years to prepare itself for membership. Were it not for the division of the island, Cyprus would be a foremost candidate for membership. It would be immensely helpful to the debate if that division could be resolved within the context of the enlargement talks.
Enlargement may provide a catalyst to bring about the solution to the division of the island. Those who live in the northern occupied sector would benefit more than anybody else in Cyprus from membership of the EU, because their income is a quarter the level in the Greek Cypriot sector. However, if it is not possible to resolve the issue of the division of the island, it is the position of this Government that it would be unfair to the majority of the people of Cyprus if its Government were to be excluded because of the continuing division. I regret that the Turkish authorities in the northern sector have refused the recent approaches by Commissioner van den Broek to include them in the negotiating team from Cyprus. It would have been good both for the division of the island and the negotiation if they had taken up the offer.
Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, if this country enters the single currency at some point, its democratically elected Government would be legally prohibited from making

519
representations to the European central bank about its conduct of monetary policy and that a democratically elected Government who sought to do so would potentially be subject to fines?
Mr. Cook: I am not sure how that naturally arose from the discussion of Cyprus, but of course the principle established in the Maastricht treaty is that the central bank will be independent and will not be subject to political interference. In that regard, it will stand in relation to the Governments of the European Union in precisely the same way that the independent central banks of Germany and of other countries stand in relation to their Governments.
Enlargement is the prime objective that we seek to achieve at the Luxembourg summit. We must not be distracted from that No. 1 goal, but, if enlargement is to be a realistic prospect, other elements of the Agenda 2000 package must be supported and will need to be approved at Luxembourg. We will go to Luxembourg determined to maintain the budget ceiling of 1·27 per cent. of gross domestic product of the European Union. Britain comes 11 th in terms of per capita income in Europe and is the fifth largest net contributor, even after the rebate. It is plainly in our interest to maintain realism in the European budget.
Retaining that ceiling has consequences. Enlargement will cost money. The countries coming in are poorer than the present member states—typically, their income is one third that of member states. They will require some major industrial restructuring and economic recovery. If the European Union retains the same budget and if that budget is spent in more member states as we enlarge, it arithmetically follows that less will be spent among the existing member states. If we are not willing to face that, we should not pretend that we are serious about enlargement.
That is why we will seek a mandate from the Luxembourg summit to take forward the Commission proposals on reform of the common agricultural policy and of the structural funds, which together make up some three quarters of the European budget. In any event, reform of the CAP is long overdue. It cannot be sustainable to continue to spend 50 per cent. of Europe's budget on an industry in which 4 per cent. of the work force are employed.
It is especially important that we achieve such mandates at Luxembourg because the British presidency will start the work to carry them out. That offers Britain a rich and exciting opportunity. Next April, for instance, London will host the Asia-Europe summit, at which countries representing half the GDP of the entire globe will be present. It is a great opportunity to take further the co-operation for stable growth throughout the globe and to tackle the environmental issues that are of mutual concern throughout the globe. The summit is a great opportunity for Britain to show skill and imagination in brokering global agreements. At summits during its presidency, Britain will also represent Europe in dialogue with Latin America, the United States and Japan.
I am indebted to the Daily Express for revealing that a Liberal Democrat had tabled questions that revealed that I had spent more on foreign travel than any other Minister. I appreciate the newspaper's understanding remark that,
520
as Foreign Secretary, I have at least some excuse for foreign travel, but I warn both the Daily Express and the Liberal Democrats that there will be even more excuses for foreign travel as we take over the EU presidency next year. I hope that the House will appreciate the validity of that.
The British presidency presents another opportunity much closer to home. It provides us with a clear opportunity to demonstrate that Europe can deliver on the concerns of our people. On jobs, at the Cardiff summit, we will review the action plans that will flow from the guidelines approved in Luxembourg. On the environment, we will take forward what action Europe needs to take to fulfil the commitments that we took to Kyoto. On crime and drugs, we will launch the customs convention and see through European initiatives to interdict the drugs trade in central Asia and in the Caribbean.
Tomorrow, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I will launch the British presidency and reveal its themes and objectives. They will confirm that we have one clear determination during our presidency: to make Europe work for the people. That will be our contribution to building the Europe of the next century—a Europe that has learnt the lessons of this century.
Last week, I laid a wreath in the Warsaw ghetto at the site of the station from which tens of thousands of people went to their death. This week, I started a conference to establish the truth about the gold that was looted by the Nazis. Truth is the least that we owe in justice to the people who perished under Nazi persecution. Recording and remembering what happened in those atrocities are the best protections against them ever happening again in our continent.
Putting the record straight about what happened 50 years ago has proved challenging. It has reminded me of how different the world was only 50 years ago. While I was in Poland and in Prague in the Czech Republic, the Foreign Ministers of both countries welcomed the ethical dimension to Britain's foreign policy. They said that countries that have been the victim of realpolitik welcome a foreign policy that includes the values of human rights and democracy and is not based just on the interests of power politics.
Mr. David Heath: The Foreign Secretary knows that he has our full support with regard to several of the policies that he is pursuing. One of those is to establish the European code of conduct on the export of arms. Is he making substantial progress on that matter, particularly in discussions with the French? Does he agree that we cannot travel at the speed of the slowest member state? We need firm criteria and firm treaty obligations at the earliest possible opportunity.
Mr. Cook: The great majority of EU member states have spontaneously expressed interest in our code of conduct and are pressing us to bring forward our proposals. If possible, we should like to ensure that we have a common text with our French colleagues before we go before the EU because we are the two largest arms-producing and exporting nations, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, during our presidency, that will definitely be taken before the Council and will undoubtedly have overwhelming backing.

521
I was reflecting on how much has changed in the past century. Fifty years ago, Germany and Italy were only just emerging from a war in which Britain and France had been their enemies. As recently as 20 years ago, Spain and Portugal were emerging from fascism. Only 10 years ago, Russia was regarded as a super-power and the countries that I visited were its colonies. I believe that the decades ahead will show change even greater than that which we have been experiencing in the latter part of this century. In the decades ahead, the peoples of Europe will become more cosmopolitan, travel more, work more in other people's countries and more often marry people from other European countries. They will expect their Governments to be as much at ease in dealing with foreign politicians as they will be in dealing with people from foreign countries.
Economic activity will increasingly transcend national boundaries. It will become more necessary for economic policy to be co-ordinated across those same national frontiers. Knowledge and information will be received as commonly through the fibre optic cable, the internet and e-mail as through the local evening paper. Political ideas and debate will belong not just to the domestic arena but to an international stage.
Britain needs a Government to prepare it for that modern world and to shape Britain's place in that Europe of the next century. Opposition Members, or at any rate those on the Opposition Front Bench, do not merely borrow their thinking on economic and social policy from the 1930s; they borrow a foreign policy to match from the same era—an era of splendid isolation, when Britain could stand alone. It is a fitting policy for a Conservative party that does not have a single sister party in the whole of Europe, but it is no service to Britain to offer it the policies of the mid-20th century for the world of the early 21st century.
Britain needs a Government who understand the modern world, who can command respect and influence in Europe and who can relate Britain to the world outside. That is what we offer Britain—a Government who offer active leadership in the world.[Interruption.] I must tell the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber), who has decided to grace us with his presence for this closing moment in my speech but feels that he fully understands all that has gone before, that, if he reflects on what Ministers are doing, he will understand what I am saying.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for International Development signed the Ottawa treaty to ban land mines. It was the early change in British policy on land mines that made it possible for us to play a major part in drafting that treaty in Oslo. Tonight, the Deputy Prime Minister leaves for Kyoto to break the stalemate on climate change. Our ambitious target has made us a leading voice in the preparations for that conference.
Next week, the Prime Minister goes to the Luxembourg summit as a national leader who will get respect there because he commands a united party that understands the importance of co-operation within Europe. At Luxembourg, the Prime Minister can speak with a single, clear voice in place of the different, divided voices that we hear from the Opposition. That is the sound basis on which we look forward to the Luxembourg summit and that is what gives us confidence that in our British presidency we will make Europe work for the people.
5.31 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: Despite the opening and the peroration of the Foreign Secretary's speech, there was much in between with which we Opposition Members could agree. In particular, we agree that foreign policy ought to have an ethical dimension. The foreign policy of this country has had an ethical dimension under Governments of both political parties—not simply the previous Government, but other Governments too. The trouble with the Foreign Secretary's approach is that he does his case no good by misrepresenting the past and making false claims on behalf of the present Government.
The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary never tire of telling the House that the election of their Government has fostered what they describe as a new spirit of co-operation between Britain and her European partners. It is certainly true that they have given up a good deal, scrapping our opt-out from the social chapter, signing up to a new employment chapter and handing over more powers to the President of the European Commission. What have they gained in return? Let us examine the so-called leading role in Europe on which the Government preen themselves so often.
On 20 June, the Prime Minister went to Strasbourg to meet his European partners and President Yeltsin. All appeared to go well until it was announced that Germany, France and Russia intend to hold annual three-way summits to improve their relationship. Britain was left out in the cold.
This week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer went to Brussels to demand that Britain be allowed to join the so-called Euro X Committee. As hon. Members will be aware, that is the proposed committee of Finance Ministers from the states that intend to participate in economic and monetary union. By going to Brussels, the right hon. Gentleman gave the impression that he had already decided to join the single currency—a little presumptuous, since the people of this country have yet to give their verdict in the proposed referendum. Leaving that aside, what was the response of his fellow Finance Ministers? How did they respond to the Government's attitude of never being isolated in Europe? They made a few sarcastic comments, brushed the right hon. Gentleman aside and pushed ahead without him. It was a complete humiliation for the Government. So much for Labour's Euro-sycophancy buying British influence.
Yesterday, we obtained further details of the shabby trick at Amsterdam of which the Government were apparently the helpless victims. The extraordinary story of the Government's own allegations that they were duped at Amsterdam deserves much greater attention than it has so far received. It speaks volumes for the way in which decisions are apparently now taken by the European Union. If true, and I have no reason to doubt what the Government say, the issue should certainly be raised in Luxembourg next week.
The story begins with the Government's wholly creditable desire to put into satisfactory words the agreement reached by the previous Government to exclude the United Kingdom from the frontier provisions of the Amsterdam treaty. One of the key issues that had to be resolved was what would happen if the United Kingdom ever decided to take part in any of those arrangements. The Government wanted to be able to opt

523
in without any country being able to block them, and they thought that that was what had been agreed. As the Prime Minister told the House on his return on 18 June:
"We have the power within the treaty to go into any of these areas"—
that is, asylum and immigration—
"if we want to. If we do not want to, we need not, but if we do, no other country can block us going in."—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 319.]
The right hon. Gentleman was wrong, but unwittingly so. He was telling the House what he genuinely thought he had achieved, but that was not the case at all.
The truth first came to light when the Foreign Secretary appeared before the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on 4 November. In answer to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), to whom I pay tribute in his absence for his part in unearthing this sorry saga, the right hon. Gentleman was forced for the first time in public to concede that the opt-in to the Schengen acquis was subject to unanimity.
This may all sound a little technical, but it is vital. If, for example, a future British Government wanted to opt into the Schengen acquis, another member state could prevent them from doing so. If Spain, for example, wanted to extract concessions from us on Gibraltar, it could trade its veto for those concessions. That is often the way that business is concluded in the European Union. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of those concerns.
How did all this happen? According to the first account that the Foreign Secretary gave, there was "a misunderstanding". He told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee:
"our understanding of the discussions did not entirely tally with that of the Presidency."
He explained that that was because
"our satisfaction with the note keeping of the Presidency was not as much as we would have wished it to be and there are different recollections as to what was actually said".
That seemed bad enough, but worse was to come. At oral questions last week, the Foreign Secretary revealed a little more and alleged that Spain and the Dutch presidency had struck a deal changing the treaty after the negotiations had finished. He went on to explain that he knew nothing about the deal until the following week.
One would have thought that, on such an important issue and after such an unpleasant experience, he might have got his facts right, but no—as the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), was yesterday forced to admit—the deal was struck between Spain and the Dutch presidency not after the hearings had concluded but during the summit on the night of 16 and 17 June. Moreover, far from being left in the dark for a week as the Foreign Secretary had alleged, the Government knew what had happened the day after the summit was concluded on 19 June.
Mr. Robert Jackson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Howard: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to develop my argument before giving way.
524
In answer to my question as to whether there was any precedent for that sort of hole-in-the-corner, bilateral deal, the Minister of State said:
"At negotiations such as the IGC, it is not unusual for the Presidency to reach tentative understandings with a Member State on how to handle a point of key concern to them. But such understandings would normally be considered subsequently by the full meeting."—[Official Report, 2 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 122.]
I ask the House to consider the significance of this extraordinary saga. The Government's allegation is that the text of the treaty was changed, to the detriment of the United Kingdom, as a result of a private deal between two member states which was not communicated to the rest of the council. What sort of decision-making process is that? How can anyone have confidence in the integrity of the European Union if that sort of thing can happen? What do the Government intend to do about it? The Minister of State tells us that there is no precedent for this, and it certainly did not happen under the previous Government. What sort of precedent does it set for the future? Do the Government intend to raise this matter in Luxembourg? I look forward to the Minister's answers at the end of the debate.
These are not my allegations: they are the Government's allegations, set out in detail in Hansard. The whole shabby episode gives the lie in the most vivid terms to the Foreign Secretary's claims about the wonderful new spirit of co-operation that the election of the Labour Government is supposed to have created.
Mr. Jackson: I join my right hon. and learned Friend in hoping for a full explanation of what happened. The general point of principle is that opt-outs are not always cost-free, which is something that we should bear in mind when pursuing diplomacy in Europe in future.
Mr. Howard: Any decision involves a balance of advantage and disadvantage, and few courses of action are entirely free of disadvantage, as my hon. Friend knows.
Britain takes over the presidency of the European Union on new year's day. We shall judge the Government not by their rhetoric but by the results that they achieve. The Foreign Secretary has today set out some of his priorities for the next six months. The Labour Government, he says, want to further the cause of enlargement. We agree. He says that they want an outward-looking Europe. We agree. He says that they want a competitive Europe in which business can flourish, creating jobs for the millions of people who currently do not have them. We agree. He says that the Government want to protect the environment. We agree—but how far does the Government's record live up to its rhetoric?
Let us first take enlargement. It is the historic challenge facing our generation. That phrase, or variants of it, has been repeated so often that its impact has been blunted by over-use, but it is none the less true for all that. The peace and stability of both eastern and western Europe depend on healing the division that has scarred our continent for so long. It is also our moral duty to welcome back into the European family those states which, at Yalta, fell into the hands of an alien tyranny. For 45 years, sometimes in horrifying conditions, the peoples of eastern and central Europe managed to preserve their humanity and their European identity. In 1989, by their own courage and determination, the people of the eastern bloc threw off that alien tyranny.

525
In 1990, I visited the very countries that the Foreign Secretary has invited me to visit once again. The sense of release, freedom and liberty that then was so palpable in those countries had to be seen to be believed. We have an absolute obligation to extend Europe's embrace to those people today. If the Prime Minister's "people's Europe" means anything, it should mean bringing the people of Europe together once again. Enlargement to the east is in our own interests, too: the trade opportunities are immense, and failure to include our eastern neighbours would simply undermine their political stability and bolster the most reactionary and anti-democratic forces in their polities.
Politicians throughout the European Union pay lip service to those sentiments, but the will to act on them has, alas, been lacking. Every member state, as well as the European Commission, is nominally devoted to enlargement, but there appears to be little political will to tackle the difficult issues that must be addressed before enlargement can take place: reform of the common agricultural policy, lower external trade tariffs, the streamlining of bureaucracy, and changes to the structural funds, to name but a few. The gap between the rhetoric of certain European statesmen and their determination to resolve some of those issues is damaging Europe's credibility in the eyes of the world. Sometimes, the Foreign Secretary himself appears to recognise that—last week, he told a Hungarian audience:
"I do not believe in grand gestures. I believe in getting things done."
But there are few signs that much will get done.
Last week and again today, without a shred of evidence to back up the claim, the Foreign Secretary said that the election of the Labour Government had brought new hope to applicant states. I suppose it sounded like a good soundbite at the time, but it is an extraordinary claim, given his party's record. No European Government did more to assist the liberation of the former communist countries than ours—it was a Conservative Government who stood firm in the face of the Soviet threat, while the Labour party was busy advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament, hoping that, by slinking weaponless from the world stage, Britain would cease to be a target. The truth is that Margaret Thatcher brought more hope to the people of eastern and central Europe than Labour ever did; yet the Labour Government now have the gall to pretend that they are the champion of the cause of eastern Europe.
Enlargement is possible only if the European Union changes the way in which it conducts its business. The common agricultural policy, which consumes a massive proportion of the European Union's budget, as the Foreign Secretary acknowledged, cannot be sustained in its current form with 20 members; nor is it realistic to expect applicant states to adopt in full an ever-expanding acquis communautaire. The more member states there are, the greater the flexibility we need within the European Union. Institutions and mechanisms designed in the 1950s for six similar western European states cannot effectively serve the new Europe in all its diversity. The fact is that the ambition to admit even the six states identified by the Commission for early membership is quite incompatible with the continuing centralisation of authority in Brussels.
The Amsterdam summit was an opportunity to put that right—to refashion Europe's institutions so as to make them appropriate to an enlarged Community. However,
526
far from devolving powers, Amsterdam centralised them still further. It established common social and employment policies and widened the powers of the Commission and the scope of the European Court of Justice.
Amsterdam was a blow for enlargement on two counts: first, it failed to address the reforms needed to make enlargement possible and, secondly, it made enlargement more difficult by further deepening the Union. Despite all that, the Foreign Secretary persists in claiming that Amsterdam will make enlargement easier. I hope that the Minister of State will make some attempt to justify that claim later tonight. Perhaps he would do better to drop the subject altogether—it was, after all, the Prime Minister who admitted to the House that, at Amsterdam,
"not as much progress was made"
on enlargement
"as there might have been".—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 314.]
The Government claim that they want the European Union to be outward looking and there are two practical ways in which to test their commitment on that issue. First, have they entrenched Europe's place as part of a wider western security system? Secondly, have they tackled the impediments to world trade and investment between the European Union and the rest of the world? On the first, the Government agreed at Amsterdam that
"the Union should… foster closer institutional relations with the Western European Union with a view to the possibility of the integration of the WEU into the Union."
That would suggest bringing us closer to a common European defence than before.
If the Government believe that the European Union has specific defence interests, how exactly do they differ from those of NATO? If it does not, why can defence co-operation among the European allies not be pursued through existing NATO structures? Some have clear answers to those questions—they argue that the whole point is to enable the European Union to punch its weight against the Americans. That is the view expressed by the French Foreign Minister and by Chancellor Kohl. Do the Government share that view? If not, why did they accept further concessions to that view at Amsterdam?
On trade, perhaps the Foreign Secretary would tell the House what practical steps the Government are taking to ensure that the European Union does not retreat into protectionism. We on the Opposition Benches take great pride in our contribution to world trade liberalisation. Had it not been for the British Conservative Government, it is highly unlikely that the European Union would have agreed to the settlement reached at the final round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Where do the Labour Government stand on that issue? During the most recent European elections in 1994, the Labour party's manifesto stated:
"together we can face the economic challenge from both America and Asia …and act as a counterweight to the increasing power of international finance and the global activities of transnational companies".
Has the Labour party changed its mind? If so, what practical steps do the Government plan to eliminate the remaining external European tariffs?
What steps will they take to reform the common agricultural policy? We used to hear a great deal about the reform of the CAP when the Labour party was in

527
opposition. What will the Foreign Secretary do to counter the creeping anti-Americanism that is shared by so many of his European colleagues?
The Foreign Secretary was reported this morning as saying that the middle east peace process would be a top priority during the United Kingdom's presidency. The right hon. Gentleman made no mention of that this afternoon. Will he tell us a little more about how he intends to go about that? Will the Minister of State deal with that issue when he replies?
We are all agreed that job creation should be a priority for Britain's presidency. It is an area in which Europe has manifestly failed to deliver. Over the past 20 years the United States has created 36 million new jobs, of which 31 million were in the private sector. Over the same period only 8 million new jobs were created within the European Union, with no increase in private sector employment. There are now 20 million unemployed people on the continent of Europe.
European countries need to tackle head on the unpalatable truth that, unless they cut their social costs and free up labour markets, they will be out-priced and out-performed by the rest of the world, and unacceptable levels of unemployment will persist. Red tape and regulation are luxuries that Europe can no longer afford.
The Government pay lip service to the need for fewer burdens on business, increased labour market flexibility and reduced barriers to employment. However, one of their first acts in office was to sign up to the social chapter and to accept a new employment chapter into the relevant treaties. We are talking of measures that will increase social regulation, place further burdens on business and destroy jobs. Last week the President of the Board of Trade confirmed that the Government will introduce a statutory minimum wage. As the Deputy Prime Minister has admitted, "any silly fool" knows that it will cost jobs. How can the Government hope to influence the debate on this issue when they are in the process of adopting the European social model that has done so much to destroy jobs in Europe?
Will the Minister of State be able to tell us this evening exactly what proposals the Government intend to put forward during the British presidency that will help to deliver the flexible labour markets that his party now claims to support? How can the Government hope to prevent damaging proposals being foisted on Britain when so much social chapter legislation will be passed by the qualified majority vote? The hon. Gentleman was certainly unable to answer those questions yesterday.
In the first few months of next year, crucial decisions will be taken on the single currency. The Government have said that they are in favour of a single currency in principle, but that they want to see how it works in practice. The Chancellor of the Exchequer believes that Britain should be preparing to join early in the next Parliament. Yet even if the single currency starts on time, stage 3 will be fully complete only by the year 2002. Will the Minister explain how the Government plan to judge the success of the currency based on perhaps a year's operation? How can the Minister's party credibly be in favour of a single currency—which is for ever—but opposed to the temporary fixing of our exchange rate through the exchange rate mechanism?
528
Many European politicians speak openly of the need for fiscal union as well as monetary union. In other words, the wealthier countries in Europe would have to pay to help the poorer countries cope with a single currency. As the current president of the Bundesbank, Hans Tietmeyer, recently said:
"A European currency will lead to member nations transferring their sovereignty over financial and wage policy as well as in monetary affairs. It is an illusion to think that states can hold on to their autonomy over taxation policy."
Do the Government agree? If not, why not?
Will the Minister explain why the Foreign Secretary told the House on 28 October that the Government would not be making "any application" for European Union money to promote the Euro when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had just done precisely that? If there is to be a "general information" campaign, will both sides of the argument be presented? Will we hear the case for and against economic and monetary union? Or will there merely be a propaganda campaign for a single currency?
It is a proud moment for a country to hold the presidency of the European Union, and we wish the Government well. We want to see progress made on enlargement, on jobs and on reform of the CAP. Tackling crime and environmental pollution should also be priorities. Thanks to the legacy of the Conservative Government, Britain can now hold its head high in Europe.
Mr. Robin Cook: Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not move into his peroration without giving us his latest state of thinking on a referendum on the Amsterdam treaty. Will he now answer my question? Will he be recommending that his colleagues vote for new clause 47?
Mr. Howard: I note with great interest that the Foreign Secretary did not rise to intervene in my speech when I described the shabby trick perpetrated on his Government at Amsterdam. He did not seek to challenge one detail of the recital that I set out. The referendum is the Government's problem, not ours. It is the Government who are so keen on referendums. It is the Government who are holding referendums on Scottish devolution, Welsh devolution, regional devolution and on whether there should be a mayor and an authority for London. It is the Government who are so besotted with referendums.
Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman demanded a referendum as recently as October. When did he change his mind and why did he change it?
Mr. Howard: As I have said, it is the Government who are besotted with referendums. If the Government are so keen on them, the logic of their position is that they should hold one on Amsterdam.
I was dealing with job creation. We in this country have a higher proportion of working-age people in work than any other country in the EU. On the environment, thanks to the action of the Conservative Government, we are meeting our Rio target for cutting greenhouse gases. On law and order, we have seen crime fall every year for the past four years, to a greater extent than ever before.
Our vision for Europe—the Conservative vision—is of an outward-looking, flexible Europe. The nation state must remain the basic building block of the EU.

529
People are naturally proud of their own countries and politicians who ignore that sense of pride do so at their peril. Trying to build new institutions or transferring wide-ranging powers from long-standing institutions to new ones will end in disaster if those new institutions do not have the wholehearted support of those whom they are supposed to serve. That is why we oppose the extra powers for the European Parliament and the extension of qualified majority voting as agreed at Amsterdam. It is also why we argued for reform of the European Court of Justice.
The Government have made an inauspicious start in their relations with the European Union. They have been cold-shouldered out of the Franco-German-Russian troika, blackballed from the Euro X Committee and duped over the opt-in to the Schengen acquis. It has been a sorry saga. The Conservative Government demonstrated that it is possible both to stand up for Britain's interests and to lead in Europe. The Conservative Government simultaneously fought for our rebate and created the single market. We obtained the opt-out on economic and monetary union that the Labour Government are using. We raised the standard for a dynamic, outward-looking, job-creating Europe. We shall continue to keep that standard held high in opposition, and we shall hold the Government to account.
5.59 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke eloquently about the need to ensure the enlargement of the European Union to bring in the countries of the former Soviet Union—the colonies, as he described them. We on the Government Benches do not begrudge him his travels to those countries to ensure that the principles of democracy are well founded and well established, but I could not help thinking—a little heretically, I have to say—that if we were not, member of the European Union, what would the Foreign and Commonwealth Office do, poor thing?
I shall concentrate my remarks on the budget. My right hon. Friend mentioned the budget and, quite properly, said that there have to be changes somewhere along the line. Chapter 3 of "Developments in the European Union" mentions the budget for the calendar year 1998 but does not mention—I make no criticism, as it had not been mentioned in previous years—Britain's net contribution. It is quite difficult to find out our net contribution in any particular year, because we still deal in fiscal years and "they over there" deal in calendar years, and because the payments coming in do not always immediately match the payments going out. It is not easy to forecast at the beginning of a year the projects that will be accepted and the payments that will come in.
I finally found some figures in the old-fashioned Red Book of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). I am not sure whether we still have a Red Book—I found two red and green books. The figures were merely forecasts, and perhaps this year has been a bit better because of money coming in as a result of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy problems—I do not know—but over the next three years our average net contribution will be about £2·5 billion. That has, more or less, been the average figure over the past few years. That is a lot of money. The result of 1 p on income tax is, I am told about £1·8 billion, so £2·5 billion every year comes close to 1½p.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Is that all?
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend asks, "Is that all?" but we shall argue next week about £400 million in respect of single-parent families. He might not think that £1·8 billion or £2·5 billion is much, but compared to the £400 million they are large sums of money. Over four years, that £2·5 billion amounts to £10 billion.
Some of us go back a long way in the House. Indeed, some of us were at the Treasury when the transitional period came to an end. In 1978–79, our contributions shot up. Eventually—it took three or four years—Mrs. Thatcher, with considerable political will, was able to obtain the Fontainebleau agreement. If it had not been for that agreement, our contributions would now be about £4 billion a year. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister a rhetorical question. What will happen to the Fontainebleau agreement as we move towards 1999 and 2000 and the restructuring of the budget? I am sure that my hon. Friend does not know, and I do not blame him for that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) might not think it a lot of money, but I found an article in The Economist of 9 August 1997, entitled "Who pays most?" It includes a table for the calendar year 1995. The figures were taken from the Court of Auditors report. To show that I at least try to do my homework, I looked through the latest Court of Auditors report to see whether there was a similar table, but I did not get further than volume one. There might be a second volume, but I do not think that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who has, perhaps, spent more time than I have studying this in the past few days, could find a similar table either.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: It may interest the right hon. Gentleman to know that various members of European Standing Committee B asked for those figures precisely because they could not be found. The figures have not been released, despite the fact that four weeks have elapsed. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that suggests that the figures are rather worse.
Mr. Davies: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can supply the hon. Gentleman with the figures when he replies to the debate.
The article shows that, in 1995, Germany contributed 140·2 per cent. of total net contributions to the European Union budget. The gross domestic product per person in Germany, as a percentage of the European Union average, was 106·7 per cent., whereas France's percentage of total net contributions was only 18 per cent.— its GDP, at 107·2 per cent., was higher than that of Germany. Italy did even better with a net contribution of 6·4 per cent. and a GDP of 101 per cent. Chancellor Kohl has every right to complain, as do we, because according to the table, we contributed 49·3 per cent of total net contributions. Almost half the net contributions to the budget came from Britain, whose GDP per person was 98·2 per cent.
I understand how the budget works—we have all looked at it in great deal detail, and the position might be different this year—but it is extraordinary that we were contributing almost half the net contributions, yet, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, we are well down the line in terms of GDP per person.

531
I could not help looking at the figures for Ireland. I do not want to inflame Welsh farmers and make them throw any more very delicious Tesco beefburgers into the waters of Holyhead harbour, Fishguard or anywhere else, so I shall mention this quietly, but Ireland's net contribution to the EU budget was minus 19·7 per cent. In 1995 its GDP per head as a percentage of the EU average was 85·3 per cent., which is the same as the GDP per person in Wales. In fact it is probably slightly higher than in Wales. One can understand why Welsh farmers feel aggrieved when their incomes are going down and they have to endure imports of Irish beef. Welsh farmers contribute—perhaps they do not pay as little tax these days as they would like—to the European Union, whereas Ireland receives so much money back. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary well understands the problem, but we really must look at the figures.
It used to be said that these payments are for being members of the club. I have not heard the latest "clitch"—as Ernie Bevin used to describe it—recently, but the European Union used to be described as a club, and we had to pay a membership fee. Clearly some countries do not pay a membership fee; others pay a very large membership fee. That should be examined.
Local authorities and enterprise groups around the country set up projects so that we can get a bit of our own money back. I do not blame the Treasury for encouraging them to do so. Some very good projects are dreamed up. In a recent debate, hon. Members representing Liverpool were worried about the city losing its objective 1 status. I asked rhetorically, "How on earth did Liverpool obtain objective 1 status"? I am told that perhaps the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) arranged it, but I do not know. Parts of south Wales are much poorer than Liverpool: it is not the poorest region, area or town in Britain. Large parts of south Wales are much poorer in terms of gross domestic product than Liverpool, but they do not have objective 1 status. I mention that en passant.
We are always looking for projects. Many of them do not stand up to proper economic analysis. It is nice to have the money, but I get the impression that many of these projects merely provide work therapy for the middle-class people who run the enterprise groups. They are earnest, energetic men and women, who go off to Brussels with large folders. They try to pretend that this money is beneficial to their areas: perhaps much of it is.
Mr. Gill: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. Should not that money be spent in accordance with the wishes of the House? The right hon. Gentleman referred to our net contribution to Europe, but surely we should concentrate on our gross contribution. That huge amount of money goes beyond these shores, and other people decide how it should be spent. That money must be raised from the British taxpayer, not just the net amount.
Mr. Davies: I tried to find out what our gross contribution is, but I gave up, because I could not work it out, so I shall leave the point there. Perhaps the hon. Member for West Dorset, who is itching to intervene, could tell us?
Mr. Letwin: As always, I have followed the right hon. Gentleman's remarks with great interest. Is he aware of a
532
further problem that is dawning? It relates to the point that he has just made. The Community's budget has traditionally been adjusted from year to year on the basis of expectation. We discovered from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury that it now lies about 40 per cent. above actual expenditure in the past year. If, in this coming year, the European Community spends up to the budget provided for 1997–98 in the preliminary draft budget and the draft budget, the net and the gross contributions to which the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) referred would rise by 40 per cent.
Mr. Davies: Some years ago, the Treasury tried to explain to me about commitments and actual payments. In those days, the good old Treasury did not like this system. It did not like making commitments for future years: it likes to sow and reap in one year. The Treasury has been worn down, and has had to give in to this new fashion. I accept and understand the hon. Gentleman's point.
If we did not have to pay the £2·5 billion, there would be plenty of money for Liverpool. There would be no need to worry about losing objective 1 status, because the money would come from good, old-fashioned public expenditure.
That £2·5 billion is a charge on the Consolidated Fund, and we cannot do anything about it. All Chancellors and Chief Secretaries have to consider cutting public expenditure, but they cannot cut the £2·5 billion, because it is a charge on the Consolidated Fund. The Chancellor is keeping to the same control totals as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe. He has control over the vast range of public expenditure, but he has no control over our contribution to Europe: if the figure goes up, he can do nothing about it. It is a different type of payment.
During the debates on the treaty of Amsterdam, several hon. Members referred to qualified majority voting. As a matter of principle, I am not too happy about qualified majority voting. I take the old-fashioned view that international organisations should determine matters by consensus. We are told that, if there had not been qualified majority voting, the single market would not have been created. That is an a priori statement: I do not know how it can be proved. At the Uruguay round, a hundred countries were able to agree, not by qualified majority voting but by consensus, on the most major step forward in the freeing of international trade since the general agreement on tariffs and trade was established at the end of the second world war.
Britain could be outvoted on a matter involving expenditure. A few years ago, large sums of money were quite rightly spent on cleaning up our beaches and ensuring that our water was clean and fit to drink. Whether that expenditure was decided by qualified majority voting, I do not know. Britain could be in the minority on such a decision. That expenditure would become a charge on the Consolidated Fund. A future Chancellor could not take such expenditure into account when determining cuts in public expenditure. The area of public expenditure over which a Chancellor, and ultimately the House, has control would thereby be reduced. That is contrary to the democratic control that we like to think we have over expenditure.

533
We are a modernising Government: we are modernising the constitution, the welfare state and the electoral system. Let us have a bit of modernisation of the European Union. I know that it will be difficult.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) should not laugh, because this is a serious point, and I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends are taking it to heart. The Government's energy and desire for modernisation should be focused. It will be a hard battle. Baroness Thatcher managed it to some extent, but the Labour Government in 1978–79 failed because they lacked the political will at the top. If there is now the political will, we can modernise this wretched budget, so that we do not pay in any more than we take out.
6.17 pm
Dr. Liam Fox: I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House can agree on two points. The level of debate in this country on the subject of Europe has been far too low. It has been conducted at the level of five-year-olds wearing pro-European and anti-European badges. There is far too little debate in the public domain, as reported from this House by members of the press who are again absent today. There is far too little debate about the substantive issues involved in these complex subjects.
For a few days, I tried to look at the newspapers objectively to see whether I, as a member of the public, could glean any understanding of the issues. I was fully aware of who was on what side, who the personalities were and who their opponents were, but I was totally incapable of deducing from the written press what issues divided the individuals. I am afraid that that has been one of the pitfalls in recent years. We should take the debate to the level of the contribution of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). The Conservative party will be leading the debate in the next four years or so, while we wait to return to government.
There is another debate that we should have: the debate that dare not speak its name. We should determine the parameters in our relationship with the European Union. Both the Conservative party and the Labour party are split on Europe: they are the only two parties that matter, because they are the only two parties that will govern this country. The split is not down the middle.
There are splits on the fringes of the parties. Some people say, "We must get out of Europe because it is foreign." Others say, "We must accept everything with a Euro prefix because it is necessarily wonderful." The vast majority of us are in the middle, and we consider objectively what is in Britain's interests. We do not engage in knee-jerk reactions, pro or anti. An institution can be only what we mould it to be. Therefore, we cannot accept the words of those who say, "We must get out of Europe because we do not like some things in it," nor can we say that we must stay in Europe at any price, irrespective of what Europe dishes up. Those are not rational positions for a Parliament which says that it governs in the interests of the British people.
We must be frank about the good features of Europe. The Foreign Secretary spoke about Europe's ability to take Spain, Greece and Portugal within a short time from military dictatorships to stable democracies. However, we must also be frank about Europe's bad features. In
534
countries such as Spain, there is utterly unacceptable structural unemployment. More than a third of young people are out of work, and that is quite unacceptable. In terms of enlargement, we must accept all those arguments, because, if there is to be meaningful and successful enlargement, there must be fundamental policy changes in Europe, not least to the common agricultural policy, which would simply be incapable of sustaining the strains that would result from the increase in membership from eastern Europe.
There must also be a change in the culture of the European Union. A good example of how that culture must change came to my desk when I was a Foreign Office Minister in the previous Government. The Germans, the French and others were championing the newly emerging democracy of South Africa. They said, "We want to help. We want to do everything possible." Their first chance to help was to open European barriers to South African trade. They said, "Of course we can open them, but not to agricultural products." That was the one area in which we could have helped that emerging economy, but we were incapable of doing it because, despite all the rhetoric about the EU having an outward-looking foreign policy, when it came to challenging the interests of small French and German peasant farmers, the politicians could see no further than their next election. That is the fault line in the enlargement process.
The European Union's approach to the third world needs a great deal of looking at again. If we are serious about helping developing countries, the one action that we in Europe can take is to open our markets to their goods. There is no point people in Europe saying that they want to help while operating protectionist policies. As a free-trading country, Britain must take the lead on that. We need a new outward-looking Lome convention and a new African, Caribbean and Pacific arrangement, so that the ACP countries are dealt with on the basis of their economies and not their geographical locations. It is nonsense to treat a country with a single-commodity economy in the same way as one with a large complex economy and give them the same aid.
Britain can be proud of the quality of its aid. In my experience of dealing with that subject as a Minister, there is a great deal to be desired about the way in which the European Union manages its aid projects. There is a great deal more to be said for the cost-effective way in which we manage such projects than about the way in which they are managed through the EU. I hope that the Government will look again at the relationship between our bilateral and multilateral aid programmes, especially in terms of aid that goes through the EU and the quality of the aid that we can deliver relative to the size of our budget.
We have a pivotal role in Europe, because we are not just European—we have a wider perspective as a result of our history, our links with the United States and our membership of the Commonwealth. Those factors give us a different perspective from that of our European partners. In Europe, diversity is almost regarded as bad. We should be proud of the fact that we have a different perspective to bring to Europe. Perhaps the greatest feature that we can bring to it is that we are a free-trading nation.
I have great respect for the Foreign Secretary, but I was appalled when he tried to perpetrate the con that is so often perpetrated about the quantity of our trade and its

535
relationship to Europe. He said that the majority of our trade was with Europe. It was only when he was pulled up about whether he was referring to visible trade that he gave way. For anyone to pretend in this nation in 1997 that our invisible trade is less important is utter nonsense. I think that it goes back to Labour's dislike of financial services and the City of London and to some of the basic character traits that no soundbite can quite excise. It shows that Labour is not as in tune with the importance of the City of London and our invisibles as it should be.
No matter how one looks at it, arithmetically, if 47 per cent. of our trade is with the European Union, 53 per cent. is with countries outside the EU. That means that it is far more important for us to have an outward-looking Europe and to move towards further trade liberalisation. We must take some matters on board. Since the beginning of the decade, only two countries in Europe have sustained their share of world trade. Italy has held its share, while Britain's share has marginally increased. Every other country in the EU has had a diminution in its share of world trade in this decade.
Why, oh why are the Government signing us up to the possibility of having legislation imposed upon us, when that legislation has led to the very Euro-sclerosis that has resulted in the other European countries losing their share of world trade? We have worked hard to deregulate our economy and to increase once again the proportion of world trade that we are able to call British. Why should we want to put ourselves at a positive trading disadvantage?
Mr. Bercow: Did my hon. Friend notice how the Foreign Secretary failed to respond to the point that in the United States between 1974 and 1994, some 31 million private sector jobs were created, whereas the figure in the European Union was nil? That is the comparison between the deregulated market in the United States and the over-regulated labour market in the European Union.
Dr. Fox: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Perhaps I may paraphrase what he said. The real people's Europe is the one in which people are working, not the one in which politicians get to fulfil the timetables of their political dreams. What we mean by a people's Europe is one in which prosperity and economic freedom are given to the people; not a Europe in which those who lead European political parties get to follow utterly false political timetables to bolster the political esteem in which they hold themselves rather than to help their nations.
One of the big problems is that Europe is driven by abstract political considerations. If Europe moves together at some time in the future, there may be arguments for structural economic change. But what if it does not? If we all move around more freely, learn to speak the same language, and have proper pension arrangements and genuine convergence, we can make appropriate arrangements. We do not close a hospital in the hope that people will get healthy next year. We wait to see what happens first.
What is currently happening in Europe is dangerous. I am not in any sense anti-European, but if the present process is driven too fast and too far, we risk losing all the good that Europe has done and which I mentioned
536
earlier. There is a positive danger of driving Europe into a nationalist backlash, which will result in the resurrection of all the political traits that we sought to eliminate by having the European exercise in the first place. The Government are doing nothing to put the brakes on the current process: they are merely trying to gratify their own egos at European conferences.
Mr. Letwin: When the Foreign Secretary was speaking, there was an interesting example of precisely that problem. The Foreign Secretary systematically confused, did he not, the word "weaker" with the "word looser"? Is it not exactly part of our thesis that a looser union may be a stronger union and could be sustained?
Dr. Fox: The final part of my hon. Friend's intervention is exactly right: sustainability is the issue. There is no point in reaching a short-term solution that will enable pro-European Governments to rush to their electorates. What matters is that over the next 20 to 100 years we can create stable institutions. Just as there must be more flexibility in the wings of an aircraft as the aircraft gets bigger, so in Europe we shall fall out of the sky by trying to achieve too much, too fast.
We must accept that our European partners are not only partners; they are competitors on the world market. It gives me no great pleasure when a company locates in Germany or France, as opposed to the United Kingdom. I do not think, "Hurrah—more jobs have come to Europe." The job of the House is to defend British interests. I am not here to defend the economic interests of the electorate of Athens, South or Lisbon, West. Our job in this House is to do what is good for the British people. As long as we are competing, we must keep a competitive economy.
There is a fundamental difference of view between us—a free-trading nation—and some of our European competitors. Whereas we have always seen the European Union as a potential stepping stone to world trade liberalisation, there remain too many politicians on the European continent who see it as a means of protecting their own economies from the harsh economic winds that blow in a global economy.
We cannot be both a free-market Europe and a fortress Europe: only one of those views can prevail. We must ensure that a free, outward-looking Europe prevails. I have no great confidence at present that that view will prevail.
I look at the examples of how we have worked together in recent years, and I shudder at the prospect of EMU. One of the questions with which the Foreign Secretary did not deal adequately—I look to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), to deal with the matter this evening—is the currency of denomination of trade.
When I was a Treasury Whip, and subsequently, I believed that there were figures held in the Treasury that were unhelpful to those who wanted to push forward the EMU agenda, so on 2 May, or as soon as I could, I used one of the few advantages that we have in opposition, to try to get the whole answer out of our former civil servants, rather than half the answer, which we knew previously. I started to ask questions about currency of denomination.

537
On 19 June, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury replied:
"The most recent official data on the currency of invoice of UK trade can be found in the Central Statistical Office's Business Bulletin, Issue 12/89 'Currency of Invoicing', published on the 15 December 1989. The currency of invoice of UK trade is one of many factors the Treasury considers in assessing the short-run impact of exchange rate changes on the economy."—[Official Report, 19 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 268.]
I was a little perplexed. If the Treasury was using that to measure the short-run impact on the economy, but had no information since 1989, what on earth was going on? Either the Treasury used eight-year-old statistics to try to monitor the present economy—unlikely—or the Treasury has been gathering such information, but has decided that it is probably in our interests as a Parliament not to know about it, because it might not suit the Treasury's agenda.
I tried and tried, and with the open government that we now have, I have almost got there after several months. In November I received an answer from the Economic Secretary, which states:
"Publication of regular data on currency of invoice ceased in 1988"—
so the previous answer was wrong:—but
"the available evidence suggests that use of foreign currency is fairly stable over time."—[Official Report, 13 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 625–26.]
I am unable to get the data, but at least that one-sentence summary of the data shows where we were in 1989. The point is this: when a previous Chancellor followed the policy of shadowing the deutschmark, we were conducting intensive studies to show which currencies the UK traded in. The result was that at that time, with whichever trading partner and whichever goods we traded in, about 89 per cent. of our trade was done in sterling or in dollars. What proportion was done in deutschmarks? Four per cent. of our trade, and the Treasury says that that is stable over time.
That cannot provide an economic case for linking sterling with another continental European currency. If there is an economic case, it must surely be to link sterling with the dollar. If what the Treasury now tells us is true, we would merely substitute sterling-dollar volatility for euro-dollar volatility. Although the continental economies that trade in their own currencies would be protected from the uncertainties of interest rate changes, we would hand over a trading advantage while getting no advantage for ourselves.
I may be utterly naive, but I do not believe that we are here to provide our European competitors with a trading advantage. That may be helpful to the Prime Minister in gratifying his ego when he goes to shake hands with the masses on the continent of Europe, but our job is surely to protect the interests of those who take part in the British economy.
Mr. Gill: Would my hon. Friend be interested to know the answer that I received to a question only this week, when I asked what consideration the Treasury would give to linking sterling to the dollar? The Treasury's answer was,"None." Does that surprise my hon. Friend?
Dr. Fox: Frankly, I am surprised at any straight answers that come out of the Treasury. On that particular answer, it does not surprise me that the Treasury should
538
say that. The essence of the argument is that EMU is not an economic case. It might be partly an economic case, but EMU is about politics. It is about whether we move to a united states of Europe.
If we have a single currency, we shall have a single issuing authority. If we have a single issuing authority, we shall have a single monetary policy. Sooner or later, we shall have a single fiscal policy, because the Commission will extend the current proposals on fiscal harmonisation, and we shall be in a united states of Europe.
I did not give up my relatively lucrative career as a GP to become a district councillor. I do not think that we should sit back while the argument is made about the diminution of our sovereignty economically and politically, and pretend that it is an economic argument.
Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend suggests an extremely interesting line of argument. Does he agree that it could be taken one step further? It is a matter not merely of the trade weighting of our currency, which he so powerfully illustrates, but of convergence. If there is genuinely an argument for EMU in terms of economic convergence, does he agree that our convergence with the economy of the United States is at a far more advanced state of development than our convergence with the economies of continental Europe?
Dr. Fox: I am almost tempted to go down the line of debate that my hon. Friend suggests, but as he is far more expert in it than I am, I shall not do so, and also because I do not believe that we must link our currency to anything at all. I am quite happy for our currency to remain utterly unlinked. We have done dramatically well in the past decade using sterling in the current world trading environment.
For all the European dreams, oil will continue to be sold in dollars, and it does not matter how important Europe thinks it is. That is what the markets do. The commodities traded through the City of London will continue to be traded in dollars, because that is what the world does. It may be inconvenient for Europe to realise that it is not the centre of the world, and that what is said in Brussels will not be globally interpreted as the law.
There is a real world out there, and real markets that represent the cumulative economic activity of billions of people, and they are more important than what bureaucrats say in the European Union. We must understand that, because it will make the difference between our economic success in the future, and our economic failure.
Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I shall not interrupt him again. I was by no means suggesting that we should link our economy to the dollar. Rather, I was using that as an illustration of his argument that EMU is a political project, not an economic one. Were it a purely economic argument, serious consideration would be given to the two possibilities. Because it is being undertaken for political reasons, only the possibility of EMU is being considered.
Dr. Fox: There might be a point in the future at which such was the economic convergence that we would have

539
to consider whether the economic well-being of what existed in the real world outweighed the loss of political sovereignty, but we are not at that point now.
The project is being pushed too far, too fast, on a political timetable, not an economic timetable. That is where its weakness lies. It is not outward-looking. It pretends that Europe can do more in the world economy than it actually can.
My argument is not that Europe is foreign. My argument is that Europe is not foreign enough. It contemplates its own navel far too much, and looks to the outside world far too little. That is an inherent weakness in the European case. We need a Europe that looks outward, that is built on the nation state and that respects the nation state. I have no problem being Scottish and being British at the same time, and incidentally, representing a west country seat. At the same time, I am an unashamed Unionist. I have no problem being British and European, but I have no intention of ever being European first and British second. I am happy to co-operate with our European partners, to work with them and to share sovereignty when it is in our mutual interest to do so, but I do not want to be governed by them. Therein lies the difference.
New Labour talks about new influence, but we are sidelined and will continue to be sidelined. The people's party talks about a people's Europe, but it delivers a politician's jamboree. The Prime Minister talks about promoting Britain's interests, but he gratifies his own ego at the same time as providing us with a slow surrender. We have no confidence in the Government's ability to defend and promote our interests in Europe, but it gives us no pleasure that that is so.
6.40 pm
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I am pleased to be called in this debate, which is particularly appropriate for me. It is a sort of maiden speech mark II and it is many years since I made my first one. It is symbolic that I should follow three of what I would term Euro-sceptical speeches, albeit of varying intensity, and I would not say that I disagree with everything that was said in them.
It is symbolic, too, that I should follow the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—I am sorry that he has chosen to go for a breather, or wherever he has gone—because he has been a personal and family friend for 37 years. During that time, particularly the latter part of it—this is necessary background—he and I have parted political company increasingly generally, but particularly on Europe in recent years. That is sad. It happened when I sat on the same Benches as the right hon. and learned Gentleman, both in opposition and in government. What I am going to say now is nothing different from what I have already said from the Conservative Benches, and I am sure that everybody is all too familiar with my views.
What ran through my thoughts and emotions as I listened to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe was that it is too distant a dream to believe that we could ever have a debate in the House, particularly between the two Front Benches, that is constructive about Europe; about Britain within Europe
540
and advancing towards the leadership of Europe. I very much regret the fact that there is a gulf between the two major parties. I respect the strength of the views held by those who take a Euro-sceptic position—I have always respected their views and I have had many outings of various sorts with them over the years—but it is not healthy for British politics and it is not in the national interest.
This is obviously a bit of a personal statement. It is an opportunity for me to make a general speech about Europe. That is why I waited for this debate rather than indulging in debates in the Committee considering the European Communities (Amendment Bill), as that would have limited my comments. I value the opportunity to make this personal statement. I shall stick to Europe, but I shall include a little about what has happened to me in relation to recent events to do with the European Union.
I am sure that everyone will be relieved to know that my few words will not develop, in their motivation or intent, into any sort of attack on my former party. Obviously, there will be criticisms because, goodness knows, I made my views known when I was sitting with my former colleagues.
It is worth remarking that I have served in the House for nearly 24 years as a Conservative Member. Throughout that time, I have been a known and active pro-European. My views are the same now as they were when I first came to the Bar to take my seat. Goodness knows how many speeches I have made in the Chamber about Europe over the years, let alone the broadcasts I have made on virtually every aspect of the subject. One of the main things that brought me into British politics and into the Conservative party—I must emphasise that—was Britain's future within the European Union. Therefore, this is a sad speech for me.
I have dealt with my role in the Conservative party and with my increasing discomfort within it. I have not enjoyed, and have positively suffered over—this is a known fact and not a criticism—the fact that the Euro-sceptic drift of recent years has become increasingly pronounced. I believe that, during the previous Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—I say this as a tribute to him—had a miserable time. In my estimation—there is a reasonable chance that he would agree with me—I think that he found the Conservative party virtually impossible to lead on European matters.
I believe fundamentally that the trend within the Conservative Government, and now the Conservative Opposition, is profoundly against the national interest. I believe that Britain belongs in Europe and should be a leader of Europe. We have a unique contribution to make, and I am delighted that we are now setting the stage for actively making that contribution.
I have been overtly in favour of a single currency in principle for many years. I said that on at least two occasions in the House while still belonging to the previous Government—I have held my view for a long time. I campaigned overtly in favour of a single currency in principle during the general election, and, for the first time, for obvious reasons, I had a personal election message on my election address, which was sent to all my electorate. I came out in favour of a single currency, in spite of all the clamour and drama that was going on with

541
millionaires' money going around the place. I campaigned publicly in that way and I am pleased that I did so in view of what I have now felt obliged to do.
I have now come to the more recent run of events, but I cannot give the House the whole saga of what I have gone through. The culmination almost came some weeks ago when I was in Dublin with the Foreign Secretary. In fact, it did not come then; because of events, it took place just two weeks later.
I find totally unacceptable the shadow Cabinet decision of 23 October that, put simply, Britain should be outside a single currency for 10 years or at least the next Parliament. I am told that I had a freedom to express my views within the Conservative party—although the action towards me does not seem to suggest that—but I could not put myself forward as some sort of licensed dissenter. By standing as a Conservative candidate, I would be campaigning for a party to be elected to the Government of this country when it had views with which I was licensed to disagree. I cannot accept that shadow Cabinet decision in principle. It is totally the wrong decision.
The decision is that we should be outside a single currency for 10 years and then, apparently, we might be able to join after 11 years. The decision to be out for good and to be against a single currency in principle—I believe that many of my former hon. Friends think this anyway—is something which one could respect and with which one could disagree. Just clutching 10 years out of the air is politically irresponsible, because circumstances could change. If one is not against it in principle, it seems peculiarly foolish to set a time limit when circumstances might change. Within those 10 years, it may become manifestly in the national interest to join a single currency. If, by some accident of fate, we had a Conservative Government during that time, the country would be gravely disadvantaged.
Dr. Fox: The Government are preparing to enter the EMU after the next election without knowing what the risks might be. That system is unproven and there is no exit mechanism. Is that not an infinitely greater risk?
Mr. Temple-Morris: I will deal with the Chancellor's statement later in my speech, but I agree with it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the grounds for joining were set out very thoroughly in the statement. Any delay in the matter, which may not be in the national interest, has very little to do with the Government and virtually everything to do with the legacy that they have inherited from the previous Government.
Mr. Robert Jackson: Is there really all that much difference between the Government's position—which is to hold a referendum in perhaps five or six years, after the next general election, and to join a year or so after that—and that of the Opposition?
Mr. Temple-Morris: There is every difference between the two positions, most especially because the Government have made a decision in favour, in principle, of a single currency. It is as simple as that. There is now—since day one after the general election—a totally different attitude in virtually every Government pronouncement on Europe, in marked contrast to the previous Government's constant hostility over things
542
European large and small, which did this country absolutely no good. The previous Government's pronouncements were made for petty and party advantage, and their strategy did not work in the general election, which was the ultimate proof.
I have been obliged to state, because of interventions, that I can easily accept the Chancellor's statement of 27 October. I welcome a decision in favour in principle of a single currency. The decision is vital. I cannot understand how Conservative Members can say that—somehow, by using some miracle or conjurer's smoke—they are anywhere near the Government's position on the matter. Anyone who has listened to the early speeches in the debate, Front-Bench or Back-Bench, will be very clear about that.
The statement on the Government's position was pragmatic and sensible, and its timing was utterly understandable. As I began to say earlier in my speech, a referendum on joining is to be won. Anyone who believes in Britain's joining a single currency realises that rigorous terms will have to be met before we can do so, and that we will have to win that referendum.
Any fair observer will have to agree—it is widely acknowledged in the press—that the Government's inheritance has not been a good one. Years and years of constant Euro-bashing, which continues, has had its expected influence on the British public. Moreover, the Government's task has not been made any easier by large elements of the media, tabloid or broadsheet. The views of one or perhaps two newspapers almost make the Conservative party sound like Euro-enthusiasts, which is quite an achievement in this day and age.
The referendum is an important factor for the Government. I provide a case in point on a referendum, because of the considerable correspondence that has come my way over the past 10 days. My view—both personally and from the sensible contents of that correspondence and having talked to people in all walks of life—is that the British people are coming round sooner than expected on the European issue.
I accept entirely the pragmatic nature of the Chancellor's statement, but I am also a personal example. I think, and I hope, that the change in public opinion will accelerate. All I say to Ministers is to get us into that single currency as soon as is practicably possible. I have deliberately used the word "practicably"—because it is in the national interest for us to be in there sooner rather than later.
To escape the lock of my own position and of the single currency, I should like to make some general points on Europe. Although I will start with issues relevant to the single currency, I will not repeat myself. There are two additional points, one of which—the Euro X Committee—is extremely important and has already been dealt with partly in the debate. Unlike the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, I welcome the Chancellor's attempts to get on the Committee. It was very much in the Government's and the nation's interests that he should try to get on it, and I hope that there will be a change of mind and that he will be able to do so. Goodness knows, however, it will not be an easy task because of the position on that issue with which the Government have been left.
I am not alone in thinking that it is inevitable that the X Committee will develop into a power centre with interests way beyond the affairs of bankers and currency

543
dealers and that it is the beginning of an inner core or a first tier. As the committee will deal with the enormously important issue of the single currency and form an inner group that will meet in an only semi-institutional manner, in which national bonding will occur, it is but the beginning of something which will go far further. It is important to join the single currency so that we can be part of that committee and all the developments that will flow from it.
Another point to consider on economic and monetary union and the single currency is that our interim situation should be as short as possible. During the interim period, we will inevitably—the Governor of the Bank of England was talking about it only recently—be tied to decisions taken within the currency, even if we are outside it. The single market, for example, will ensure that that is so. It is not advantageous to the United Kingdom to be tied to decisions that we do not play an intimate part in formulating. Therefore, I hope that the interim period will be as short as possible.
All hon. Members know—I am sure that the Foreign Secretary, in his six months in office, has had abundant examples—that the common foreign and security policy is a very nationalistic issue. By no means, however, is the United Kingdom nationalistic in our foreign and defence interests. The policy is too important for this country to be left out of any developments that may, and eventually will, occur under it. It is in everyone's common interest to get together on the issue, simply because—it is common sense—the members of Europe have far more clout as a whole than does any individual member, however historic its world role may be.
In defence, we have already had an active and positive example of collective interest. We have worked bilaterally, most particularly with France. It is evident that European co-operation is necessary, and painfully evident that it is in our financial interests.
Flexibility, concentric circles, tiers—or whatever one calls it—will become inevitable within the existing, let alone a larger, Union. The temptation for our Government, or any Government, will be to be left behind by the excuse that any flexible system provides. As a general criterion, we must be active in any top tier of authority that will have serious effects and consequences for the British people. I believe that, as matters develop, there will be ever more tiers of authority. Such tiers will be positively encouraged by the doctrine of flexibility.
Britain is in Europe, and we will stay there. Thank goodness we have given up shouting from the sidelines. Under this Government—who are very much one of the principal reasons why I sit on the Government Benches—Britain can now begin steadily to return to the leading position in Europe that we should have firmly occupied many years ago.
6.58 pm
Mr. David Heath: It is a pleasure to speak in a debate in which most of the speeches have been constructive and lucid. After four debates on Europe in the House in one week, enthusiasm for speaking about Europe has not waned.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): For some.
Mr. Heath: Yes, for some.
544
I tell Ministers and the Foreign Secretary, who has left the Chamber—
Mr. Robin Cook: I am here.
Mr. Heath: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon.
I welcome the new sense of engagement that the new British Government have brought to Europe in recent months. We must play a full role in Europe and make Britain's voice heard in the councils of Europe.
I hope that, in doing so, Britain will not just adopt a comfortable position. A huge agenda has opened up in recent months since the conclusion of the Amsterdam summit. I trust that Britain will be asking some searching questions about current European structures and how they relate to ordinary citizens.
I do not begrudge the Foreign Secretary his peregrinations, the aim of which should be to improve Britain's influence and to make the ethical foreign policy of which he speaks better understood. There are a great many reforms of the EU which urgently need implementing. Indeed, we have reached the point where the institutions of Europe need a complete makeover if they are truly to reflect our chief objectives: openness, accountability, maximum efficiency and making subsidiarity more generally understood. Subsidiarity should mean decisions taken not just at the level of nation state but at the level of the regions, too.
Over the next few months, we shall be applying a number of tests to the Government's performance as they take up the UK presidency. I do not use the word "test" in a censorious fashion; we simply want to determine the progress that may or may not be made during the next six months. Equally, we do not intend to make impossible demands. We certainly do not go in for the collective amnesia that seems to have gripped some Tory Members, who forget that, during their 18 years of government, very little progress was made on several areas in dire need of improvement.
The first such area is employability and the single market. Britain must give a clear lead on deregulation, where progress seems to have stalled in telecoms, energy, air transport, pensions, banking, insurance and biotechnology. Deregulation of all these areas needs to be revitalised.
I should like there to be more cross-border training and mobility of training opportunity. There may be scope for a vocational training exchange programme, just as exchanges operate in higher education. Britain must be at the forefront of attempts to cut unnecessary labour on-costs, in the context of pragmatic labour laws that recognise that deregulation does not mean no regulation. We need progress on developing a European company statute as well. So the first test will be whether there is a substantial reduction in red tape—or at least a consensus on how that can be achieved in the next six months.
The second test concerns preparations for economic and monetary union. Setting aside my doubts about the geometric possibilities of sustainable convergence, it is still clear that Britain will have a key role, whether or not she is an early member, in establishing the ground rules on which monetary union will take place. We must act as an honest broker, insisting on strict adherence to the convergence criteria while not agreeing with some

545
elements—Germany, for instance—that would seek to exclude the southern states almost on principle instead of on the economic facts.
We should press for a British seat on the Euro X Committee. Similarly, we should press for genuine accountability on the part of the European central bank. The first head of that bank is soon to be appointed. Let us have structures that make the bank accountable to someone—anyone—instead of leaving it to sit in splendid isolation. So our tests will include whether there will be a British seat on the Euro X Committee, and whether the central bank will be made more accountable.
My third area for discussion is sustainability and the environment. Britain has a good record of taking the lead in climate change measures—
Mr. Letwin: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he is making a well-nigh impossible request of the type that he was earlier asking the Government to forswear? Would not the argument for a European central bank and EMU virtually collapse if the central bank were accountable to political forces in Europe and could thus distort interest rates in favour of one part of Europe or another? Is not the bank meant to be a far-seeing body entirely divorced from politics?
Mr. Heath: It is right that the bank should be independent of political pressures, but it should also be accountable for the exercising of its functions. It should report to the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers, or both, on the exercise of those functions and on the decisions that it takes.
To return to the environment, it is important to hold hard to the principle of the 15 per cent. cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2010. Following the Kyoto conference, I believe that Britain should seek to establish a special conference of the European nations to determine how we can make practical advances towards that objective. We must take action to clean up the environment of the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe, which suffer terrible environmental degradation, and which will need help in the short term to bring them up to the standards of the best of the western European countries.
There must be progress on implementing the habitats directive, and a commitment to more renewable energy sources. The next test, therefore, will be whether the British Government, during their presidency, introduce a practical measure to bring about advances in sustainability.
A great deal of lip service is paid to cutting the costs of the EU, yet there is little activity—even though there are some obvious targets. At the risk of incurring the charge that I am asking for the impossible, I point out that certain questions need to be asked repeatedly. For instance, why does the EU continue to subsidise the growing of tobacco to the tune of £750 million? It is absurd that European taxpayers' money should be used to subsidise a crop whose use we want to reduce.
Why do we not try to end overpayments to cereals growers, who are over-compensated to the tune of £12 billion owing to a miscalculation of cereal prices? Savings of £1 billion are to be had there. I accept that it will not be easy, but it could be done in the common interest.
546
Although administration costs are sometimes exaggerated, it worries me that Commission staff are paid a 16 per cent. allowance for being based abroad, even though many of them are based in Brussels all their working lives. That alone costs £86 million a year; it could easily be negotiated on. I will not today go into the question of the European Parliament's dual seats, but I strongly believe that it should have a single site—a point to which we must return during discussion of the Amsterdam treaty.
As for cracking down on crime, I was accused in Committee this morning by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), of being a friend of international crime for daring to suggest that we in Britain might resent large-scale immunities for Europol officers when they are not granted to our own constabulary. I was surprised to receive scant support from the Conservative Front Bench. I thought that the Conservatives were interested in such issues. We must balance stronger international co-operation on crime with the rights of the individual, ensuring that civil liberties are maintained. Europol must be operational at the earliest opportunity, with those safeguards in place. We also need greater customs co-operation to reduce drug smuggling and the use of drugs.
I mentioned in an earlier intervention the importance that we attach to the European code of conduct on arms exports. We wish the Foreign Secretary well in his negotiations with other member countries on establishing that code. We should be considering other aspects of the arms trade and looking for an opening up of arms procurement. That would have two beneficial effects—cutting costs, and promoting the consolidation of the arms industry across Europe, which must be to the benefit of companies such Thomson Marconi in my constituency, which has already taken such a step to an extent in its co-operation with its French counterparts.
I agree with the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) about the need for a fair deal on trade and aid and for the liberalisation of trade between the European Union and the Lome countries. However, on farming and fishing perhaps we enter the sphere of the impossible.
We all agree that fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy is necessary. There is a blueprint for that in the Agenda 2000 document. The Government would do well to persuade partners to attach their names to the principles of that document. We also need the entire common fisheries policy replaced by a regionalised fisheries policy. We should look for the short-term savings to which I have referred in the agricultural policy so that we have the headroom in which to make progress.
Open and accountable European institutions are important to us. The Amsterdam treaty refers to open access to European Union documents in two years. Britain does not need to wait two years to promote that objective. There should be more transparency in the operation of the institutions. We should back the European ombudsman—an institution put in place by Maastricht which almost nobody knows about, partly because it is hidden in Strasbourg. It should have a Brussels base, it should co-operate with national ombudsmen and there should be greater public awareness of access to it. There should be better co-ordination among the Commission, the European Parliament and national Parliaments to ensure better scrutiny of European measures.

547
I do not want to repeat points made by other hon. Members about enlargement. It is incumbent on the British Government during their presidency to make every effort to accommodate and assist the negotiations of the applicant countries. That should go beyond the initial five plus one. It is equally important that the interests of the second tranche of applicant countries are properly catered for. We must provide a clear process and a clear timetable so that no one is under any illusions about where they stand and how to make progress towards their objective. We must also calculate the genuine costs of enlargement so that no one has any illusions about what is needed to provide for it.
The last in my compendium of tests is that the United Kingdom must be properly prepared. We need to enhance our arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of measures that come from Europe. We must enhance our data protection arrangements to bring them up to the standard of the best in Europe. We must work with the European Court of Auditors to ensure direct connections with our excellent local and national auditing processes, so that European money is traceable from source to its final point of—hopes—productive use. That would set an example to other countries and encourage them to make the same arrangements available to the European Court of Auditors.
The Council of Ministers must also be more transparent to this House and to the other Parliaments of Europe. It is appropriate to ask Ministers to report fully, at the earliest opportunity after a meeting, on what they have done on behalf of the House and the British people.
I have listed 10 areas in which we can apply objective tests of the Government's progress during their presidency. We wish them well and hope that they will make progress in several of those areas. The responses of Ministers in recent months have given us reason to believe that they share several of our priorities to make the European Union more transparent and accountable, so that citizens will feel reconnected to the European process.
The most important aim is to re-establish the principle that Europe should proceed by the informed consent of the people on any issue, be it monetary union or constitutional change. Britain should make it clear that further progress requires the informed consent of the British people. Informed is the operative word, because the debate in this country has been debased in recent years. The arguments have not been properly articulated. Informed consent would ensure that either the European Union progresses with the support of the British and other people or it does not progress.
7.17 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: We should start from what people are saying in the streets. During and after the election campaign, they said to me, "I thought we joined Europe so that we could have a trading partner and so that we could have jobs and employment." At the time, the other markets of the world were closing against British and European products. Our natural trading partner—apart from third world countries, which were closing their doors at the time—was Europe.
A referendum was held and a yes vote was achieved. The Conservative party led Britain into Europe to expand the opportunities of people in this country to work, to be
548
fully employed and to sell their goods freely to Europe without tariff barriers or any inhibition to trade or the expansion of our industry. Joining Europe enabled Britain to make use of its undoubted talent, initiative and enterprise and to continue to grow and fulfil the ambitions of the people of this country.
My constituents say, "Why are we going to substitute such a Europe for a Europe in which we are ruled by bureaucrats from Brussels, bureaucrats from Strasbourg and now bureaucrats from Frankfurt, who are entirely unaccountable to our House of Commons to which we elect Members of Parliament? That is not what we voted for in the referendum." In bewilderment they ask, "What is happening to our policy on Europe?"
At the heart of the change is the politically led drive by Chancellor Kohl, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) referred. That move is driven by political reasons which have their origins in the second world war and the fear of further war. The drive is towards a political union which is seen as somehow binding Europe together so that European countries will never fight again.
To reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring said, the idea that one can combine Europe by huge steel girders is an illusion which will lead inevitably to conflict. Europe is a series of peoples who are proud of their cultures and who have their own languages and their own history. If the House really thinks that it can wipe all that away, it should look at our relationship with Northern Ireland and the effect that that has on the people of Britain. One cannot wipe away the history and culture of a people; one has to respect them. That means that Europe has to be a series of proud and self-confident nations which are respected by their neighbours. They have to have their own processes of gaining the consent of their people to Government actions and taxation.
The country that exemplifies such a democracy, with responsibility and accountability to its people, is Britain. No other country in the European Union has not experienced dictatorship of one kind or another, be it communist, fascist or military, within living memory.
Mr. Ken Purchase: What about Sweden?
Mr. Wells: It is true that Sweden has been democratic in recent years, but it does not have a democracy of the length and type that we enjoy. Anyway, that example does not disprove what I am saying. Sweden is a proud nation with its own culture and language; it certainly does not want to be absorbed into a girdled, centralised state which is not accountable to its people.
There is a fear of a bureaucracy that is not accountable. It is no good wishing, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) did, for it to be accountable. Monetary union, with a central bank, is designed to be independent of politicians. The central bank will be very much more independent than the Bundesbank because there will be no powerful Parliament to which it has to be accountable or responsible. The Bundesbank can be influenced by the federal parliament in Bonn and it was demonstrably overridden on the value of the western and eastern mark. Let that be a lesson to the House. What did that political decision achieve? It annihilated industry in east Germany and resulted in high unemployment.

549
Unemployment in Europe should be our major concern. It is the major concern of our people who want jobs and that is why they joined the European Union. Our people do not want a centralised and unaccountable bank which will dance to the tune of the strongest and largest economies in Europe. Monetary union is inevitably a highly centralising factor.
If the House wants a recent example of monetary union, it should look at the history of the United States dollar. The United States dollar was not the universal currency in the 13 states that won the war against Britain at Yorktown. Between that time and the civil war, several state currencies operated in the United States. The ending of the civil war imposed the Yankee dollar on the southern states. What is the history of the southern states after that imposition? There was a period of serious economic difficulty and decline for more than 100 years.
After monetary union in Europe, the south-eastern and southern states and Britain will find themselves on the periphery of the central states—the strongest economies—of Europe. That is why monetary union is wrong for Europe. It will also lead to violence. Unemployed people will try to move, but will we allow them to cross the boundaries of Europe? Britain certainly will not. Mass movements of people will be resisted and that will result in violence. Anyone who doubts that should look at the arrival of the Czech gipsies in Dover within the last month. Monetary union will result in violence.
If there is an increasingly unemployed periphery of Europe, there will be riots in the streets of the southern countries that are being deprived of employment. That is why we must be seriously concerned about monetary union.
Dr. Fox: Does my hon. Friend accept that, until we have completely free fiscal transfer—free from national considerations—and the completely free movement of peoples, we shall never be able to make the case successfully for economic and monetary union?
Mr. Wells: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. That point is what I am trying to explain to the House.
We shall not have the free movement of people. What can we do to compensate areas that suffer from high unemployment? We can transfer huge sums from the richer states to the poorer to try artificially to create employment there and to compensate people for their lack of capacity to move. War did not take place in the United States because people could move across state boundaries.
Dr. Fox: And there was one language.
Mr. Wells: Indeed, there was one language. The language was going to be German, but a majority of one vote made it English so we are lucky in that. The United States had a common language and people were able to move around.
We cannot transfer money because none of the nation states will contribute enough to compensate for the lack of employment in the peripheral areas. That rigidity will lead inevitably to the pulling apart of Europe rather than its joining together. That is why I am fundamentally against it.
In addition, monetary union is fundamentally undemocratic. Democracy in Europe is achieved, admittedly not terribly well, through national parliaments.
550
This Parliament does not do its job well enough in relation to European legislation, but most of the other European parliaments do not scrutinise such legislation at all. Europe is not fully democratically accountable. The European Parliament does not have the ability to call Ministers to account; it can call to account only the European Commission.
The House would not expect me to sit down without saying a brief word on the European Union's external relations, especially concerning the renegotiation of the Lome agreement. The International Development Committee, of which I am honoured and proud to be Chairman, visited Brussels only last week. It discovered that the EU's plans are very alarming. The EU is trying to divide up the old relationships of the European states, especially France and Britain, and treat the countries concerned as though they were just any other country with which the EU would like to have relationships. It wants to enhance its relationships with the Mediterranean group of north African countries. The Germans want to enhance the relationship through aid and trade with eastern Europe. The EU also wants third-world countries which are not encompassed in the Lome agreement to be made equal with those which are, as well as to divide up the African, Caribbean and Pacific nations into four regions, combine them with other countries in the same geographic area and treat them all the same.
Such behaviour on the part of the EU will break traditional ties and trading arrangements, which will seriously undermine some of the poorest countries in the world in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. When that is combined with the proposed reforms of the common agricultural policy, which reduces commodity prices—that is its objective—it will lead to the decimation of the sugar, rum, banana and textile industries of the third world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring said, such industries are the only means by which they can climb out of poverty.
When we take up the EU presidency in January, we shall be able to influence the EU's negotiating position on renegotiation of the Lome agreement. It is absolutely vital that our Ministers reverse the European Commission's policy trend. If they do not, they will decimate the very vulnerable economies of our long-time friends in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. They will break the unity of those countries into competing groups and thus weaken them and their capacity to negotiate with the EU.
It is extremely difficult for those countries to devote the necessary human resources to negotiate on a one-to-one basis with the kind of talent among EU representatives. The African, Caribbean and Pacific countries will not be given the remotest chance of continuing their relationship—or, indeed, enhancing it—with Europe, which is a matter not just of aid but essential investment and trade access. Action to prevent that should be one of the British presidency's primary objectives.
We are members of Europe. We need to play a full-blooded, robust part in Europe. We must respect European traditions and each country's history and culture. We must work together, but for an outward-looking Europe, a Europe that offers people opportunity of employment—both internally and to our traditional partners in trade the world over.
7.33 pm
Mr. Robert Jackson: Although what I plan to say was devised before the debate began, it follows very naturally on what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) has said about the importance of the role of the nation state in Europe.
In its ruling of October 1993 on German accession to the Maastricht treaty, the German constitutional court focused on the question of the legitimation of the decisions of the European Union. Although it foresaw a growing role for the European Parliament, the court insisted that there was a limit to that body's legitimising capabilities. The European Union, it stated,
"is not a state based on a European people"
or Europaisches Staatsvolk, but rather an "inter-state community" of Staatenbund. It concluded that the community is based "first and foremost" on legitimation deriving from the citizens of member states which express their will through national Parliaments.
Mr. MacShane: What about a translation?
Mr. Jackson: I have noticed that French phrases are occasionally used in the House, so perhaps German may also be permitted from time to time. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I was translating accurately.
Such high-level German concern about legitimacy should find a ready echo in every Tory breast. If there is any single value that can be said to underlie the long history of the Tory party since its remote origins in the 1640s, it is its concern with the principle of legitimacy. For the constitutional Right, of which the British Conservative party is the paradigm, one of the highest values is that the authority of government should be such that its acts enjoy the trust and spontaneous consent of the people.
It is, however, fair to say that some of those, even in my own party, who are most enthusiastic about Europe have been too slow to recognise the relevance to the EU of the concern about legitimacy. "Full-hearted consent" is not just an empty phrase. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) correctly remarked, it should be regarded as a prerequisite in the development of European structures.
For instance—here I strike a personal note—I concluded very early on after Maastricht that there should be no question of Britain joining European economic and monetary union without a prior referendum, even if, due to the natural scepticism of the British people about speculative projects, that made it inevitable that Britain could not join in the first wave. Here I find myself at variance with the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris).
European monetary union is a big step; it is an inherently risky venture and it has major constitutional implications. That is undoubted. It is a step that we should take only after the British people have given their informed consent, which was also a phrase used by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. This concern with legitimacy also makes me more sympathetic than some of my hon. Friends to the idea of a referendum on the Amsterdam treaty—however divisive such a referendum might be between and within the parties.
It is not enough, however, simply to say that the further development of the EU poses a problem of legitimacy, as though that were enough to put an end to that further
552
development. The plain fact is that, in a union of 15 different states, with 15 different histories and cultures and 15 different public opinions, there will be at least 15 different concepts of the limits of legitimacy in relation to the EU.
There is a group of states—Britain, the Scandinavians and perhaps Greece—where the threshold of legitimacy might be said to be relatively high, in the sense that there is a high level of concern about the issue. There is another group of states—Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries and the Iberians—where the threshold is relatively low. Finally, there is a swing state—France—where the opinion of the political classes may be running ahead of popular consent, but where raison d'etat seems likely to prevail.
All of this creates a very difficult situation for those of us in Britain, in a high-threshold country, who are concerned that the developing structures of the EU should function on the basis of genuine legitimacy.
We face proposals and developments that pose legitimacy problems for us but it seems not for others—at least, not yet, despite the warnings of the German constitutional court, or not yet to the same extent as for us.
What, then, are our options? One option, which undoubtedly commands some support in the House, both overt and covert, is withdrawal—the most drastic resolution of our dilemma. I shall not say anything now about the costs and the risks of withdrawal from the European Union after some 30 years of membership. I merely observe that the only time that a political party—the party now in government—has fought an election on the basis of withdrawal, after only 10 years of membership, it suffered the second most humiliating defeat in recent political history.
I also make the perhaps novel point that attitudes to Europe differ among the nations of the United Kingdom, to the extent that it is now a real question whether the British Union would survive withdrawal from the European Union. Although there is a legitimacy problem with advancing in Europe, there is also a legitimacy problem with going backwards.
A second option, favoured by some, is that Britain should simply exercise the veto it undoubtedly enjoys under the treaties over future developments in the European Union. But this is only an illusory solution. No veto in the existing European Union structure can stop the other member states from exercising their sovereign right, if they so choose, to develop new structures among themselves for working together. That is precisely what is now happening among the EMU "ins". We may seek to prevent them from meeting in the Council buildings in Brussels, but they will simply drift across to a restaurant or another meeting room outside.
The same drawback arises in relation to a third possible option—the one favoured by the previous Government—that is to say, variable geometry or the negotiation of national opt-outs. The difficulty with that—it was graphically illustrated in the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—as in the case of the imposition of vetoes, is that if, whether inside or outside the structures of the Union, a substantial number of states create among themselves a critical mass of policy especially in the economic sphere, it is likely to generate a momentum and

553
pressures which any opted-out member state will eventually find irresistible. That is what happened to Britain in relation to the Common Market in the 1950s and 1960s. It has just happened in relation to the social chapter opt-out of 1992, and a realist would probably recognise that it is highly likely that the same thing will happen in due course to our EMU opt-out.
I do not know that divine providence intended that the world should always be a comfortable place for us British. If my analysis is correct, we face a painful tension—perhaps more painful for some than for others—between realism about the correlation of forces and interests in today's Europe, and our well justified concern for the continuation in these islands of forms of government that enjoy a high level of legitimacy.
Obviously, our objective must be to persuade our partners to change the European Union so that we can be more comfortable in it. How that might be done is a subject that I might hope to address if I caught the Speaker's eye on another occasion. Tonight, I shall say only that there are many factors on which we can work in the longer term, notably the impending generation change in German politics; Germany's shift to the east; the increasing tensions surrounding European policy in France; and the growing scale and diversity of the European Union. We will have to think much more penetratingly and realistically about how to influence the balance of European politics than we are yet accustomed to, and with much more cool calculation and a lot less barely suppressed resentment and offended amour-propre.
I wish to pursue my theme of the problem of legitimacy in the European Union. I offer the perhaps radical suggestion that, if the European Union has a problem of legitimacy and if we cannot simply stop Europe and get off, our duty is not to complain and denounce and make the problem of legitimacy even worse, but actively to promote a sense of legitimacy for the structures that now play an ineluctable part in our government. Such a concern to promote the legitimacy of the Union of which we are a part is not by the way—as I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring if he were in his place—it is not inconsistent with criticism. However, our criticism should always be balanced, tempered and constructive.
Legitimacy is not static or something that one acquires and then keeps—it is dynamic, and it can be lost and won. It also changes the way in which it is expressed. In the long history of my party, we have successively envisaged the basis of legitimacy as the divine right of the monarch; the union of the throne and altar; the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament; and—in the dawning era of referendums—the sovereignty of the people.
What we in the political class say and do can have a large impact on the evolution of public opinion, which is the ultimate source of legitimacy in democracies. Politicians on both sides of the House have a choice. We can choose an ultimately impotent hand-wringing about the real challenges that the European Union poses to our current understanding of the legitimation of government—a posture that is ultimately self-defeating in terms of our concern that government should be legitimate. Or we can deliberately try to build legitimacy for the new structures, from which it seems, realistically speaking, there is no getting away.
554
An important source of modern legitimacy is, for example, the perception of benefits. Thus we could deliberately seek to focus the public's attention on the substantial interests that are at stake for our people in the European Union, rather than suggesting, as is sometimes done, that those interests are nugatory in a global setting. Perhaps nowadays we may hear a little less about how Britain's future lies among the Asian tigers.
Another important source of modern legitimacy is respect for law and due process. Thus we could set out deliberately to encourage a greater public understanding of the essential rule-boundedness and rationality of the European Union's structures, rather than promoting, as is sometimes done, the idea that there is an inherent judicial bias against Britain.
Yet another modern source of legitimacy is trust. We could make a serious effort to promote the idea that our partnership in Europe is based on mutual trust, rather than implying, as is sometimes done, that in the battles of Europe we have enemies who are looking for every opportunity to do us down.
Then there is the legitimacy that comes from vision. We could try to encourage our people to understand just what a remarkable and beneficent phenomenon is the coming together of the great historic nations of the old world—something we sometimes take too much for granted or even allow to slip from our minds.
In conclusion, I wish to address one or two words specifically to my party. Our leadership has indicated that, while it is sceptical about EMU, it wants to be robustly positive about Europe in general. I welcome that and I will strongly support it. In a well argued speech to the Confederation of British Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) amply justified his caution about EMU.
It is a perfectly reasonable position for the Conservative party to wait for EMU to prove itself, although we must be realistic about the potential costs for British influence that may arise from not participating in the crucial early phases of its developments. The question arises, however, of what the other limb of the policy—being positive about Europe—will mean. Uncomfortable as it may be for some, I dare to suggest that such a positive approach cannot be followed without making something like the analysis that I have sought to make in this speech, and reaching something like the conclusions that I have reached.
7.48 pm
Mr.ChristopherGill: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), my constituency neighbour, is not in his place, because one of life's ironies is that I take such an interest in European affairs because, 10 years ago, he recruited me to the Conservative Back-Bench European affairs committee. The more I saw, studied and analysed what went on in Europe, the more I concluded that European union, by which I mean economic and political union, was not in the United Kingdom's best interests.
I invite the House to look at the events of this week, because we have seen in Great Britain a development of great significance. Although I will not pretend that it is unprecedented in the annals of British history, it is novel in my lifetime. I am referring to the action of Welsh farmers at Holyhead and Fishguard which is now replicated at ports in Scotland.

555
Farmers are acting out of frustration or sheer desperation as they see their livelihoods taken away from them. Their action is prompted by a slump in cattle prices, and is compounded by the Government's refusal to make compensation payments for the strength of sterling or to increase hill livestock compensatory allowance payments. In addition, the Government have terminated rendering subsidy, imposed arbitrary weight limits on over-30-months scheme cattle, reduced the rate of compensation and declined to renew the £60 million special assistance paid by the previous Government.
One might ask what this has to do with the European Union. I shall demonstrate as I go along that it has everything to do with the European Union. I am not talking about the export ban—which, as we all know, was imposed not for any scientific reason or any consideration of human health, but purely for political reasons. Nor am I talking about the European directive on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. I am talking about developments in the European Union that have so undermined the process of democracy—the House will have been interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who referred to legitimacy in the process of government—that farmers have been driven to their action this week.
The farmers may not necessarily see it in these terms, but, by their actions, they are demonstrating their recognition of the fact that the conventional democratic process cannot solve their problems. They have lost confidence in the traditional process of democracy to obtain redress, for the simple reason that, as far as farmers are concerned—the same applies to fishermen—the conventional and traditional democratic process no longer exists.
Gone are the days when convincing a sufficient number of Members of Parliament of the strength of an argument produced change in agricultural policy. Gone are the days when Agriculture Ministers would use discretion in dealing with genuine mistakes made by farmers in filling in forms, for example. Gone are the days when Ministers who failed to measure up would be dismissed. It is probably true to say that Edwina Currie will go down in history as the last Minister to be drummed out of office on an issue affecting agriculture.
Nowadays, there is a grim realisation that neither changing the Minister nor changing the Government has anything other than the most marginal effect on agricultural policy. The reality is that agricultural policy is determined in Brussels. Under qualified majority voting, the United Kingdom currently has only 10 votes out of 87.
To those politicians—there are many of them—who say that reform of the common agricultural policy is the answer, I invite them to explain how that can be achieved. How will they achieve unanimity for any radical change, given that the French, for example, oppose Agenda 2000? How will they stop the creation of a blocking minority in circumstances in which several countries are such net beneficiaries that they would not dare to bite the hand that feeds them? When we talk about reform, it must not be thought of as a panacea because of the difficulty in achieving that reform. Talk of reform is merely a placebo—in other words, a medicine given to humour rather than to cure.
556
I return to my theme, which is the significance of the action taken by Scottish and Welsh farmers. By dint of the failure of the now virtually defunct traditional conventional democratic processes, they are driven to take direct action. They have seen that simply replacing a Conservative Government with a Labour Government has not in any way changed agricultural policy, which is dictated from Brussels and is not decided where it should be decided—here in the Westminster Parliament.
The failure of political parties to give satisfaction—because they have surrendered the power to do so to a higher authority—is leading inexorably to anarchy. Hon. Members may not wish to contemplate the fact that in the areas most affected by this week's disturbances, the electorate has already explored the whole gamut of party political possibilities. The voters are now discovering that, whereas they previously concluded that none of the major parties could satisfy their aspirations, the nationalist parties that represent those areas cannot do so, either.
In those circumstances, the farmers have taken direct action. They have gone to the barricades, driven there by the craven action of successive Parliaments here in Westminster which have given away—and continue to give away—the sovereign right of the British people to be governed by their own laws, made in their own Parliament, in accordance with their own free choice expressed in British ballot boxes.
The new Labour Government—still in a euphoric mood as a result of their success on 1 May—will not be disposed to heed my warning, but the writing is on the wall. Just as the previous Conservative Government were swept away on May day, so too will new Labour be driven out of office when it is seen that, in spite of wrapping itself in the Union Jack, adopting the British bulldog as a mascot and generally playing the patriotic card, it intends neither to stem the flood of parliamentary sovereignty away from these shores nor, least of all, to reverse a process that has already gone too far.
There is a notion in the minds of people who should know better that, in making an ever-closer union with the other nations of Europe, we are simply exchanging one sort of democracy for another. Nothing could be further from the truth. However else one might describe the EU, one cannot pretend for one moment that it is democratic. Labour Members have described it in previous debates as corporatist. I prefer to describe it as collectivist. How else can one describe a regime that tells the farmer what he may or may not grow, in what quantity, to what standard and at what price? How else can one describe a system that tells a fisherman what he may catch and where he may catch it, and results in hundreds of tonnes of perfectly saleable fish being dumped back dead into the sea?
The lesson for politicians is this: if neither they nor the parties they represent reflect the aspirations of the people they purport to represent, they deserve to be swept away, and swept away they will be. The precedent was created on 1 May. If, in turn, each party—because of its dalliance with European union—is seen to have rendered itself incapable of responding to the British people's natural and legitimate aspirations, the people will despair of the whole democratic process and turn to anarchy. That is the lesson of Holyhead, Fishguard and Stranraer, a lesson that the House ignores at its peril.
I, for one, stand four square with the farmer and the fisherman—mere pawns in the game of politics, but without whom we would all starve, just as surely as

557
the people of North Korea starve today because of their Government's rigid adherence to the failed policy of collectivism.
I am not a collectivist; I am a Conservative. As a Conservative, I want to see the restoration of the situation in which I can act as a Member of Parliament on behalf of the people whom I represent and give them satisfaction. Within the collective in which we now find ourselves, neither I nor any other Member of Parliament can do that, because, by definition, the collective can act only in the interest of the collective and not in the interest of its component parts.
Almost more than any other, this week represents a watershed in our political history. Turn one way and we descend, sooner or later, into anarchy. Turn the other way and we will be greeted by a joyful nation. For the sake of our children and our grandchildren, I implore the House to recognise that even good government is no substitute for self-government. At the end of the 50th year of making a reality of self-government for hundreds of millions of people throughout the world, how can any hon. Member want this once proud nation, which 60 years ago stood as a beacon of hope in a troubled world and as a last bastion against tyranny, to be relegated to no more than a province of Brussels?
8 pm
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I share many of the views that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) expressed. The democratic deficit is perhaps more structural—because of the wide diversity of culture and the distance of the population in the centre of Government—than my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), in a characteristically intelligent and illuminating speech, allowed, but it is not to that, or to any of the important matters in the Amsterdam treaty and in the many directives that we have considered in European Standing Committees, that I wish to allude today. We have ample opportunity to consider those matters in other places and at other times. I should like to sketch a matter that is of moment to the House, if not to the European Union as a whole: the attitude of Her Majesty's Government, as illustrated by their attitude to the Amsterdam treaty and to directives that have been considered by the House recently.
When I was somewhat younger, I was instructed by a great British statesman in the extraordinary feature of our constitutional arrangements: each Department of State sponsored someone. I was told that the Department of Trade and Industry sponsored British business, that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—perhaps less under the current Administration than hitherto—sponsored farmers and that the Foreign Office sponsored foreigners.
That is a travesty. In many respects, the Foreign Office has acted zealously to defend British interests for many years, but I fear that the current Government are coming close to making a reality of that unfair truism. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) illustrated clearly that the Government's actions have brought no greater influence over events in Europe. On the contrary, as he eloquently described, the Government appear to be entirely stranded. Their actions have led in other directions and it behoves the House to note two or three things to which the Government's attitude is leading.
558
Recently, we had occasion to debate article K.7 of the Amsterdam treaty. I endeavoured to persuade the House that there was a problem with paragraphs 1 and 6 of that article. In his closing remarks, the Minister entirely failed even to advert to my remarks or to challenge them. My assertion was—it was of some significance in the sense that it was either true or false and, if true, important—that, on 18 June, the Prime Minister had made an entirely false statement when he told the House that the European Court would not intervene in United Kingdom criminal justice as a result of those paragraphs.
I may be wrong about the matter. Goodness knows, a young Back Bencher, uninformed by the weight of legal opinion in the civil service, may make a terrible error. Why then did the Minister not take the trouble to say why I was wrong, or to defend the Prime Minister's position in the House? That oddity suggested that the Minister did not consider it important whether my assertions were true or false.
It is noticeable that, during the entire proceedings of the Committee when it considered the social chapter, no Government Member made the slightest allusion to paragraph 1 of article 109p, which states:
"The Community shall contribute to a high level of employment by encouraging cooperation between Member States and by supporting and, if necessary, complementing their action."
Anyone remotely familiar with the progress of European law and the European Court in interpreting treaties, and with the way in which the Commission uses treaties—which is subject to the Court's interpretation—will be fully aware of the effect of paragraph 1 of article 109p. It will be a Christmas tree on which many currently unpredictable directives, decisions, framework decisions and regulations will be hung. In short, it is an analogue of the famous article 100, on which so much that was unpremeditated has been hung.
I am not raising that point to comment on the substance of article 109p. My comment is merely that the article is of the highest importance and that Ministers have not so much as alluded to it. I have gone through all—I hope—the statements by the Prime Minister and other Ministers since the Amsterdam treaty was under consideration and finally signed and I have not found the slightest reference to the article. I take it, therefore, that the Government consider that it is of no importance whether there is an article in the social chapter on which much else can be hung.
There is an oddity about European Standing Committee B. Although the Labour Members appear, they are broadly silent and, although there are only some 160 Conservative Members, the Conservative party regularly brings between five and 10 members to the Committee—about a 15th to a 30th of the party's strength. By and large, the Liberal Democrats are not present. The Committee's task is to vet a lot of important European legislation. Some hon. Members do not believe that it is necessary even to be present. Often, Labour Members do not believe that it is necessary to speak about those matters.
The situation is much worse than that. The Government bring explanatory memorandums before the Committee. Associated with those are compliance cost assessments and risk assessments. In a recent example—for the sake of brevity, I give just one—the Government brought before the Committee an important constituent of the

559
social chapter, the parental leave directive, and a compliance cost assessment, in which they calculated the effect on British industry of unpaid parental leave.
The calculations, which I take it the Government asked some official to perform, were based on the assumption that the replacement cost of the labour—the marginal cost of the labour—was £1.70 an hour. Why is that of any importance? Only because, if the marginal cost of the labour is £1.70 an hour, the Government's minimum wage, which is always rumoured to be a multiple of that figure, would entirely destroy this country's employment base. The importance lies in the fact that the Government do not believe their own figure of £1.70 an hour.
When the Minister was pressed on the matter in European Standing Committee B, he showed every sign of not having the slightest idea whether that was the figure, why it was the figure or whether it justified the directive. Again, I allude not to the substance, but to the form.
In those three examples, we see a Government who are so cavalier about the extensions of the European Court's powers that they do not bother to answer a serious allegation. They are cavalier about the widespread, long-term effects of clauses in the Amsterdam treaty to the extent of not even mentioning them. They are cavalier about the way in which they bring directives before the House to be vetted, to the extent of offering justifications that they cannot possibly believe are consistent with the rest of their policies.
Why are the Government cavalier in those ways? Since 1 May, I have sat here in the House desperately trying to find out what motivates them in that pursuit and that attitude. I have been able to discern only one recurrent theme—a search for modernity. It is a search to be in tune with the piper and not to be left behind. In all the statements from right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Front Bench I have discerned that sense of a search to be modern. Above all, the House and the country need to guard against that attitude.
The desperate desire to be modern today and, hence, not to consider the long-term effects of major constitutional changes goes against the nature of those changes. Constitutional changes have their effects over, not five or 10 years, but 50 or 100 years, or even several centuries. The House and the country have much to fear if a Government pursue constitutional change and undertake such a major programme—that it is a major programme for constitutional change must be common ground on both sides of the House—in the earnest desire to be modem in 1997, with a view to advantages in 1998, 1999 or even 2000, but neglect to question whether the hundreds of years of history of this country and the others around it will be compromised in a future that might not contain the stability, freedom, democracy and rule of law to which we have become accustomed.
I hope that, as the Government move forward in the months and years ahead, they will change that attitude and investigate the long-term effects. I hope that they will take seriously the arguments that point to those effects, at least answer and explain if those arguments are wrong, and tell us why they are taking steps that could have long-term effects. That at least would be an improvement.
8.12 pm
Mr. Gary Streeter: This has been yet another excellent debate on Europe, with many telling contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. In his opening speech, the Foreign Secretary was, as usual, clever and witty, but had nothing to say. This is a Government without value, without substance and without principle. Above all the rest of the Cabinet, the Foreign Secretary is, perhaps, the very symbol of that. He spends his time attacking the Opposition. That may be good sport, but his technique was simply a ploy to hide his lack of policy.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to new Labour's welcome in Europe and they have had a warm welcome—that tends to happen when one caves in on vital national issues. He offered no real solutions to European unemployment. He did not tell us how the Luxembourg summit would create a single job either in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
The Foreign Secretary was followed by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who spoke as usual with great wisdom and accuracy. He has the respect of the House. He is one of the few Labour Members who is not dazzled by the bright lights of Brussels and he probed the Minister on the vital issue of the European rebate. I hope that the Minister will answer the questions put to him so robustly. I hope that he will be as diligent and robust in defending the rebate as we were when we were in government.
We heard an outstanding speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who applied his penetrating intellect to the vital issue of the future of Europe. It was one of the best speeches that I have heard in my time in the House. He spoke of the need for Europe to be outward looking and of the need for a sustainable Europe. He exposed the weakness of some of the economic arguments behind the single currency. His pursuit of the truth of Treasury statistics on the currency of invoice is a noble crusade, and I wish him well with it. He demonstrated that the single currency is a political and not an economic project, and he was right to open up the debate that dare not speak its name and to discuss the future of Europe in a mature and intellectual way.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) followed my hon. Friend and set out his reasons for crossing the Floor. He is entitled to his view and to taking the action that he did. I do not suppose that all his constituents will see things as he saw them and he might be wise to reflect on whether it is a good idea to sell his shares in the company when it is at rock bottom. He may live to regret it when those shares are sky high again.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) gave us what I would describe—not unkindly, I hope—as the classic Liberal Democrat speech. He toured the houses of Europe seeing both sides of the street at the same time, stopping from time to time for a committee meeting here and there and then pressing on with his all-embracing federal agenda. At least he is honest about that agenda, unlike his coalition partners—the Labour party—who soothe the electorate with soft-sounding words, while pursuing a centralist and integrationist agenda.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) has, if I may say so, really come into his own since being released from his vow of silence. He reminded

561
the House of the importance of this nation's cultural heritage and how any future Europe must be a respecter of individual cultures. It must be a Europe of nation states. He spoke of democratic accountability, of the dangers of a single currency and the tensions that it may well create.
He must be right to say that those are issues of great concern and that whatever the ultimate response of this Government and this country to a single currency, any progress towards it must be undertaken in the light of all the circumstances and with the utmost caution. The single currency is a unique experiment, which has never been tried before in the history of this planet. Whatever else happens, the utmost caution must be exercised before participating. The party in government lightly brushes aside those concerns and yet they are fundamental.
My hon. Friend also spoke with great knowledge about the European Union's relationship with the developing world. I hope that the Minister will take on board the points he raised.
Mr. Doug Henderson Mr. Doug Henderson indicated assent.
Mr. Streeter: The Minister nods. That is the first response that I have had from him all week, so I am encouraged.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), in a measured and wise speech, spoke of the importance of legitimacy. I shall certainly read that speech in the morning. He was right to point out that a single currency is possible only if people have given their informed consent, and to make it clear that a referendum must take place on such a currency. He reviewed with great skill the options facing us in our relationship with Europe and discussed the problems of exercising each of those options. He made a compelling case for legitimacy. His speech is well worth a second look.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) spoke with his usual passion and conviction about the plight of farmers in the United Kingdom, which has provoked the recent actions in Wales and Scotland. He explained the consequences of the collectivist approach of Europe—the damage being done to our farmers and fishermen—and explained the dangers of going too far down that road.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) rightly probed the Government on their inability to garner extra influence abroad. He probed the Minister about the complete absence of a reply to the important point he raised a debate or two ago about the extension of the powers of the European Court of Justice into criminal law in this country.
The Minister is well known for his long winding-up speeches and we do not necessarily want a repeat performance tonight, but we want our questions answered. There is no point in Opposition Members asking the Government questions and holding the Executive to account if the Minister avoids giving us the answers. My hon. Friend is right to probe Ministers and to explain how cavalier the Government are when dealing with issues of vital national interest. He is right to challenge the Government to consider the long-term implications of some of the constitutional changes they want to make, reckless of the consequences.
We have had an excellent debate. It was started by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who spelled out our positive
562
Conservative agenda for Europe. On enlargement, we must welcome into the family of Europe those central and eastern nations who languished so long under communism and so underpin stability and prosperity in greater Europe. On the single market, we must complete the task of making a true barrier-free trading area in Europe as part of our wider global perspective. On reform of EU institutions, we must streamline them in preparation for enlargement in the name of efficiency and value for money—especially the common agricultural policy.
On flexible labour markets, we must take our message and our experience of policies that really create jobs to every corner of Europe. I have heard the Minister of State and the Foreign Secretary say a great deal about flexible labour markets over the past few days and weeks, but it is apparent that they simply do not understand what flexible labour markets are. They seek flexibility by imposing additional burdens on management and companies—that is not flexibility, but more red tape. Conservative Members have a vital duty to the nation and to the people of Europe who have languished too long under high unemployment to explain what real flexible labour markets are all about. We shall carry on doing that while we have breath in our bodies.
Our Europe is a wider Europe, not a deeper Europe. Our Europe is an outward-looking Europe, as was so brilliantly expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring—I mention him again because he missed my earlier reference to him. Our Europe is not a fortress Europe. Our Europe is a flexible Europe, not a frozen Europe. We have a positive approach to Europe and my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage was right to make that point. We are positive about our membership, and we shall strive to make Europe work for Britain and all its people.
What a contrast that is to the new Labour Government, who are so starry-eyed and idealistic about Europe. We heard today, as we did throughout the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, about Labour's new influence in Europe and how they are leading in Europe—all evidence to the contrary. New Labour is not leading in Europe, but losing in Europe; not making new friends, but making a hash of it. Let us look at the record of the past seven months—the seven long months since paradise was lost.
First, we have demonstrated again and again throughout our scrutiny of the Amsterdam treaty that the Government were taken for a ride at Amsterdam. So many concessions were made on qualified majority voting, the social chapter and extra vetoes for the European Parliament, more power to the President, but so little was gained in return. The Government called it a negotiating triumph, but it was in fact a complete failure of diplomacy. Secondly, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe exposed forensically this afternoon how the Government failed miserably to protect British interests over our border controls opt-in. The Government say that they are making friends in Europe, but the fact is that they were stitched up by the Spanish and the Dutch—a point to which I shall return at the end of my speech.

563
Thirdly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been keen to tell us about his new friends in the Economic and Finance Council. The Government say that they are leading in Europe, but—
Mr. Doug Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howard: Ah, the Minister is rising in defence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Streeter: Let me just finish this point. The Government say that they are leading in Europe, but the other Ministers would not even give the Chancellor a seat on their Euro X Committee.
Mr. Henderson: Is not the hon. Gentleman slightly embarrassed by raising the question of the British opt-in to Schengen? The previous Government had such a poor relationship with their European partners that they could negotiate almost nothing that was to this country's advantage, including the insertion of British border controls protection in the treaty of Amsterdam. That is what really protects British interests, and it was achieved only on the last day of the Amsterdam negotiations.
Mr. Streeter: The Minister is doing his best to defend an indefensible position. He knows that we negotiated and agreed as early as March this year a complete opt-out from border controls. That was confirmed by many sources and well broadcast in the British press.
Mr. David Davis: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is coming to my rescue.
Mr. Davis: I simply want to add a few facts that the Minister can check for himself. He might care to look at the record of the meeting in Downing street attended by Prime Minister Wim Kok, in which the deal—a rather better deal than Labour arrived at—was proposed to the United Kingdom. The Minister can also check public information sources. The fact is that the deal the Labour Government came out with is worse than the one that was on the table before the negotiations on the Amsterdam treaty began.
Mr. Streeter: The voice of authority and authenticity—game, set and match.
Fourthly, we have heard for months about how the new soft-focus approach to Europe will pave the way for the lifting of the beef ban that our farmers so desperately need. We were told that the Government's new friends in Europe would support them. The Government say that they are winning for Britain in Europe, but no progress whatsoever has been made on the beef ban.
New Labour is learning the hard way that the European Union is not about soundbites or even warm personal handshakes; it is about 15 nations who have come together out of their own self-interest. Each nation is trying to get the best deal it can for its own people, and there is nothing wrong with that. The Government are so
564
starry-eyed about Europe that they are convinced that other nations are queuing up to do them a favour, just because they roll out their touchy-feely language. The truth is that the new Labour Government will be rolled over by our partners again and again, just as they were at Amsterdam and just as they have been ever since.
Based on the record of failure of the past seven months, we can look ahead to the UK presidency only with trepidation. We want to the Minister to spell out tonight, not in soft soundbites, but in hard-nosed substantial policies, precisely what the Government's objectives are for the UK presidency. What do the Government intend to achieve during that six-month period in respect of enlargement, vote weighting reforms, the CAP, EU financing and jobs? How many jobs will be created under the UK presidency?
How will the Government sort out the mess they have got themselves into over frontier controls? I ask the Minister again, how did that happen? What went wrong at the Amsterdam summit? Why was the Spanish amendment not challenged? Was the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister or the Minister of State in the discussions when the Spanish amendment was tabled?
Mr. Doug Henderson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already explained both to him and to his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) that the Spanish amendment was challenged?
Mr. Streeter: I am sorry to say this to the Minister, but frankly I do not believe him. I want the Minister to tell us tonight how we are going to get out of the difficult situation that he has got us into.
Mr. Henderson: If memory serves, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has responded—if he has not, I have—in a written answer and made it absolutely clear that the Spanish amendment was challenged. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of that?
Mr. Streeter: The Minister is sticking to his line. The Foreign Secretary has told us on two occasions that the agreement on the voting arrangements for the opt-in on border controls happened after the end of the summit. Would the Minister care to intervene yet again to confirm that? Is that right or not?
Well, we can assume that, as the Foreign Secretary told us today, after the summit had been concluded an agreement was entered into between the Spanish and the Dutch presidency to change the arrangements that had been agreed at the Amsterdam summit. What does that say about new Labour's relationship with Europe? What does that say about making friends in Europe?
What is the Minister going to do now? How will he solve this problem? Is he going to hold a bilateral meeting with Spain during the Luxembourg summit? Is he going to call the Spanish and the Dutch together? Is he going to raise this matter in full session at the Luxembourg summit? Is he going to use the UK presidency to undo the damaging agreement that has been entered into?
It is an important issue and it requires specific answers. The Minister must understand that we will not let him off the hook. We will press until we ascertain precisely what

565
went wrong and what the Minister will do about it. Will he put the record straight? Will he put on one side the new Labour handbook of soft-focus phrases, and deal with policy and substance?
Will he set out the Government programme for the United Kingdom presidency? Will he be able to muster from somewhere an intellectually coherent agenda to set out the Government's approach to Europe? Will he tell us where he is winning in Europe? Will he tell us what he is leading in Europe? We know that we have a Government without values or principles, but can we for once have some substance?
8.30 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): We have had a good debate, although the House has not been as well attended as it has been for some of the debates on European matters over four of the past six sitting days. There has been considerable passion in some of the contributions to the debate. Many have been wide-ranging, and some have concentrated more on the Luxembourg summit than others.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) on his second maiden speech. It is sometimes thought outside the House that we do not on one side of the Chamber have colleagues on the other. Even when I sat on the Opposition Benches and the hon. Gentleman took his place on the Government Benches, I always thought that he was a good colleague with whom to talk about political issues. He would view them objectively and would agree or disagree with parliamentary colleagues, depending on their attitude. That approach was reflected in his contribution this evening, which was measured and dignified.
The hon. Gentleman did not attack the Conservative party, although there was plenty of scope for him to do so, had he wished. He made a thoughtful speech, and we look forward to many more from him.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) talked about the financing of the European Union. I can reassure him that the British rebate is a central part of our negotiating position. We have no intention of giving ground on that.
I know that there are many worries about structural funds. I know also that my right hon. Friend will recognise that, regardless of any enlargement process, there is a need to look again at structural funds because of the changes in the European economy that have taken place over the past eight years. Achieving a fair and proper structure is a principal aim that arises from the Luxembourg conclusions.
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) referred to the Lome convention, as did the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells). It is an important issue and we have already begun to consider the review that is taking place. The Government will be pursuing the matter initially over the next six months. The focus of our direction will be to try to do the best that we can for the poorest countries. I hope that that will meet many of the points raised by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford.
The hon. Member for Woodspring said that he saw Europe doing nothing but contemplating its navel. Surely the last thing to which Conservative Members would want
566
to draw attention is contemplating political navels after the events of the past seven months. If the hon. Gentleman wishes further to pursue that argument, I am sure that the House will enjoy it.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) gave general support to many of the issues that are on the agenda which the Government will pursue at the Luxembourg summit. The code of conduct on arms is important and we shall be raising the issue during our presidency. There is a huge amount of common ground on open and accountable institutions in Europe. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has welcomed the announcements that have already been given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself in Select Committees, on opening up and extending scrutiny. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be making an announcement shortly.
The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) made a good and rounded speech and tackled many issues that many right hon. and hon. Members did not wish to take up. When they read the report of the hon. Gentleman's speech in Hansard tomorrow, they will be able to assess the quality of his speech.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) makes predictable contributions in these debates. He makes them with conviction, however, and speaks well. I do not agree with much of what he said, but it is important in a debate of this sort that all views are advanced.
The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) argued that the Foreign Office now acts only for foreigners—I paraphrase his remarks. His assertion was in contradiction to the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Ludlow, who accused the Government of being too patriotic. Conservative Members cannot have it both ways.
The hon. Member for West Dorset talked also about the powers of the European Court. I have explained the Government's position, including the modest extension of powers. I did so in Committee against the background of the Amsterdam treaty, and I am prepared to return to the issue in Committee. It would be inappropriate to go into the details now, when there are so many other issues on which I must respond.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) ended his contribution by wishing the Government well in their presidency of the EU. I began to look for the catch, but I did not find one in relation to the agenda for Luxembourg. I gained the impression that the right hon. and learned Gentleman agreed with the broad thrust of the Government's position on the importance of enlargement and reform of the CAP.
Unfortunately for the House, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in endeavouring to find areas of controversy, indulged in scaremongering about the social chapter. The arguments have been exhausted during our debates on the Amsterdam treaty. We believe that the social chapter is essential if British workers are to have the same rights as workers in other European countries. It is important that Britain is involved in the debates and discussions about the social chapter, so that we achieve the right balance between things that can be best arranged at European level and those that can be settled at nation state level.
The argument has been exhausted also on whether the social chapter runs in contradiction to competitiveness. Competitiveness is a different issue, about securing new

567
products, new designs, new production systems and breaking into new markets. In many instances, the social chapter reinforces that approach.
Dr. Fox: If the Minister is correct in saying that the Government want the same conditions to apply, why did they not turn to domestic legislation rather than signing the social chapter?
Mr. Henderson: That is old hat, because we have been through the argument before.
Mr. Howard: There have been no answers.
Mr. Henderson: Answers have been given.
The United Kingdom is a member of the European Union. We must consider what can best be decided by the EU at Community level and what can best be decided at nation state level. When we are talking about consultation, procedures and broad initiatives that turn on more than one country and involve companies that employ more than 1,500 people, it clearly makes sense to have common standards across Europe. I refer to companies that operate across Europe.
The importance of the social chapter is that signing up to it enables a member state to have influence. That having been done, the member state can contribute, initiate and agree to what is best decided at European level. In addition, there is the right to advance arguments, as sometimes the Government will. It is better to decide some things, however, at a local or national level.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe has had a specific reply on information about the euro currency. The Government may seek support from the Commission, to provide information. Money is available.[Interruption.] An approach has been made, but no final decision has been reached. The previous Government had the opportunity to tap into those resources to provide information. There is no question of the money being used for any propaganda. Indeed, it would be an ultra vires use of the funds were that to happen.
Mr. Robert Jackson: In relation to the Schengen opt-in, serious allegations have been made about the propriety of the conduct of the Dutch presidency. Does the Minister have anything to say in its defence?
Mr. Henderson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made the position clear when he was before the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs: that Britain opposed the Spanish amendment, that there was a mix-up, that, when an attempt was made to clarify the matter, the Dutch presidency would not accept that there had been a challenge. There was no provision in the proceedings—the previous Government were involved in the same proceedings—for minutes to be taken or for a record. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to challenge what happened. Subsequently, there was a bilateral understanding between the Dutch presidency and the Spanish Government. We then secured a declaration that makes it clear that, if we wish to join any of the existing Schengen acquis, we can do so if the other countries accept that.
568
Speaking theoretically, if we wanted to join any Schengen acquis, we would ensure that the Commission was consulted beforehand, and if any country wished to object to our application for involvement, it would have to state that in specific terms. It is our belief that, if a strong case is made for Britain to sign up to part of the Schengen acquis, it will be extremely difficult for any country to block the application.
It is a little rich that some Opposition Members—not the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe—raise this issue when, in government, they could not make progress in negotiation and could not protect Britain's position in the treaty on border controls. That is why I find it extremely strange that the Conservative party, which is totally opposed to any involvement in the Schengen acquis, is trying to make something of the negotiations.
Mr. Howard: It is important that my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and the House should appreciate that these serious allegations, as my hon. Friend rightly said, against the Dutch presidency are made by the Government, not the Opposition. The Minister has told us something this evening that reverts to what the Foreign Secretary told us in oral answers to questions on 25 November, and differs from what the Minister told us in a written answer, published in the Official Report.
On 25 November, the Foreign Secretary alleged that this hole-in-the-corner agreement between Spain and the Dutch presidency was made subsequent to the hearings at Amsterdam. The Minister of State says, in the answer available in Hansard, that that agreement was reached on the night of 16 to 17 June, during the summit at Amsterdam. Can the Minister of State tell us which it was?
Mr. Henderson: Initially there were discussions in the margins of Amsterdam. Subsequently, when it was discovered that there was a difference of historic interpretation, an attempt was made to clarify, and a number of exchanges took place in private between the various parties contesting the text of the agreement.
Mr. Howard rose—
Mr. Henderson: I shall give way once more, then I shall move on.
Mr. Howard: I refer the Minister to the question that I asked him, which is in Hansard:
"To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs…when the bilateral agreement between Spain and the Dutch presidency of the EU was concluded."
The Minister replied:
"We believe that the text reflected discussions in the margins of the Amsterdam European Council on 16–17 June."—[Official Report, 2 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 123.]
This is important, and we are entitled to a clear answer from the Minister.
Mr. Henderson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is thrashing this to death. It is clear from the answer that, initially, during the discussions before the completion of the Amsterdam talks, there were discussions in the margins between the Dutch presidency and the Spanish

569
Government. Once it was discovered that there was a difference of view—in other words, when the Dutch presidency was saying that the Spanish amendment had not been changed—there were further exchanges between the various parties before final clarification. Subsequent to all that, there was a declaration, which I believe protects our interests in these matters.
I shall now move on.
Mr. Gill: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Henderson: No, I am not giving way. I shall continue, as I know that hon. Members are keen to conclude relatively early this evening.
The Opposition Front-Bench speeches had nothing positive to offer. There was no vision on Europe, no vision about the direction in which the Opposition want to travel. Opposition Members were split on monetary union, split on the Amsterdam treaty, and, indeed, split on the referendum. We have not yet had a reply from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, about what happened to the commitment that there would be a referendum on the Amsterdam treaty. The shadow Foreign Secretary first stated that there would be a referendum, then appeared to be overruled by the Leader of the Opposition.
The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) said that the Secretary of State, in his opening remarks, only attacked. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening to what the Secretary of State said, because my recollection is that he covered very thoroughly all the issues that will be before the Luxembourg Council and, indeed, other issues that are central to our relationship with Europe.
My right hon. Friend made it absolutely clear that he believes that people see the advantage of the European Union, as a modern relationship among states, dealing with the movement of people, goods and ideas. He said that enlargement was about strength, about seeking a practical timetable to bring about enlargement at the earliest possible time, and about looking at the reform procedures for the common agricultural policy, structural funds and budgets. He gave the commitment, in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, that the British presidency would forge ahead with those issues and others.
During our presidency, we shall be able to demonstrate what can be achieved on employment, the environment and the fight against drugs. I know that those policies are welcome in this country, and they will be welcome in Europe. We shall be very happy to pursue them in Luxembourg.
Mr. Clive Betts: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Anti-missile Defence
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
8.48 pm
Mr. David Davis: John Maynard Keynes was once quoted as saying:
"Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist."
In a similar way, whole generations of politicians can be captivated by a beguiling phrase. Today's Governments—not just the British Government—are captivated by the beguiling phrase "peace dividend". It is a phrase that carries within it the idea that we have somehow finished our investment in peace, and that all we have to do is to sit back and enjoy and spend the rewards. That is a fallacious idea. The only proper dividend of peace is peace itself. By seeking to "spend" this dividend by cutting defence spending, the Government run the risk of bankrupting their own defence strategy.
I secured this debate to seek clarification from the Government about their policy on ballistic missile defence systems. Stories have recently been circulating in the press that the Government plan to abandon research on the development of ballistic missile defences.The Sunday Telegraph of 23 November quotes senior defence sources as saying:
"Even if this has not been abandoned completely, it has been kicked into the long grass."
My fears were reinforced by the Institute of International Strategic Studies, whose journal Strategic Comments said last month:
"The MoD and Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials agree that the Review will not recommend any significant new expenditure on…ballistic missile defence systems."
As a former security command Minister in the Foreign Office, I do not always believe everything I read in the newspapers. I have a great deal of respect for the Minister for the Armed Forces, and I want clear guidance from him on the Government's policy. If those stories are true, it could have disastrous consequences for the United Kingdom and our NATO allies.
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the relaxation of its global grip set loose the ambitions of a number of states in a world in which borders are no longer defined by the spheres of influence of east and west. The result has paradoxically been a rush to arms, and most particularly a rush to acquire weapons of mass destruction—a rush which, if we are not careful, may render NATO's whole new policy obsolete.
Many nations—most obviously Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran and North Korea—are developing weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological weapons and their delivery systems. At least 38 states possess ballistic missiles, and more than 70 have cruise missiles. For the moment, the range of systems is limited, but it will not be long before Iranian systems can hit Israel, and not much longer before the whole of Europe is within the missile range of a number of middle eastern countries.

571
As is well known, the North Koreans are currently developing the Taepo Dong 2 missile. As it stands, we can only guess at the maximum range, but the third report of the Select Committee on Defence published in 1995–96 says that it is
"planned to have a range of around 5,000 km."
Libya and Iran already have an interest in buying that system. If they manage to get their hands on missiles with that range, it could put Britain at risk. Even if they do not, the Russians and Chinese might be alternative sources.
So much we know, because it is in the public record; but we should not overestimate our knowledge. The single biggest lesson to be learnt from the United Nations special commission's investigations in Iraq, and from the various issues that have been in the public domain in the past couple of months, is that our ignorance is massive.
Iraq has been a problem state for some time; yet we knew next to nothing about its programmes. In the Gulf conflict, we targeted eight out of 56 nuclear facilities. We were unable to find or destroy some 28,000 chemical munitions, and we knew little of the biological weaponry: 30,000 litres of botulin, anthrax and aflatoxin.
It is not as though we were not warned. In 1980, the Israeli air force bombed and destroyed Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear reactor outside Baghdad. The Israeli Government were widely condemned by the international community for that action. The Gulf war showed that we were wrong and they were right. Had they not taken that action, there is no telling whether Iraq would have had a nuclear weapon by the start of the war over Kuwait.
That ignorance is repeated elsewhere. We now know that the Soviet Union's stocks of chemical and biological warfare weaponry were 10 times that estimated by American analysts at the time of the cold war. That ignorance is endemic. Soviet nuclear accounting was primitive in the extreme—the Government have recently given assistance with that. General Lebed has said that nuclear warheads have gone missing, but no one can tell whether he is right or wrong. We know that a number of rogue states are seeking to acquire such weapons, and many experts believe that they are likely to succeed some time in the next 10 years.
Those rogue states want weapons of mass destruction and the associated missile delivery systems for two reasons. The most important reason is regional dominance. They have learnt that lesson from recent experience. The carnage of the Iran-Iraq war ended with the missile exchanges called the "war of the cities". The population fled the cities, terrified that Iraqi Scuds would be armed with chemical or biological weapons. As a result, Iran sued for peace. Both Iran and Iraq learned lessons from that.
The second reason for acquiring weapons of mass destruction is as an equaliser against western technological military dominance. If anything, the Gulf war will have sharpened that desire. Shortly after the Gulf war, a former Indian chief of staff said that
"the next conflict with the United States would involve weapons of mass destruction."
We can deduce from that that lessons will also be learned by so-called third world countries.
572
Europe's position is acute, because so many of the proliferators of weapons of mass destruction are around the Mediterranean and on Europe's southern border. Within 10 years at most—probably much less—every European capital could be within missile range of north Africa and the middle east, and will certainly be within the range of Libya and Algeria. If the Taepo Dong 2 achieves only the 3,500 km range, its limit from Iran or Iraq is probably Paris. If it achieves much more, let alone its intended 5,000 km range, the whole of Britain is within range of all the countries in the middle east. We should not forget that fuel technology is advancing all the time and can change the range of an extant missile system.
European exposure to that threat is likely to change the attitude of at least some countries to military operations beyond the borders of Europe. The fashionable interest in NATO out-of-area operations is likely to fade rather quickly under that threat. If we do not deal with this problem, they could become an obsolete concept in less than a decade. History shows that only too well. When the Americans staged their raid on Tripoli, other European countries refused to allow American warplanes overflight rights. That may have cost the lives of American service men. It showed that European countries will not always rush to support another NATO partner state, even when dealing with some of the dubious regimes of the middle east.
Many interests may motivate such reluctance: political and commercial interests, fear of the consequences, or national amour propre. As we saw with Belgium, which was an ammunition supplier during the Gulf war, international solidarity can be very delicate. The Gulf coalition was always a fragile entity.
Let us imagine the Gulf war occurring in 10 years' time against an opponent with missile systems able to hit any European capital. That opponent would almost certainly have chemical or biological weapons capable of killing hundreds of thousands. They might have 10 or 20 nuclear warheads capable of destroying cities. In such circumstances, how easy would it have been to hold together the alliance that won the Gulf war?
This is no fantasy. Recent history shows all too clearly that missiles are now being used to intimidate and break up coalitions. I have spoken about the war of the cities, and we know that Saddam used his Scud missiles to rain terror on Israel in the hope of provoking retaliation that would break up the alliance. More recently, China used missiles to intimidate the Taiwanese during their elections. That is the tactic of the future.
The effect of such proliferation will be to shut down the ability of the major powers to intervene. The new missile empires will be free to crush democratic states, indulge in genocide or hold the west to ransom over the control of critical resources or trade routes. That means that we have a 10-year or less window for action. If we do not act now, we shall face a geopolitical, tectonic shift, an irreversible fragmentation of the world into regional hegemonies, some of which could easily become no-go areas for western states.
There are four stages in any process that western Governments could use to deal with the danger. First, we could attempt to deny the rogue states the technology and, of course, we try to do that. For example, we can try to ensure that the missile technology control regime is adhered to. We became chairman of that regime while

573
I was at the Foreign Office. It is an agreement between 28 states to curb exports of vital components. China is not a signatory, nor are any of the rogue states. However, the regime has no means of enforcement, so it has not been able to prevent advances in missile technology. All the associated regimes relating to dual technology, weapons of mass destruction and the components thereof are equally porous.
Secondly, we can attempt to deter missile attacks by retaliation. That is a necessary aspect of the policy, but it is not certain. Deterring such attacks will work only if the offending states make a rational calculation of their self-interest. The rationality of leaders such as Saddam Hussein is a dangerous plank on which to base a policy.
Thirdly, western states can attack missile launch sites and other facilities. However, the Gulf war showed how difficult that can be. The United States air force failed to destroy the Iraqi mobile missile launchers.
The fourth and final way to deal with hostile missiles and the one about which I am concerned in this debate is to develop missile defence systems. Such systems cannot be created or completed overnight. They take time to develop, and if we delay now it may be too late 10 years down the line if we discover that Iran, to take one example, has nuclear missiles.
Some of the information that has come out of Russia in the past week or two shows that if we start to develop anti-missile system when we discover that a prospective opponent has nuclear missiles, that could cause destabilisation and provoke an attack. If we develop a defence system now, it could cause rogue states to re-evaluate their priorities. I am speaking not just about Britain but about all the European NATO states, any one of which could face any of these problems. Nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles are expensive. If the west is adequately defended, the calculations may show that the costs outweigh the gains.
It is vital for all of NATO to be defended against the missile threat, but if anything it is even more important that Britain be defended. Throughout the world we are rightly seen as particularly good allies of the Americans. I hope that that is as true today as it was under the Government of which I was a member. It attracts plaudits such as "special relationship", but it also attracts words such as "running dogs". However it is described, we are seen as close allies. The strength of that alliance means that any conflict involving the United States would make us a prime target. We may currently be at the edge of the missile range, but the political situation means that we are a prime target, and that distance edge may not last long.
Britain has a proud tradition of standing by her allies and upholding world freedom. One of my reasons for respecting the Minister of State is that I believe that he shares my belief in that. It is a source of strength, but it also makes us a target for despotic regimes. If we were unable to defend ourselves, it could have grave consequences elsewhere. The proliferation of missiles threatens to snuff out the resurgence of democracy, free trade and individual freedom that is serving the world so well today. Under any Government, this country has always been at the forefront of defending those civilised values in the past. An apparently small decision now, which may save a small amount of money, may eliminate our ability to defend those civilised values in the future.
9.3 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) illustrated in a number of ways the wisdom that he brings to the matter—first, in his choice of subject; secondly, by his recognition at the outset that peace is the real dividend; and thirdly, by his caution to Members, including myself, not to believe what we read in the papers. That was a somewhat superfluous caution, but I agree with him.
The right hon. Gentleman is wise enough to know that, if the premise of an argument is wrong, the conclusion will probably also be wrong. Part of his argument was based on the premise that a newspaper report was accurate. Let me make it plain that the report was not accurate.
Like every other aspect of defence, ballistic missile defence is being examined in the context of the strategic defence review, but no decisions have yet been taken. Far from sudden or dramatic decisions or significant shifts having been made, no decisions have been taken. Press speculation suggesting that the issue has been decided is premature and misleading.
Despite the flaw in the premise of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, I congratulate him on securing the debate on such an important subject. Anyone who listens to or reads the debate will recognise that the timing is apposite. We have recently seen renewed Iraqi efforts to obstruct the investigations of United Nations officials into its weapons programmes. It is as well to remind ourselves of the risks to not only regional but global security posed by the proliferation of missiles and the development of weapons of mass destruction.
The right hon. Gentleman's article in The Daily Telegraph of 20 November set out many of the issues facing us in the complex and difficult area to which he has devoted his debate. Some 14 third-world nations now possess operational ballistic missiles, and many other countries have cruise missiles of some sort.
Of course, some nations give greater cause for concern than others. Iraq is the obvious and topical example, but it is not by any means the only one. Several nations have not only missile programmes, but programmes for nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. When those capabilities, or attempts to develop those capabilities, are linked with a track record of aggressive and irresponsible behaviour, the cause for concern is manifest.
Attempts to develop nuclear, biological or chemical weapons—weapons of mass destruction—not only multiply concerns about missile proliferation, but present a more complex security challenge. That is partly because such weapons can be delivered by means other than missiles, and also because programmes to develop them are much harder to detect. Chemical and biological weapons activity can often be concealed within programmes with legitimate civil applications.
Biological agents are particularly problematical: a small quantity can have a widespread and potentially catastrophic effect. The production of such small quantities may require facilities that are extremely basic and easy to disguise or hide. We cannot assume that the activities that we know about represent the full extent of the problem. That very uncertainty, which is greater in this area than in many others, is itself a weapon in the hands of regimes that cause concern to the right hon. Gentleman and me.

575
In considering the missile threats faced by the United Kingdom, it is probably helpful to distinguish between three areas: the United Kingdom itself, the territory of our NATO allies, and the territory outside the NATO area, to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded.
At present, the missile capabilities of states such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea do not have the range to pose a direct threat to the United Kingdom or to the bulk of NATO territory, except for the south-eastern fringes. In saying that, I do not mean to diminish that threat, but merely to explain that the United Kingdom and its close geographical allies and colleagues are not in imminent danger from that threat. In the immediate future, the risks lie mainly in regions outside the NATO area, particularly the middle east, the near east and north Africa.
However, the picture is not static, and concerns remain about attempts by some of those countries to develop ballistic missiles with greater range—the right hon. Gentleman referred to that. How long it might take to develop the range to threaten western Europe and the United Kingdom itself is difficult to assess, but it can certainly be measured in years. However, that is a relatively short time in security estimates and in the development of security operations. Although it can be measured in years, that is of limited comfort because that is a relatively short period in military planning and because British forces may be deployed on operations where they face missile threats outside the United Kingdom, even with the limited ranges currently available to potential aggressors. In terms of time scales, the protection of deployed forces is a more immediate concern than the protection of the United Kingdom itself.
We could spend a great deal of time talking about the threat and speculating about how it might evolve in the years ahead. The very uncertainty should alert us to the imminence of the danger. In the short time available, I shall refer to responses to that threat, some of which were covered by the right hon. Gentleman. I must make it plain that, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees, there is no single, all-encompassing answer to these issues, but there are several mutually reinforcing approaches available to us.
First, there are preventive measures of various kinds. Diplomacy has a role to play in discouraging the development and proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction. There may be some regimes that are impervious to the moral condemnation of the international community, even given the most stringent methods of implementation. However, just because some regimes are impervious to that, we should not underestimate the importance of such diplomatic factors in dissuading others from following their example.
Of course, diplomatic efforts will not always be able to solve the problem, but they may play a role in containing it, as long as the international community has the determination to sustain the pressure. There are mixed views about the effectiveness of diplomatic and economic sanctions, but there is no doubt that they can constrain a pariah regime's freedom of action and constitute a constant reminder that its behaviour is under scrutiny. It is crucial that such regimes are not given any
576
encouragement to believe that responsible nations have lost interest or lack the political will to respond to their transgressions.
On a more specific level, arms control agreements clearly have an important contribution in making proliferation both harder to achieve and harder to conceal. We welcome the agreement this year of increased powers for the International Atomic Energy Agency—the so-called "93 plus 2" programme. That will effectively fill the holes in which Saddam Hussein was able to hide his nuclear programme and make it more difficult for him or any successor to do so again. We are working for early implementation of that agreement.
The missile technology control regime—to which the right hon. Member referred—the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the chemical weapons convention and the biological weapons convention all have a part to play. It is in our interests to encourage the widest possible support for those agreements, and to do what we can to strengthen the means available for monitoring, verifying and enforcing compliance.
Next year, we will be using our presidency of the European Union to press for early progress, particularly on verification arrangements for the biological weapons convention. It would be optimistic to imagine that arms control will completely eradicate the problem, but it will add to the obstacles faced by the would-be proliferator.
The right hon. Member will know that intelligence on such weapons has a critical part to play. The House will not expect me to go into details on the matter, but—on the basis that forewarned is forearmed—it is vital that we gather as much information as possible on proliferation activities, and particularly on the intentions and capabilities of potential adversaries. If there is the slightest chance that British armed forces might have to deploy to a particular region in future, in defence of British national interests or maintenance of international peace and security, we want and need to know as much as possible about the threats that they may have to face.
We must, however, accept that we will never be able to be sure that we know all that there is to know. Our approach to the issue must take account of that inevitable uncertainty.
When we do have good intelligence of capabilities and intentions, an additional element in our response may be the use of counter-force measures, to strike at the aggressor's capabilities before he can use them. Developments in precision guided and stand-off weapons may make that an increasingly viable option. We also have an exceptional asset in our special forces. However, the applicability of counter-force measures obviously depends on warning of the aggressor's intentions and the availability of good information for targeting purposes.
The role of deterrence, to which the right hon. Member referred, must not be overlooked. Even if a potential aggressor has developed missiles with the range to strike at the United Kingdom, and nuclear, biological or chemical warheads to be delivered by those means, he would have to consider—he would do well to consider—the possible consequences of such an attack.
There is sometimes a tendency to suppose that the concept of deterrence is relevant only in a transatlantic context, and that dictatorial regimes outside Europe are somehow incapable of thinking in such terms. We would be wise not to make such suppositions. Although such

577
despots often appear indifferent to the suffering of their own peoples, I see no sign that they are indifferent to the survival of their regimes and the preservation of their personal positions. Deterrence has a bearing on both those matters.
It seems unlikely that a dictator who was willing to strike another country with weapons of mass destruction would be so trusting as to feel entirely sure that that country would not respond with the power at its disposal. Any state contemplating such an assault on a NATO member would have to consider the implications very carefully.
We must realise, however, that deterrence in that sense might not carry the same weight in all circumstances. Therefore, we need to be able to provide our forces with adequate protection for deployed operations, in case neither deterrence nor counter-force measures could be relied on to nullify the threat. Such protection could include both active and passive defensive measures. Active defence, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, is generally used to refer to anti-missile defence systems, such as the Patriot system and various other systems being developed by the United States, together with the necessary early warning and command, control and communications capabilities.
We maintain close links with our American allies on this subject—very close, in fact. The right hon. Gentleman perhaps has no idea quite how close. Were I not addressing the Chamber on this important subject, I would be at a dinner with our Secretary of State and the United States Defence Secretary. The British Government will continue close links with our American allies; we have also played a full part in discussions in NATO, and will keep doing so.
At the national level, a consortium led by British Aerospace has conducted a pre-feasibility study investigating the various technical options that may become available in the years ahead. While the study remains classified, I am glad to tell the right hon. Gentleman that my officials are working to produce a declassified version of a report on the methodology and findings of the wider pre-feasibility programme, of which the study formed the larger part. That work has been part of the background to consideration of the issue under the strategic defence review.
There is a continuity of contemplation and purpose on this issue which does not square with the inaccurate reporting that formed part of the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I cannot yet tell the House
578
what the outcome of that consideration may be, or whether we shall identify a requirement at this stage for the UK to take steps, on a national or multinational basis, towards procurement of ballistic missile defence systems, but a range of options will be examined by Ministers in due course, as with every other issue in the review.
Whatever the conclusion of that work, it is certain that we will continue to require passive defence measures, including capabilities to detect chemical and biological agents, protective equipment, decontamination facilities and medical counter-measures. Such capabilities will always be necessary because no system of active defence, however sophisticated, could counter every possible means of delivering weapons of mass destruction—which may include artillery shells or aerosol sprays, as well as missiles.
No single issue that I have discussed should be taken in isolation; nor does any one of them supply us with exclusive protection against the threat of ballistic missiles. They must all be considered together, as an interlocking network of means by which we can begin to consider how to defend ourselves against a grave potential threat.
Even sophisticated missile defence systems may face considerable technical challenges in dealing comprehensively with missiles armed with nuclear, biological or chemical warheads.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the issue and putting his concerns on the record, to alert us all to the dangers of ballistic missiles and the development of weapons of mass destruction. Such matters can remain quiescent for long periods, thereby encouraging complacency in some quarters. Then we can suddenly find ourselves facing the grave and disastrous consequences of the development of weapons of mass destruction. Over the past few weeks, we have faced up to a grave problem of that nature.
The Government have continually reiterated that our stance has been based on the international community's determination that such weapons shall not be available to those who might use them against the rest of the world.
I hope that this brief overview has illustrated the nature of the problem, the seriousness with which the Government view it and the diverse combination of responses that may be available to us. I thank the right hon. Gentleman again for bringing this complex and important subject to the attention of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Nine o'clock.

TREASURY

  Tax Self-assessment
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the accuracy on Inland Revenue tax computations after self-assessment by taxpayer. [17230]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 25 November 1997]: The vast majority of around 3 million calculations so far issued are correct. However, errors can occur if the taxpayer provides incorrect information, or information is not properly keyed into Inland Revenue systems by staff. Inland Revenue offices have quality assurance processes in place to minimise the latter form of error, and these will be enhanced as experience is gained of the new system. Where an error is pointed out to the Inland Revenue, or where one is picked up during the inquiry process, it will be corrected.

  Offshore Oil and Gas
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the rules used to value North Sea gas for tax purposes. [19570]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government intend to introduce legislation which will ensure that the rules used to value North Sea gas for tax purposes will continue to operate in the way that the industry and the Inland Revenue have until now applied them. This will remove some doubts, arising from recent legal advice, about the current interpretation of the rules. The legislation will be included in the next Finance Bill and will apply to all gas disposals which have to be valued, including disposals which have already taken place. The Inland Revenue is issuing a Press Release today which contains details of the changes and draft legislation on which it will be consulting the North Sea oil and gas industry.

  National Assets Register
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those assets listed in the National Assets Register which are located in the City of Norwich. [18148]

  Mr. Darling
  The National Asset Register was put together within five months, in order to meet the Government's promise to produce it by the end of November, from the data currently available to departments. And, as a result, the information is at a relatively high level of aggregation which does not easily allow a full geographic analysis to be undertaken. However, in order to increase openness and accountability, the Government will consider how to improve the information on the assets owned by the nation.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Railtrack (Communications)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if dedicated telephone links exist between all Railtrack zonal controls; and if he will make a statement. [18206]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate understands that all Zonal Controls are connected to the internal railway telephone system and have separate BT numbers. In addition, after the Ais Gill accident on 31 January 1995, the telephone access between the controls was enhanced by the installation of a number of auto diallers and emergency lines at some controls including York and Manchester. A further enhancement is currently being implemented by Railtrack so that there will be designated lines at each control centre for exclusive use by adjacent control centres.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if NRN radio is available for each Railtrack control office. [18205]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate understands that all Railtrack Control Offices, except one located at Derby, have direct access to the National Radio Network. The Derby control is a satellite office of the Birmingham control and there is a direct hot line between the offices. HM Railway Inspectorate is satisfied with these arrangements.

  Rail Services (Safety)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he is taking to strengthen safety measures in respect of the provision of rail services. [18149]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) is the safety regulator for the railways and advises Ministers on the need for measures to be taken to strengthen existing requirements and arrangements. Ministers expect the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that safety standards are maintained, and improved where necessary.

  Nuclear Fuel (Transport)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what regulations exist covering the rail transport of mixed oxide plutonium-based nuclear fuel through the Channel Tunnel; and what safety and emergency planning exercises have been conducted in respect of accidents involving trains carrying radioactive material through the tunnel. [18520]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The rules of Eurotunnel do not permit mixed oxide nuclear fuel to be transported through the Channel Tunnel.

  Transporters of radioactive material within the United Kingdom must have contingency plans in place to respond to accidents. The United Kingdom Nuclear Industry

  281
  Road/Rail Emergency Plan (NIREP) has been established to enable an immediate response from the nearest participating organisation to a transport incident involving radioactive material: the plan is exercised annually. Eurotunnel also holds annual exercises to test its emergency procedures which would apply in the event of any incident in the Channel Tunnel. Eurotunnel's express permission must be sought before any shipment of radioactive material is transported via the Channel Tunnel and it may obtain advice/assistance via NIREP should radioactive material be present on a train involved in an accident.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what amendments the United Kingdom proposed to the draft code covering the safe carriage of nuclear materials on board ships, as adopted by the International Maritime Organisation; and what mechanisms his Department has in place to monitor the application of the code to the sea transport of nuclear materials to and from the United Kingdom. [18405]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Code for the Safe Carriage of Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Plutonium and High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Flasks on board Ships (INF Code) was adopted by the Assembly of the International Maritime Organisation in 1993. The Assembly adopted amendments to the Code last month. The United Kingdom participated fully in the negotiations leading to the adoption both of the original Code and these amendments. While compliance with the INF Code is currently voluntary, UK registered ships engaged in the trade have documents of compliance issued by my Department's Marine Safety Agency. UK companies involved in transporting materials covered by the INF Code use ships complying with the Code. The UK is currently participating in work to make compliance with the Code mandatory. This will enhance our enforcement powers.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contribution his Department made to the preparation of the International Atomic Energy Agency Safety Series Number 6 (SS6) Regulations on the transport of radioactive materials; and what review he has undertaken of the application of the regulations to the air transport of mixed oxide fuel. [18406]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Officials from my Department participated fully in the meetings of the International Atomic Energy Agency during the development of Safety Series Number 6, Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material 1985 Edition (As Amended 1990). These multi-modal recommendations provide the basis for the mandatory requirements for air transport as incorporated into the current edition of the International Civil Aviation Organisation's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air. The Department similarly supported the IAEA's continuous review and revision procedures leading to the latest edition of "Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material 1996 Edition", now known as Safety Standards Series No. ST-1. The transport of radioactive material in large quantity by air, including that of mixed oxide fuel, was considered in great depth and detail during the development of ST-1. The UK will continue to 282
  contribute to future regulatory developments through both the IAEA and the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

  Housing
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department and government regional offices have undertaken of the capacity of urban areas to accommodate extra housing; and what were its findings. [18603]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department and the Government Offices have commissioned and funded a number of projects on brownfield sites and urban capacity, most of which will report next year.

  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much land for new housing is currently identified as available by local planning authorities in each(a) region and (b) county. [18602]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is held by local planning authorities and not held centrally. Local authorities are required by PPG3 to maintain a continuous five year supply of land for housing.

  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has given local planning authorities about the size of windfall sites to be included in assumptions about future housing land supply in(a) development plans and (b) housing land availability studies. [18605]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Guidance on this matter is contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (PPG3). A copy of this document is held in the House of Commons Library.

  Cycling
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many responses to his consultation document on developing an integrated transport system made reference to cycling. [18845]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The closing date for responses to the consultation on an integrated transport policy was 14 November. We have received a large number of responses which we are in the process of analysing. It is too early to give details of representations on individual subject areas although a number of respondents have mentioned cycling.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his timetable for developing a national cycling strategy. [18846]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The National Cycling Strategy was launched in July 1996. It aims to double the number of trips by bicycle by 2002, and double them again by 2012. My Department, along with many other partner organisations, is supporting the Strategy. Work to implement it is being co-ordinated by the National Cycling Forum, which I chair. A first annual report on progress will be published before Christmas.

  Rental Housing
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage the building of properties within the Greater London Authority area for low cost rent. [18587]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government recognise that the building of properties for low cost rent within London raises particular issues because of the scarcity of land for new social housing developments and the high cost of acquisition in what is a global property market. The Revised Strategic Planning Guidance for London Planning Authorities (RPG3) and the proposed revisions to circular 13/96 which details how the delivery of affordable housing may be assisted through negotiations with developers, both send out a clear message that the Government wish to ensure greater allocation of land for low cost rent properties in the capital than has been provided in recent years.

  The main mechanism for the delivery of affordable housing is through the Housing Corporation of Local Authority Social Housing Grants. In 1997/98. some £161 million representing 65 per cent. of the Housing Corporation's London Region programme, is being directed to new build housing for rent.

  Our early action to release capital receipts from council; house sales has injected an additional £53 Million into London's housing in 1997–98. Allocations for 1998–99 will be announced shortly. A significant proportion of this will be used by the London Authorities in enabling the provision of new or rehabilitated social housing partnership with registered social landlords.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the gross cost to public funds of a reduction in housing association rents of(a) 10 per cent., (b) nine per cent., (c) eight per cent., (d) seven per cent., (e) six per cent., (f) five per cent., (g) four per cent., (h) three per cent., (i) two per cent. and (j) one per cent.; and what would be the cost net of savings in (i) housing benefits and (ii) public expenditure linked to the RPI. [18595]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are no powers under which the Government could impose a general reduction in housing association rents. The calculations below are on the hypothetical assumption that the cuts in rent could be achieved and that housing associations would be fully compensated for their loss of revenue. The estimated gross cost and the cost net of savings in Housing Benefit are as shown. The figures represent the annual costs calculated on the basis of average housing association rents in 1996–97. The Department does not have a model for calculating the RPI-related savings in public expenditure arising from reductions in housing association rents.

  Reduction in rents percent

  Cost of compensating HA revenue loss £ million per annum

  Net cost after savings in Housing Benefit £ million per annum

  10

  298

  86

  9

  269

  77

  8

  239

  68

  7

  209

  60

  6

  179

  51

  284

  Reduction in rents percent

  Cost of compensating HA revenue loss £ million per annum

  Net cost after savings in Housing Benefit £ million per annum

  5

  149

  42

  4

  119

  34

  3

  90

  25

  2

  60

  17

  1

  30

  9

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the gross cost to public funds of a reduction in local authority rents of(a) 20 per cent., (b) 19 per cent.,(c) 18 per cent., (d) 17 per cent., (e) 16 per cent., (f) 15 per cent., (g) 14 per cent., (h) 13 per cent., (i) 12 per cent. and (j) 11 per cent.: and what would be the cost net of savings in (i) housing benefits and (ii) public expenditure linked to the RPI. [18596]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A reduction in Guideline Rent in 1998–99 for Housing Revenue Account local authorities in England wouldhave the following estimated effects:

  Present value (discounting to 1996–97) of effects from 1998–99 to 2027/28 1996–97 prices discounting to 1996–97

  Guideline Rent reduction in 1998–99 (percent)

  Loss of gross rental income (£ million)

  Saving in rent rebates. (£ million)

  Saving in public expenditure linked to the RPI. (£ million)

  Net public expenditure cost. (£ million)

  11

  6,402

  4,816

  1,476

  110

  12

  6,984

  5,244

  1,610

  130

  13

  7,565

  5,675

  1,744

  146

  14

  8,147

  6,104

  1,878

  165

  15

  8,729

  6,527

  2,012

  190

  16

  9,311

  6,954

  2,146

  211

  17

  9,893

  7,379

  2,280

  234

  18

  10,475

  7,799

  2,415

  261

  19

  11,057

  8,222

  2,549

  286

  20

  11,639

  8,643

  2,683

  313

  Figures in the table have been rounded to the nearest £1 million. The calculations are derived from LAMOD, the Department's model for estimating the public expenditure effects of a change in Guideline Rent policy for local authorities. The results from LAMOD are sensitive to assumptions which are kept under continuous review.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates his Department has produced of the need for social housing in each(a) region and (b) county. [18609]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has not in the past produced estimates of the need for social housing for either(a) counties or (b) regions. We are considering the scope for more detailed regional analysis of housing requirements including social housing needs.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Compensation)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to notify households likely to be eligible for the exceptional compensation payable as a result of Channel Tunnel Rail Link blight on their properties; and if he will make a statement. [18625]
  285
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The arrangements for the Scheme of Redress for Exceptional Hardship were advertised in a range of local newspapers selected to cover the various route options. In addition, details were sent to Members of Parliament, local authorities and Citizens Advice Bureaux for the areas concerned. As a reminder prominent newspaper advertisements have recently been re-published. Furthermore, the initial announcement of the Scheme attracted wide coverage including on local television news.

  Thorne and Hatfield Moors
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representations he has received concerning the proposed de-notification of SSSI status on Thorne and Hatfield Moors, indicating how many were(a) supportive of the proposal and (b) opposed to the proposal. [18597]

  Angela Eagle
  The Secretary of State has received 725 representations against English Nature's proposals to de-notify parts of Thorne and Hatfield Moors Sites of Special Scientific Interest. There have been no letters of support to date. On 2 December English Nature's Council decided not to proceed with the de-notification.

  Rail Operators (Fines)
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much rail operators have been fined for failing to deliver an adequate service in the last 12 months. [18709]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Rail Regulator has imposed financial penalties totalling £350,000 on rail operators for failing to meet his standards for the National Rail Enquiry Service (NRES).

  The Franchising Director has imposed financial penalties totalling £141,000 on two train operating companies for trains being run with fewer seats than required under the franchise agreements. The Franchising Director has also operated financial incentive regimes under franchise agreements which reward or penalise operators according to performance compared with historical benchmarks. Details of these appear in the Franchising Director's quarterly bulletins and in his Annual Report which are in the Library of the House.

  Commuting
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on disincentives to commuting journeys in respect of his integrated transport strategy. [18876]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The closing date for responses to the consultation on an integrated transport policy was 14 November. We have received a large number of responses which we are in the process of analysing. It is too early to give details of representations on individual subject areas although a number of respondents have mentioned specific journey purposes including commuting in their responses. The importance of encouraging "Green Commuting" was a major theme in the regional consultation meetings held to discuss the consultation document.
  286
  A full report on the consultation exercise will be published with the White Paper.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the present mileage within the Greater London Authority area of the red route system. [18965]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The length of the red route network is 315 miles.

  Building Control Inspectors
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what measures are in place for the monitoring and control of approved building control inspectors from the private sector; and if he will make a statement; [18871]

  (2) what measures are in place for the monitoring and control of local authority building control inspectors. [18870]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 3 December 1997]: Local authority building control officers are answerable to the chief officers of the authorities for which they work, and through them to elected members. As regards private sector approved inspectors, the appointing body also has the power to withdraw approval. In the case of corporate bodies, approval is given by the Secretary of State, and, in the case of individuals, it is given by the Construction Industry Council. I am currently consulting the Local Government Association, the Construction Industry Council and the Association of Corporate Approved Inspectors on ways of securing consistent building control standards and better conditions for competition across the public and private sectors of building control.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will meet deputations from local authorities to discuss his provisional capping and grant settlement. [18976]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 3 December 1997]: Yes. My Department wrote to local authorities on Tuesday 2 December with details of the provisional local government finance settlement 1998–99 and set out the arrangements we propose for discussions on our proposals.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice his Department has offered local authorities on millennium compliance and its cost. [18887]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 3 December 1997]: Each local authority is responsible for ensuring its own millennium compliance. Authorities have access to high-quality advice on this issue, through the Local Government Management Board and other professional bodies. In addition, the Government have published best practice guidance on millennium compliance. We have

  287
  taken the financial implications of millennium compliance into account in the proposed 1998–99 local government financial settlement.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the total cost of millennium compliance to local government. [19202]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department has not itself made an estimate of the total cost of millennium compliancy. The Local Government Association's estimate of the cost, for 1998–99, of information technology adaption for the year 2000 was taken into account in the Local Government Finance provisional settlement which was announced to the House on Tuesday 2 December.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which Acts of Parliament require him to call in planning appeals for proposed developments involving more than 150 houses or flats for his own determination. [19036]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There is no statutory requirement for my right hon. Friend to recover planning appeals for his own determination. Under paragraph 3 of schedule 6 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, my right hon. Friend may, if he thinks fit, direct that a planning appeal will be determined by him rather than by an appointed person.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many planning applications for proposed developments involving more than 150 houses or flats were(a) approved and (b) rejected on appeal in (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96 and (iii) 1996–97; [19035]

  (2) how many planning appeals for proposed developments involving more than 150 houses or flats were called in for his or his predecessor's own determination in each of the years (a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97 [19038]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The provision of information on Planning Appeals is the responsibility of the Planning Inspectorate. I have asked the Inspectorate's Chief Executive, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Shepley to Mr. Tim Yeo, dated 4 December 1997.
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Questions about planning appeal decisions in 1994–95 to 1996–97 for proposed developments involving more than 150 houses or flats.
  Our records, for those appeals where the number of dwellings were indicated, show the following:

  Planning appeals involving more than 150 houses or flats

  Year

  Allowed

  Rejected

  1994–95

  2

  8

  1995–96

  3

  3

  1996–97

  3

  5

  288

  Planning appeals involving more than 150 houses or flats recovered for decision by the Secretary of State

  Year

  Number

  1994–95

  18

  1995–96

  14

  1996–97

  8

  Task Force on Cleaner Vehicles
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Minister for the Environment was informed that Mr. Keith Taylor, Chief Executive of Esso, had been appointed to the Government's task force on cleaner vehicles. [19151]

  Mr. Meacher
  The members of the Task Force's steering group were nominated by the Minister for Transport, in close consultation with the Science, Energy and Industry Minister and officials from the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Department of Trade and Industry. I, along with other relevant DETR Ministers, have been kept fully informed of developments in appointing members of the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force.

  Regional Planning Guidance
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the advice of the West Midlands Regional Forum of Local Authorities on housing provision; and if he will issue an amendment to Regional Planning Guidance II. [19508]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Forum is to be congratulated on the comprehensive nature of its advice and its involvement of the House Builders Federation and the Council for the Protection of Rural England in its formulation.

  We have concluded that further Regional Planning Guidance on housing provision in the West Midlands is required. We expect to issue this early in the new year. I will write to the hon. Members at that time and place a copy of the amendment in the Library of the House.

  We have concluded that provision should be made for 335,000 dwellings in the region between 1991 and 2011 including replacements and conversions to be redistributed as set out below. This is broadly in line with the advice received from the Forum but we take the view that the metropolitan area has the capacity to make slightly higher provision than they proposed. This would have benefits both for urban regeneration and protection of the countryside. In amending the guidance we will want to set out clear policies that authorities should pursue in their development plans to increase the amount of housing on previously developed land, to make provision for affordable housing and to ensure sustainable locations for housing development within transport corridors.

  Annual average of housing provisions for west midlands region 1991–2011

  Number

  Regional total

  16,750

  Herefordshire

  825

  Worcestershire

  2,065

  Shropshire

  2,400

  289

  Annual average of housing provisions for west midlands region 1991–2011

  Number

  Staffordshire

  3,520

  Warwickshire

  2,035

  Shire County total

  10,845

  Birmingham

  2,325

  Coventry

  555

  Dudley

  620

  Sandwell

  890

  Solihull

  505

  Walsall

  505

  Wolverhampton

  505

  Metropolitan total

  5,905

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of the speed cameras on the motorway system are active over a 24 hour weekday period. [18844]

  Mr. Michael
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is not available centrally. The use made of speed cameras on motorways is an operational matter for each individual chief officer of police to decide, taking account of local priorities and resources. It is important to bear in mind that, even when the cameras are not taking photographs, their signs and presence are influencing driver behaviour. It is the driver's perceived risk of detection which makes him comply with the speed limit now. Prosecution may make him do so in future. The police do not want to detect and prosecute all speeding motorists. Their aim is to achieve driver compliance with speed limits with the minimum necessary prosecutions.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many prosecutions have taken place in West Yorkshire in 1997 as a result of information taken from speed cameras(a) on the motorway systems and (b) on trunk roads. [18843]

  Mr. Michael
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information broken down by motorway systems and trunk roads is not collected centrally but I understand from the Chief Constable that provisional figures for West Yorkshire Police for 1997 so far indicate that some 9,400 offences have been detected by automatic cameras and dealt with either by fixed penalty or prosecution. Of these, I understand that some 5,300 arose from speed cameras on the motorway systems and 4,100 on trunk roads. Official, verified statistics for police action against speeding offenders detected by automatic cameras in England and Wales for 1997 will be published in the usual way next year.

  Bathing Water Quality
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will announce the United Kingdom Bathing Water Compliance results for 1997; and if he will make a statement. [19301]

  Mr. Meacher
  The quality of UK bathing waters fell slightly this year, with 88 per cent. of identified waters meeting EC mandatory coliform bacteria standards. This 290
  compares with 90 per cent. of UK bathing waters meeting the standards in 1996. The proportion of bathing waters complying with the standards in England and Wales remained the same at 89 per cent.

  The UK results are around the average for the EU but I want us to be among the leaders. We will only get there by urgent and targeted action on the small proportion of bathing waters which fail persistently. No Member State achieves 100 per cent. compliance consistently but I shall not be satisfied until we are achieving close to 100 per cent. regularly. There is still some way to go.

  It is very disappointing that compliance with the Directive is not better than last year, as more improvement schemes have come on stream.

  The results in the North-West are especially poor, with only half the bathing waters there passing the mandatory bacteria standards, compared with 61 per cent. last year. This is particularly disappointing when major bathing water improvement schemes have been completed in the area. I am asking North West Water to work with the Environment Agency as a matter of urgency to help to sort out the remaining problems, particularly in the Blackpool, Fylde coast area.

  I am also writing to the Chairman of the Environment Agency for a detailed report on the prospects for compliance and the action needed on persistent failures. I know that only last month the Agency warned water companies that delays in programming major investments were putting Britain at risk of failing to meet EC deadlines for improved sewage treatment under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. In addition to speeding up work to implement the UWWTD, I want to see concerted action by the Agency and the water companies to identify the causes of failure of bathing waters under the Bathing Water Directive, and give priority to tackling them in order to raise the level of compliance. However there is also good news in the results I am announcing today. I am encouraged to see that 180 UK bathing waters reached the higher guideline standard this year which is needed for a "Blue Flag" and I hope more local authorities than have done so in the past will be encouraged to apply for this prestigious award.

  Furthermore, 397 is a record number of bathing waters meeting the required standard and nearly two-thirds of the 50 failures in England and Wales missed compliance by only one of the 20 samples. Some regions performed particularly well this year and Anglian region deserve to be congratulated for achieving 100 per cent. compliance.

  The main results for the United Kingdom are summarised below. This information, together with details of English and Welsh bathing waters, will be placed in the Libraries of the House today. This will be supplemented by a report with more detailed results in due course.

  England and Wales Environment Agency—Operational regions

  Pass

  Fail

  Total

  Northumbrian1

  32(29)

  2(5)

  34(34)

  Yorkshire1

  19(20)

  3(2)

  22(22)

  Anglian

  35(34)

  0(1)

  35(35)

  Thames

  3(2)

  0(1)

  3(3)

  291

  England and Wales Environment Agency—Operational regions

  Pass

  Fail

  Total

  Southern

  67(62)

  8(7)

  75(69)

  Wessex1

  39(41)

  4(1)

  43(42)

  South West1

  125(126)

  12(12)

  2137(138)

  North West

  17(20)

  17(13)

  34(33)

  Welsh

  60(52)

  4(5)

  64(57)

  Total

  397(386)

  50(47)

  447(433)

  Scotland

  18(21)

  5(2)

  23(23)

  Northern Ireland

  14(16)

  2(0)

  16(16)

  Grand Total

  429(423)

  57(49)

  486(472)

  Results for 1996 are in brackets.

  1 Northumbrian and Yorkshire, South West and Wessex Regions were amalgamated in 1993, results are recorded separately here to enable comparison to be made with earlier years.

  2 South West has one less bathing water this year due to engineering works on the cliffs at Beacon Cove between May and August, making sampling impossible. Beacon Cover is, therefore, not included in compliance assessment for 1997.

  Coastguard
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on which date Ministers approved the five-year strategy for Her Majesty's Coastguard. [19203]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Ministers approved, for consultation, the five year strategy on 13 November. The announcement was made on 17 November. Further discussions are underway. The first consultation meeting with the Trade Unions was on 24 November.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Portsmouth South, sent on 18 September concerning Miss Nor ford of South sea. [18519]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 28 November.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the BMA's report on the therapeutic uses of cannabis; and if he will make a statement. [18560]

  Mr. George Howarth
  My right hon. Friend and I were sent copies of the report by the British Medical Association on 17 November with an invitation to comment, and we are currently studying the recommendations which relate to Home Office responsibilities in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. When we respond, I shall place a copy of the reply in the Library.

  Special Constables
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has completed his consultation exercise on the provision of compensation for special constables 292
  injured in the course of their duty; and when he expects to introduce the regulations recommended in the report of the Working Group on the Special Constabulary. [18562]

  Mr. Michael
  Proposals for new regulations were endorsed by the Working Group on 20 November and we are about to begin formal consultation with the police and local authority association. Subject to these consultations, we propose to implement the proposals as part of a comprehensive new set of regulations for the Special Constabulary. This will take account of other recommendations by the Working Group and we are aiming to lay the Regulations before Parliament before the Summer recess.

  I have placed a copy of the consultation paper in the Library.

  Slot Machines
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the increase in slot machine turnover from his decision to allow the £2 coin to be used as a stake. [18272]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Following a recommendation from the Gaming Board, the maximum stake for a single game on gaming machines was increased from 25p to 30p from 1 October 1997. Larger coins can already be used for multiple play.

  We do not have any estimates of the effect of the £2 coin on machine turnover. It is unlikely to be in use in amusement-with-prizes and jackpot gaming machines until next year.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many slot machines are currently operated on premises licensed to sell alcoholic beverages; and what estimate he has made of the total annual turnover of these machines. [18273]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Figures kept centrally do not categories gaming machines by different types of premises.

  The British Amusement Catering Trades Association (BACTA), the trade association representing the gaming machines industry, has recently undertaken a study in conjunction with the Henley Centre. This suggests that at the end of 1996 there were around 75,000 amusement-with-prizes machines (maximum prize £10) in public houses in Great Britain; 700 jackpot machines (maximum prize £250) in casinos; 31,300 jackpot machines in members clubs registered under the Gaming Act 1968; and 25,000 machines in bingo clubs, the majority with £10 prizes.

  BACTA estimates that in 1996 the amount spent in public houses was about £2.6 billion, with 80 per cent. returned as prizes. Total gross turnover on machines in the above premises is estimated at approximately £5 billion, with about £4 billion paid back to the players.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gerard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the organisations and individuals who have made submissions to the
  293
  review of the detention of asylum seekers; and when he expects to (a) announce and (b) publish the findings of the review; [17419]

  (2) what is the timetable for the inter-departmental review of the detention of asylum seekers. [17461]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  At the beginning of September, I wrote to 12 non-governmental organisations inviting their comments on the major policy areas covered by the detention review. Submissions have been received from the following groups:

  United Nations High Commission for Refugees

  Amnesty International

  Immigration Advisory Service

  The Law Society

  The Refugee Council

  Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants

  Churches Commission for Racial Justice

  Refugee Legal Centre

  Charter 87

  Immigration Law Practitioners Association

  A number of other bodies have put forward submissions on this issue, both before and during the review.

  Consideration is now being given to the comments received. I expect to be able to announce the results in the new year.

  Mr. Gerard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what issues relating to asylum are currently under review; which Government Departments are involved; and what are the terms of reference of each review group. [17420]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  All the issues relating to asylum are under review, especially the procedures for dealing with asylum claims and the means of supporting asylum seekers while their claims are being assessed. The Government Departments which have provided members of the study team are the Home Office; Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions; Department of Health; Department of Social Security; and the Cabinet Office. Departments represented on the Steering Group which is overseeing the study team's work, in addition to those already listed, are the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; the Lord Chancellor's Department; Department for Education and Employment; and Her Majesty's Treasury.

  The terms of reference are: to carry out a scrutiny of the arrangements for dealing with and providing for asylum seekers to assess how these might be improved to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the arrangements taken as a whole, and to identify ways of minimizing costs across government with a view to containing those costs well within the total provision for asylum seekers in existing Departmental programmes. In particular:
  to evaluate whether the existing allocation of responsibilities between Departments for processing and provision is the most conducive to efficient and cost-effective management and to recommend any options for improvement;
  to recommend other changes to structures, incentives and information flow to enhance the overall efficiency of systems of processing and provision;
  294
  to develop coasted proposals to reduce significantly both the time taken from the beginning to the end of the asylum process and the number of unfounded applications; and
  to make recommendations on the most cost effective arrangements for providing for asylum seekers throughout the process, taking account of the impact of those arrangements on the numbers of applicants for asylum and the likely take-up.

  We are also conducting internal reviews of detention policy and of the immigration and asylum appeals system.

  Motoring Offences
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to review the sentencing procedures for lesser motoring offences resulting in(a) deaths and (b) injury not taken into consideration in sentencing. [18589]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government have no plans to review sentencing procedure for lower level motoring offences resulting in death and injury. Sentencing procedure in individual cases is a matter for the courts. A range of offences exist to deal with those who commit motoring offences, with severe penalties available for serious offences. For example, causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs and causing death by dangerous driving carry maximum penalties of ten years' imprisonment.

  The North Report in 1988 considered, but rejected, the creation of a new offence of causing death by careless driving. It concluded that it would be wrong to visit on a driver severe penalties for the tragic consequences of an act which amounted only to carelessness.

  Sex and Violence (Offenders)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders convicted of offences including(a) sex and (b) violence were sentenced to periods of imprisonment of over four years in the last year for which figures are available. [18847]

  Mr. Michael
  For England and Wales in 1996 (latest available), of the 4,426 offenders convicted of indictable sexual offences, 635 were sentenced to periods of immediate custody of over four years, of whom 17 recorded life sentences.

  Similarly, for the indictable offence group of violence against the person, 30,011 offenders were convicted, of whom 944 were sentenced to periods of imprisonment of over four years, including 267 life sentences.

  Crime Victims
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the current policy and practice of the police in providing the media with the names of victims of crimes. [17933]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 2 December 1997]: The Home Office is currently considering whether new central guidance to the police on relations with the media would be valuable. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has been asked for its views. Currently, the ACPO Media Advisory Group advises chief officers that, wherever possible, they should consider the wishes of the victim in deciding whether to publicize a crime and the identity of the victim and respect the victim's wishes if

  295
  he or she does not wish his or her personal details to be given any publicity. Some police forces, as a matter of policy, do not release the names of victims. I understand that Greater Manchester Police issue guidance to all their officers to the effect that the names of victims should not be released to the press without their consent.

  Firearms Acts
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) has been the total cost of compensation paid to date and (b) estimate he has made of that to be paid to the end of 1997–98 under the Firearms Acts. [19102]

  Mr. Michael
  As at 28 November, £25.4 million had been paid out in compensation. The current estimate of compensation payments in 1997–98 is £115 million. This figure will be reviewed in the new year in the light of further progress on the processing of payments.

  Community Penalties
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has undertaken on the level of the public's satisfaction with the use of community penalties; and if he will make a statement. [18637]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 3 December 1997]: The Home Office has not itself recently undertaken research designed to investigate the level of public satisfaction with the use of community penalties. But studies such as that by Professor Hough published in the Howard Journal of Criminal Justice (Vol. 35 No. 3 1996) confirm that these penalties are not as widely understood or valued as they should be.

  Rapid Draw Lotteries
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from charities regarding the introduction of rapid draw lotteries. [18811]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 3 December 1997]: As at 1 December, we have received representations from 22 charities; 20 of these stand to benefit from the introduction of Pronto and two do not wish to be associated with it.

  Youth Organisations
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to establish the national accreditation bodies for youth organisations recommended by Lord Cullen. [19000]

  Mr. Michael
  The recommendation for the national accreditation of clubs and groups voluntarily attended by children and young people is under consideration by the Government.

  Parole Board Panels
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to alter the composition of Parole Board panels considering the release of mandatory life sentence adult prisoners. [19593]
  296
  Ms Quin
  The Parole Board is facing a continuing and significant increase in its work load. A very important element of that overall work load is the task of advising Ministers on the progression and release of adult life sentence prisoners convicted of murder. At present, the panels considering these cases comprise four members of the Board, always including a judge and a psychiatrist.

  By contrast, the panels that consider the release of discretionary life sentence prisoners and those sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure, and those that decide or advise on the release of long term determinate sentence prisoners, comprise only three members. The additional member in mandatory cases incurs costs to the Board of around £25,000 annually, and complicates the listing of cases, leading to delay.

  I am satisfied, on the advice of both the current Chair and recently retired Chairman of the Parole Board, that the size of mandatory panels can now safely be reduced from four to three, without risking in any way the quality of advice which Ministers receive. I have asked that these panels should continue to include both a judge and a psychiatrist.

  Schengen Acquis
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of Stat for the Home Department if he will make available to Parliament the full Schengen acquis. [19720]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government wish to make the fullest possible information available to Parliament in connection with the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam. The key Scheme Treaties which form the framework for Scheme co-operation are available in the Library. We have been informed that Scheme states have now finalised a list of documents which, for the purposes of incorporation, are to be considered formally as the acquits. Once we receive the full set of papers which comprise the acquits, we shall make them, subject to the usual understanding about confidentiality, available to Parliament.

  Lunar House Staff
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are currently based at Lunar House; and what was the number last year at the most convenient comparative date. [18396]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The total number of staff who were working in Lunar House as at 28 November 1997 was 1,628.

  A comparable figure for the corresponding period in 1996 is not available as historical staff records are not maintained on a building specific basis.

  Police (Video Cameras)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what controls apply to the use of hand-held video cameras by the police. [18914]

  Mr. Michael
  The use of hand-held video cameras is an operational matter and the decision to use them and in which circumstances comes within the responsibility of individual chief officers.
  297
  Guidelines on the use of equipment in police surveillance operations, including cameras, were issued by the Home Office in 1984. They make it clear that a senior officer should give authority for the equipment to be used and that he should first satisfy himself that its use will not involve any unwarrantable intrusion of privacy and is fully justified in all the circumstances of the operation in question.

  Human Rights Convention
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the implications for sentencing in England and Wales of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights. [17703]

  Mr. Michael
  The Human Rights Bill is designed to give people direct access in the United Kingdom to the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights. After incorporation, people who are subject to a sentencing decision will be able to argue in our domestic courts that the decision is not compatible with the Convention, whereas at present, they are able to argue the point only before the European Court of Human Rights.

  MI5
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time equivalent staff are dedicated to supporting the telephone-tapping function of MI5. [18698]

  Mr. Straw
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to discuss operational matters relating to the work of the security and intelligence services.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has seen the files held on him by MI5. [18696]

  Mr. Straw
  I have not asked to see, nor have I seen, any file which the Security Service may hold on me.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what safeguards are in place to ensure that MI5 does not operate outside its legal remit. [18699]

  Mr. Straw
  The Security Service falls under my authority and I take a close interest in its work, by regular meetings with the Director General and otherwise. The Permanent Secretary and other officials in my Department deal regularly and directly with the Service across the range of its activities, and ensure that I am aware of any significant developments. I receive, annually, reports on the service's performance and plans, and I act as joint sponsor of the Single Intelligence Vote under which the Service is funded. Applications for warrants to intercept communications or interfere with property are submitted to me and are reviewed by independent Commissioners whose annual reports are published.

  Complaints from individuals about the Security Service are investigated by an independent Tribunal which, together with the Commissioner, has full access to Security Service documents and information which they need. The service's accounts are scrutinised by the National Audit Office and its overall policy, administration and finance are subject to scrutiny by the Intelligence and Security Committee to which I give evidence from time to time. And
  298
  finally—but very importantly—the Service has extensive internal procedures to ensure that its operations are properly authorised and comply with statutory requirements.

  British Telecom
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many current British Telecom employees have been required to sign the Official Secrets Act 1911. [18695]

  Mr. Straw
  It is a matter for British Telecom to ensure that their employees comply with all legislation relevant to their work.

  Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many times those subject to investigation under(a) Article 7 and (b) Article 8 of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (i) have been informed and (ii) have not been informed that they have been subject to investigation; [18701]

  (2) how many requests have been (a) received and from whom and (b) made and to whom under Article 6 of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters; [18700]

  (3) how many video conferences have taken place under Article 12 of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. [18684]

  Mr. Straw
  None. The draft Convention to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member of 17 November 1997,Official Report, column 39, is presently under negotiation.

  MI6 and GCHQ
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department contributes to the budget of(a) MI6 and (b) GCHQ; and if he will make a statement. [18682]

  Mr. Straw
  No. The budgets of all the security and intelligence agencies are funded from the Single Intelligence Vote (Class XVIII Vote 2).

  Official Secrets Act 1911
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate how many United Kingdom citizens have signed the Official Secrets Act 1911 since 1967. [18694]

  Mr. Michael
  Certain provisions of the Official Secrets Act 1911 were repealed by the Official Secrets Act 1989, which came into effect on 1 March 1990. Prior to that date, it had been the practice to require Government Ministers and members of the Civil Service and of the armed forces to sign a declaration certifying that they were aware of the provisions of the legislation. Information about the numbers of those who signed such declarations is not available centrally.

  Current practice is to draw the relevant provisions of the Official Secrets Acts to the attention of those most likely to have access to the sorts of information covered by them.
  299
  The provisions of the Official Secrets Acts apply, and have always applied, irrespective of whether any formal declaration has been signed.

  Telecommunications (Interception)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend the scope of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 to cover automatic call tracing. [18915]

  Mr. Straw
  In my reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on 24 November 1997,Official Report, column 441, I said that it was my intention to introduce, in due course, legislation to bring interception on private networks into the statutory framework. Whether we should take that opportunity to introduce further measures relating to interception of communication; and, if so, what those measures should comprise, is currently under consideration.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure cordless telephones can be subject to legal interception only by means of a warrant. [18908]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley on 24 November 1997,Official Report, column 441

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that all residents within the Metropolitan Police District are treated equally for the purposes of consultation on proposals to create a new police authority. [18644]

  Mr. Michael
  The Green Paper 'New Leadership for London—the Government's proposals for a Greater London Authority' was published in July 1997 and included details of the proposals for a new police authority to cover the Metropolitan Police District (MPD). During the period of consultation, which ended on 24 October, the Green Paper was freely available to any interested individuals or organisations, including residents of the MPD. The Government Office for London received over 1,200 written responses, including ones from Hertfordshire County Council, the Boroughs of Broxbourne and Reigate and Banstead. I recently met members of the Outer London Metropolitan Police Group, which represents the interests of those districts which are not London boroughs, to hear their views and discuss the proposals. All comments and written responses will be taken into account.

  Secure Training Centres
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated average annual payment which will be made to private sector contractors for each child detained in a secure training centre; and if he will make a statement. [18642]

  Mr. Michael
  It would be inappropriate to publish the average payment figure to contractors while there are contracts yet to be awarded. The Government will ensure that secure training centres offer good value for money through normal contract requirements for "best value".

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Torture Equipment
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those European Union countries which(a) prohibit and (b) limit the export or transhipment of torture equipment. [17313]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  It is difficult to define torture equipment. Many items of equipment can be mis-used for the purposes of torture. We are in the process of consulting our European Union partners in relation to our intention during our forthcoming Presidency to encourage them to impose similar restrictions to those that we announced on 28 July, 1997,Official Report, 28 July 1997, columns 65–66, on the export and transhipment of equipment where there is evidence that it has been used for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The picture is not yet complete, but it is already clear that there is no uniformity of practice within the Union. Some partners control equipment of the type described in our announcement, while others do not.

  Overseas Staff (Telephone Numbers)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons the Private Office of the Under-Secretary of State does not have the out-of-hours telephone number of the Deputy High Commissioner in Bombay. [18527]

  Mr. Fatchett
  It is our practice not to disclose the home telephone numbers of our staff serving overseas. All of our overseas posts operate a Duty Officer system which enables those who need to transact business urgently with our staff outside normal working hours to do so.

  Ottawa Treaty
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Kingdom plans to ratify the Ottawa Land Mines Treaty; and what action Her Majesty's Government plan to take to encourage non-signing countries to ratify the treaty. [18936]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  On ratification of the Ottawa Convention, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), on 24 November 1997,Official Report, columns 398–99. We shall continue to take every opportunity to urge as many countries as possible to sign the Ottawa Convention and will press for complementary action, to promote a global ban on anti-personnel land mines, in international fora, including the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.

  The Late Mr. and Mrs. Wigham (Egypt)
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will investigate the circumstances in which the personal effects and valuables of the late Mr. and Mrs. Wigham of Swanley, Kent were not returned by the Egyptian authorities: what action the British Embassy in Cairo has been taking to secure their immediate return; and if he will issue a statement. [19003]
  301
  Mr. Fatchett
  As soon as the Embassy heard that valuables were missing they asked the Egyptian authorities urgently to locate them. They have not yet found and the Embassy continue to press. The authorities released the luggage to the Embassy on 2 December. With Embassy assistance, the insurers will return it to the family immediately.

  GCHQ
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) civilian and (b) non-civilian staff have been employed within GCHQ for each year from 1980. [18916]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  It is not our policy to provide detailed information on the staffing of the Intelligence and Security Services.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if GCHQ is required to apply for warrants each time it wishes to intercept overseas telegrams. [18690]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  GCHQ obtains a warrant wherever necessary as required by the Interception of Communications Act 1985.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions since 1987 GCHQ has been involved in the surveillance of party political conferences. [18702]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Intelligence Services Act 1994 requires the Director of GCHQ to ensure that GCHQ does not take any action to further the interests of any UK political party. This was established policy even before the Act was passed. On a number of occasions GCHQ has provided advice and assistance to the police present at such conferences on the security of their communications, at their request and also as provided for under the Act. But GCHQ has not been involved in the surveillance of party political conferences.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if CCHQ is permitted to undertake(a) telephone tapping and (b) other interceptions of communications where the terminal points of the communication are both in Great Britain [18686]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  GCHQ's functions are set out in Section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994. Communications which GCHQ is permitted to intercept under the authority of a warrant are set out in section 2 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the range of responsibilities currently discharged by GCHQ. [18917]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The responsibilities of GCHQ are set out in Section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance has been given to employees at GCHQ in respect of the Data Protection Act 1984. [18688]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  All staff were informed in 1986 that personal data held by GCHQ are exempt from operative parts of the Data Protection Act 1984 because that exemption is required for the purpose of safeguarding 302
  national security. The guidance said that the spirit of the Act would be applied so far as serving staff members were concerned, in that they would be given access to personal data held on data bases in the same way as they would have been had the Act been in force.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff who were members of a union were seconded from(a) the DTI and (b) other departments to work in GCHQ Cheltenham during the period that a union ban was in place. [18691]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  GCHQ estimates that about 10 people were seconded from other Government Departments to GCHQ between 1984 and 1997. It is not believed that any of these were from the DTI. GCHQ has no record of their union membership.

  Diplomatic Privileges Act
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he takes to ensure there is no contravention of the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964. [18687]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 gave legal force in the UK to the Vienna Convention concluded in 1962. However, as a result of the 1985 Government Report on the Abuse of Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges (Cmnd 9497), the Government's requirements and procedures were tightened. Stricter standards are applied, in particular on: size of diplomatic missions; notification of new staff; use of diplomatic premises; handling of diplomatic bags; breaches of criminal law and illegal parking.

  Protocol Department within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is responsible for implementing these requirements and monitoring any breaches. To this end, the Department issues a comprehensive memorandum on privileges and immunities to every Diplomatic Mission. A section of the memorandum states the action we will take in the event of any breach of privileges or abuse of diplomatic immunity. This section is given to each newly appointed diplomat with their identity card. All Heads of Mission are reminded regularly of their obligations by the Head of the Diplomatic Service and the Director of Protocol. Protocol Department also controls the duty-free privileges of each mission in relation to alcohol, tobacco and vehicles.

  The Diplomatic Protection Group of the Metropolitan Police report all offences allegedly committed by diplomats to Protocol Department who in turn takes the necessary action with the relevant Head of Mission, asking for a waiver of immunity or in its absence the removal of a diplomat if the circumstances merit such action. Only six such requests were made in 1996. Diplomats who park illegally and incur fixed penalty fines are expected to pay them. All figures relating to alleged serious crimes committed by diplomats and unpaid parking fines are submitted to Parliament annually and published in Hansard

  Visa Applications
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what circumstances visa
  303
  applications from United Kingdom citizens seeking to visit countries overseas are monitored by MI6; and what proportion of visa applications are thus monitored. [18697]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Visa applications from United Kingdom citizens seeking to visit countries overseas are a matter between the individual and the Government of the country concerned. They do not involve any British Government agency. It has been the policy of successive Governments not to disclose information about operational matters relating to the work of the intelligence and security services.

  Lawyers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many trained lawyers are employed within(a) M16 and (b) GCHQ. [18692]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Both the Secret Intelligence Service and the GCHQ employ qualified Legal Advisers. It is not our policy to provide detailed information on the staffing of the Intelligence and Security Services.

  EU Agreements
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his oral answer of 25 November 1997,Official Report, column 754, on what previous occasions he has made statements relating to the bilateral agreement between Spain and the Dutch Presidency; and if he will make a statement. [19043]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the replies I gave him on 2 December 1997,Official Report, columns 122–23. I have referred to events surrounding the outcome on Article 4 of the Scheme Protocol on several occasions, as has my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, notably during the evidence he gave to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 4 November and during the Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill on 12 November.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government has made to the government of Zimbabwe about the proposed confiscation of land. [19207]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We recognise the need for land reform in Zimbabwe but do not support that Government's present programme of land acquisition. We have expressed to them our concern that their current action will damage the economy, undermine investor confidence and do nothing to help the poor. We have urged them to follow a carefully planned programme that is fair and transparent and aimed at poverty eradication.

WALES

  Out of School Clubs
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the current number of out of school clubs in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney; and how 304
  many he estimates will be established in (a) Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and (b) Wales under the Government's new undertaking. [18505]

  Mr. Hain
  I understand that one out of school club is being developed in Merthyr Tydfil and there are Homework Clubs associated with each of the secondary schools in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. During 1997 there were, in addition, 3 Summer Literacy Schools in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. Under the Government's proposals, The National Lottery New Opportunities Fund will become an important source of funds for new initiatives in education. These will be carefully selected after wide consultation. The extra resources for child care announced by the Chancellor on 26 November 1997 is extremely welcome news and we will make sure that a fair allocation of the new money comes to Wales.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to consult the people of Wales on their preferred location for the Welsh Assembly. [18523]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I am publishing a consultation paper on Monday. I am also arranging for pre-publication copies to be sent to all Welsh members and am making copies available in the Library of the House today so that members will have it in advance of Second Reading of the Government of Wales Bill.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to ensure that the Welsh Assembly has a duty to promote sustainable development; and in what form he will publish such proposals. [19117]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Paragraph 1.24 of "A Voice for Wales" (Cm 3718) said that the Government would ensure that the Assembly promotes sustainable development. I plan to make an announcement to the House on this matter during Second Reading of the Government of Wales Bill.

  Job Creation
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new policies he plans to introduce to encourage job creation in Wales. [18793]

  Mr. Hain
  Our proposals for stimulating the Welsh economy are set out in "An Economic Strategy for Wales" (Welsh Office October 1997). A copy is in the Library of the House. Comments are invited by 20 December.

  Dentists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to protect the public from incompetent dentists. [18725]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The Dental Practice Board has a statutory responsibility to the Secretary of State to monitor aspects of clinical probity in the General Dental Service in Wales and to initiate appropriate action in circumstances where acceptable standards have not been met.

  Some 2,500 random examinations have been carried out in Wales since April 1997 by the Board's Dental Reference Service to provide assurance about the quality

  305
  of diagnosis and treatment provided by individual dentists. About 1 per cent. of such examinations are referred to health authorities for consideration of appropriate action. There is also an established procedure for patient complaints. A health authority may refer complaints or matters of concern, whether from the Board or from a patient, to a Dental Discipline Committee for investigation. Only in a small proportion of such cases is the dentist found to be "in breach" of NHS Terms of Service.

  A health authority can also refer allegations of a disciplinary nature to the General Dental Council, the NHS Tribunal or the local police authority.

  The General Dental Council exercises statutory functions under the Dentists Act 1984 in relation to dentists' professional conduct and fitness to practise.

  Section 27 of the Act provides that dentists shall be liable to have their names erased from the Dentists Register if they have been convicted of a criminal offence or have been guilty of serious professional misconduct. It is an offence for an unregistered person to engage in the practice of dentistry.

  The Council at its November meeting approved the publication of new ethical guidance for dentists under the title "Maintaining Standards". This new guidance will be issued to all dentists on the UK Register.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the former NHS dentist, Mr. McDonald. [18723]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  No. To do so may prejudice the appellate role of the Secretary of State for Wales in respect of Dental Service Committee Appeals.

  Vaccination Reward Scheme
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effect of the National Vaccination Reward Scheme on the registration of children by GP practices. [18620]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  No assessments have been undertaken. GPs are reimbursed for childhood vaccinations under the GP Target Payment Scheme. These targets are set at less than 100 per cent. in recognition of the fact that not all parents wish to have their children immunised.

  Planning Regulations
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to review planning regulations in Wales. [17587]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  [holding answer 1 December 1997]: Planning regulations are kept under continuous review. The key principles of planning policy are contained in Planning Guidance (Wales): Planning Policy (May 1996) (PG(W):PP): that document is currently under review and a revised version is likely to be published in early 1998. PG(W):PP is currently supplemented by thirteen Technical Advice Notes (Wales) (TAN(W)s) covering particular subjects: a further ten TAN(W)s are planned for publication in 1998.

  CELTEC
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales pursuant to his answer of 27 November 1997,Official Report, column 639, what estimate he has made of the (a) number and (b) cost of (i) redundancies and (ii) resignations of managers of CELTEC as a result of the reorganisation of the TEC. [19147]

  Mr. Hain
  I am advised that the transfer of the assets and liabilities of the Alkemy and Business Advance companies is shortly to be completed, and the staff who transfer will then be integrated into the TEC. Following this transfer CELTEC will be undertaking a detailed review of all its resources against its prospective business requirements for the 1998–99 financial year. The outcome of this review will be presented to the CELTEC Board in the New Year, at which time the TEC will be able to finalise its business plans and staffing needs. I will write to my hon. Friend at that time with further details, and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  The cost of any redundancies of staff currently employed by the Hightown Holdings Group of companies which are not transferring to CELTEC is a matter for Hightown Holdings to determine.

  Accounting Officer
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions written directions have been sought by permanent secretaries and other accounting officers in the past five years; in what circumstances; and on what dates. [19217]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  There have been no such directions in the Welsh Office in the last five years.

  Tai Cymru
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to abolish Tai Cymru; and how he will make its functions democratically accountable. [19573]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Following the publication of the Government of Wales Bill, which makes provision for the winding up of Tai Cymru, I am pleased to announce that Tai Cymru and Welsh Office Housing Division will be merged to form an integrated Housing Department of the Welsh Office. This will initially be accountable to my right hon. Friend and ultimately to the Assembly.

  Subject to the enactment of the Government of Wales Bill we propose that the new Housing Department will be formed on 1 January 1999 and will cover all the existing functions of the two organisations. I estimate that the staffing structure of the new organisation will produce long-term pay bill savings of approximately £55,000 per annum, about 20 per cent. of the current pay costs of the two organisations. There will be some short-term setting up costs.

  I have today published a consultation paper on the organisation and role of the Housing Department and its relations with other bodies including an enhanced role for local authorities in planning the provision of housing in their areas. I have placed copies in the Library of the House.

  Local Authorities (Best Value)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which local authorities in Wales will be involved in the Wales evaluation study to test the duty of best value; and if he will make a statement. [19571]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I have received a report from the Best Value Project Group which I asked to evaluate the 26 proposals sent in by Welsh authorities. The Project Group concluded that 23 proposals had reached the stated quality threshold set out in its report and should be used to evaluate the impact of Best Value in Wales. There are 21 proposals from local authorities in Wales, one from a police authority, and one from a fire authority. The Project Group felt this would allow Best Value to be vigorously tested across the whole range of public services in Wales. I am happy to accept the Project Group's recommendations.

  Three of the Welsh proposals have also been chosen to participate in the Best Value research programme commissioned by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  I am writing to all those who brought forward proposals and I will arrange for a list of those authorities accepted for both the Welsh and the English studies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The development of Best Value will help us deliver our Manifesto commitment to repeal Compulsory Competitive Tendering. Primary legislation will be required for this and the Government intends to introduce a Bill when Parliamentary business allows.

  Ahead of this there is a need for a wide-ranging debate on Best Value involving local government, the private sector, trades unions and, most importantly, local people. I therefore propose to issue a consultation paper early in the New Year which will seek comments on this and other issues affecting local government in Wales.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Paramilitary Beatings
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have been charged with offences in connection with paramilitary beatings in 1997. [16031]

  Mr. Ingram
  Between 1 January 1997 and 2 November 1997 one person was charged with an offence in connection with paramilitary assault.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to increase the representation of Catholics in major public sector organisations in Northern Ireland following the recent Fair Employment Commission report on public service employment in Northern Ireland. [17888]

  Mr. Ingram
  I welcome the overall increase in the Roman Catholic share of senior public sector posts and the recognition in the Fair Employment Commission's Report of this improvement.
  308
  It is for individual public sector bodies, as employers, to comply with their responsibilities under the fair employment legislation. This includes a duty to take action, within the law, to ensure fair participation in employment by members of both communities.

  The report highlights the fact that the significant progress made by NI Government Departments in achieving fair representation among most of its work force, has yet to be reflected in the composition of senior grades. Several measures have already been taken to address this issue. These include the use of positive action advertisements, open advertising of posts, particularly chief executive posts, and the removal of various internal barriers so as to encourage a better flow of staff from lower to higher grades within and between Departments.

  The Civil Service will continue to consult the Fair Employment Commission on affirmative action measures and the development of future goals and timetables for change in this area.

  European Peace and Reconciliation Programme
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the projects receiving funding under the European Peace and Reconciliation Programme indicating the money allocated to each project between 1994 and 1997. [18135]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I will arrange to have placed in the Libraries of both Houses a list of all projects funded and the amounts allocated to them under the EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation in 1995, 1996 and the first six months of 1997. No projects were funded in 1994.

  Belfast International Airport
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the Northern Ireland Audit Office report into the privatisation of Belfast International Airport. [18131]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The privatisation of Belfast International Airport was authorised and carried out by the previous Government. The Northern Ireland Audit Office's Report will be considered by the Public Accounts Committee. The Government will respond to the Committee in due course.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures will be taken to improve the ambulance fleet in Northern Ireland. [18133]

  Mr. Worthington
  In recognition of the particular problems faced by the ambulance service, the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Trust has received a further allocation of £500,000 in the current financial year in addition to its normal capital provision of £500,000 for urgent replacement of ambulance vehicles. The Trust has also been permitted to draw on £200,000 of its 1998–99 capital allocation to supplement those resources. In addition, the Trust is presently drawing up proposals for a major ambulance replacement programme to be tested for a private partnership under PFI. These measures should make a significant difference to the state of the ambulance fleet but I will keep the matter under review.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Further Education
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the per capita funding for further education students for each year from 1978–79 to 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [17395]

  Dr. Howells
  It is not possible to give figures since 1978–79 on a comparable basis. The following figures are the average funding per full-time equivalent student in further education in England (in £ cash rounded to the nearest £10) since the establishment of the Further Education sector:

  1993–94: 3,080

  1994–95: 3,040

  1995–96: 2,920

  1996–97: 2,860

  These figures are based on an improved method of calculating full-time equivalent students.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of changes in unit costs of further education since 1978–79 and of their overall effect on funding requirements. [17396]

  Dr. Howells
  It is not possible to assess unit costs on a consistent basis going back as far as 1978–79. One of the objectives of the additional funding announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 12 November is to limit the pressure on unit costs to the costs arising from inflation.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of New Deal education and training on current facilities and infrastructure in colleges of further education; and if he will make a statement. [17401]

  Dr. Howells
  Further Education colleges will have the opportunity to bid for well over £100 million of new deal funds for next year.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the projected required funding for further education over the next three years. [17399]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced additional funding for further education in 1998–99 on 12 November. Decisions on funding for financial year 1999–2000 and beyond will be announced next summer in the light of the Government's comprehensive spending review.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received concerning the projected required funding for further education over the next three years. [17400]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend has received representations on further education from a number of colleges, national representatives bodies and members of the public.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will identify the college which is described in the Further Education Funding Council's annual report as having lost up to £335,000 on a business 310
  venture from which there was no benefit to the students of the college; and what action has been taken to prevent such a circumstances happening elsewhere; [17822]

  (2) if he will identify the college which is described in the Further Education Funds Council's annual report as having spent £440,000 on provision which may not be eligible for Further Education Funding Council funding; and when the auditors will have determined whether the council's funding has been correctly applied. [17824]

  Dr. Howells
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Further Education Funding Council to write to my hon. Friend concerning this matter.

  National Disability Council
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure public access to the agendas, council papers and minutes of National Disability Council meetings. [17740]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The National Disability Council (NDC) has a good record on openness. For example, it produces an annual report giving full information on its activities, writes to its partners during the year to keep them in touch with developments and undertakes wide public consultation before presenting Codes of Practice to Government on access for disabled people to goods, facilities, services and premises.

  We will be considering how the NDC and other Non-Departmental Public Bodies which advise my Department might be made even more open in the light of comments made on the consultation document "Opening up Quangos" issued earlier this month by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representation Her Majesty's Government received from the National Disability Council(a) before and (b) after 3 May in respect of securing amendments to the Treaty of European Union in favour of the disabled. [17739]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  As noted in its annual report for 1996–97, the National Disability Council (NDC) advised Government both before and after 3 May of its concerns that the Treaty did not sufficiently protect the interests of disabled people. It urged support for an amendment to Article 6a which had been proposed to combat discrimination based on various grounds, including disability. The NDC also encouraged amendment of Article 100a to ensure that measures designed to harmonise the single market did not inadvertently damage the interests of disabled people.

  With support from the UK Government, an amendment to Article 6a was agreed at the Intergovernmental Conference in June. The Government also initiated and secured a declaration on Article 100a which requires the institutions of the European Community to take account of the needs of disabled people in drawing up single market measures. The NDC subsequently welcomed these positive steps forward for disabled people.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much the Government has spent on
  311
  advertising (a) on commercial radio, (b) on television and (c) in newspapers in relation to its policy on tuition fees for university students. [17939]

  Dr. Howells
  The cost for advertising, in relation to the policy on tuition fees for university students, is, for commercial radio, £222,209 and for the national press, £137,831. There has been no advertising on television.

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many Welfare to Work places will be created in(a) Wales, (b) the North West, (c) the East Midlands and (d) the South West; and if he will make a statement. [17646]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We will offer help to everyone who becomes eligible for the new deal and sufficient places will be available to meet this commitment.

  We are making good progress in Wales, the North-West, the East Midlands and the South West—as elsewhere—in the planning and implementation of the New Deal.

  New Deal
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what obligations and responsibilities a private sector organisation given the lead role in a New Deal district, would have towards the local partners, particularly local authorities, involved in delivering the service within their local area. [18354]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We have invited bids from the private sector, under contract to the Employment service (ES) to lead the delivery of new deal in a total of ten

  Pupil teacher ratios in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools by local education authority area in England: 1974, 1979, 1991 and 1997

  Position as at January

  1974

  1979

  1991

  1997

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  Inner London1

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  18.7

  14.9

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  City of London

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/ap

  19.4

  n/ap

  n/ap

  214.0

  n/ap

  Camden

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  15.7

  19.0

  15.4

  20.0

  20.0

  214.3

  Greenwich

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  18.0

  19.6

  15.9

  26.4

  21.1

  16.0

  Hackney

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  19.4

  18.6

  14.6

  212.3

  19.5

  14.9

  Hammersmith

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  16.7

  18.7

  14.5

  18.1

  20.5

  17.4

  Islington

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  14.5

  18.5

  17.0

  16.3

  21.1

  215.7

  Kensington and Chelsea

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  13.7

  17.4

  12.5

  14.2

  17.7

  12.9

  Lambeth

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  16.6

  18.8

  15.1

  213.6

  19.8

  215.0

  Lewisham

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  16.8

  19.9

  15.6

  21.2

  20.6

  215.2

  Southwark

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  16.3

  19.9

  16.3

  16.4

  21.8

  215.8

  Tower Hamlets

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  16.3

  17.4

  14.1

  16.4

  20.7

  15.9

  Wandsworth

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  17.4

  17.7

  14.4

  18.1

  20.5

  15.5

  Westminster

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  12.4

  17.1

  14.3

  211.7

  18.6

  14.9

  Barking

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  22.3

  15.5

  n/ap

  22.3

  15.8

  n/ap

  22.7

  215.7

  Barnet

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  21.5

  15.5

  17.4

  21.0

  15.1

  19.2

  321.3

  2, 314.8

  Bexley

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  25.1

  17.2

  20.4

  23.3

  16.1

  n/ap

  324.8

  17.4

  Brent

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  18.7

  13.9

  13.7

  20.9

  14.5

  213.6

  21.9

  15.2

  Bromley

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  24.5

  16.7

  n/ap

  23.5

  16.1

  0.0

  324.4

  216.3

  Croydon

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.0

  16.3

  2.3

  21.3

  15.7

  217.1

  23.0

  216.2

  Ealing

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  20.4

  15.6

  15.1

  20.4

  14.6

  2 12.3

  22.5

  16.4

  Enfield

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  24.0

  16.8

  n/ap

  20.6

  15.7

  0.0

  323.2

  315.9

  Haringey

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  20.9

  16.0

  14.8

  21.8

  14.1

  213.0

  221.1

  314.6

  Harrow

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  22.1

  16.1

  n/ap

  21.7

  15.3

  0.0

  2. 320.7

  315.5

  Havering

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.6

  17.0

  n/ap

  22.6

  15.5

  0.0

  23.8

  316.3

  Hillingdon

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.0

  16.5

  20.2

  22.5

  15.5

  219.8

  322.6

  316.2

  Hounslow

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  21.9

  15.9

  n/ap

  20.9

  15.5

  n/ap

  321.5

  15.8

  Kingston upon Thames

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  22.1

  16.1

  16.6

  22.3

  14.6

  214.8

  23.9

  16.6

  Merton

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  22.2

  17.6

  n/ap

  18.4

  14.4

  n/ap

  321.7

  317.2

  312
  locations. The bidding process will make clear that private sector organisations should consider carefully the particular needs within each locality and the key local partners, including local authorities, they need to work with to make new deal a success. The successful private sector lead organisation will need to continue to work closely with a range of local public and private sector bodies effectively to delivery new deal opportunities to clients.

  Detailed arrangements for delivery will be a matter for discussion between the lead organisation and its partners. However, it is expected that in most cases these will take the form of a written contract, the terms and conditions of which will be binding on all parties.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assistance New Deal participants aged over 25 years and unemployed for more than two years will receive during the period before their six-month placement begins. [18710]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We are currently considering the detailed design of the new deal for people aged 25 years or over and unemployed for two years or more. We will make an announcement shortly.

  Pupil Teacher Ratios
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the local education authorities where the pupil teacher ratio in 1997 was below that in(a) 1974, (b) 1979 and (c) 1991 in maintained (i) nursery, (ii) primary and (iii) secondary schools. [18555]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 1 December 1997]: The available information is shown in the following table.
  313

  Pupil teacher ratios in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schoolsby local education authority area in England: 1974, 1979, 1991 and 1997

  Position as at January

  1974

  1979

  1991

  1997

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  Newham

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  21.4

  16.1

  23.4

  24.7

  15.1

  218.2

  224.3

  16.3

  Redbridge

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  24.1

  17.1

  n/ap

  23.6

  16.4

  0.0

  2. 322.9

  316.5

  Richmond upon Thames

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  22.2

  17.0

  14.8

  20.9

  15.7

  18.9

  321.7

  17.0

  Sutton

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  24.0

  17.3

  20.0

  21.9

  15.7

  20.0

  323.9

  316.8

  Waltham Forest

  n/av

  n/av

  n/ay

  n/av

  22.4

  14.7

  18.4

  22.2

  14.3

  218.3

  2. 321.7

  15.6

  Birmingham

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.9

  16.5

  22.5

  23.5

  16.0

  220.5

  322.7

  316.1

  Coventry

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  22.7

  16.0

  20.6

  22.7

  14.2

  217.5

  23.6

  16.6

  Dudley

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  25.5

  18.0

  31.8

  21.3

  14.0

  41.0

  322.4

  316.5

  Sandwell

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  24.4

  16.4

  19.7

  22.6

  14.2

  216.5

  324.0

  16.8

  Solihull

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.5

  16.4

  n/ap

  22.9

  15.2

  n/ap

  24.0

  16.8

  Walsall

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  22.6

  15.8

  28.9

  21.0

  14.5

  226.2

  23.7

  16.3

  Wolverhampton

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  21.1

  15.8

  20.5

  2.3

  14.0

  220.2

  22.4

  15.9

  Knowsley

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.4

  16.3

  n/ap

  22.1

  15.0

  n/ap

  23.7

  16.6

  Liverpool

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  21.1

  16.1

  17.9

  22.4

  14.9

  18.7

  23.6

  16.7

  St. Helens

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.8

  16.2

  17.9

  23.0

  14.8

  20.5

  323.3

  315.6

  Sefton

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.6

  17.3

  21.2

  23.0

  15.9

  218.9

  323.2

  316.3

  Wirral

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  24.2

  17.1

  15.6

  20.7

  14.8

  215.0

  323.2

  316.2

  Bolton

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  25.2

  16.5

  21.8

  21.7

  14.5

  216.6

  323.1

  16.8

  Bury

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.5

  16.5

  21.0

  22.5

  15.5

  216.3

  24.2

  17.2

  Manchester

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  21.9

  15.1

  14.8

  22.3

  13.8

  17.3

  23.4

  15.9

  Oldham

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  25.2

  17.6

  n/ap

  22.6

  15.0

  n/ap

  324.4

  316.0

  Rochdale

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  22.9

  15.4

  20.6

  23.6

  15.2

  21.3

  24.7

  16.7

  Salford

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.5

  16.2

  22.4

  22.3

  13.7

  24.4

  24.0

  16.4

  Stockport

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  26.3

  17.3

  25.1

  23.2

  15.1

  25.3

  324.05

  316.9

  Tameside

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  24.1

  16.5

  13.0

  23.0

  15.3

  17.2

  25.4

  17.8

  Trafford

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  22.2

  16.5

  n/ap

  23.9

  15.1

  n/ap

  24.7

  16.7

  Wigan

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  22.6

  16.1

  15.2

  22.7

  14.6

  20.5

  23.1

  316.0

  Barnsley

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.6

  16.8

  22.4

  23.1

  16.0

  222.3

  25.5

  17.8

  Doncaster

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  22.2

  16.6

  n/ap

  22.1

  15.5

  n/ap

  24.4

  16.6

  Rotherham

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  24.0

  17.4

  19.4

  21.6

  14.6

  20.0

  24.0

  317.2

  Sheffield

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  21.8

  16.4

  16.9

  22.0

  14.8

  2.1

  23.3

  17.3

  Bradford

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  20.4

  17.6

  15.7

  20.4

  15.8

  16.6

  23.0

  18.1

  Calderdale

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.7

  17.6

  n/ap

  22.7

  15.5

  n/ap

  24.3

  316.9

  Kirklees

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.6

  18.3

  13.4

  21.2

  14.9

  14.5

  23.8

  317.4

  Leeds

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  24.6

  17.8

  18.9

  20.7

  15.3

  6.5

  324.1

  316.9

  Wakefield

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.3

  18.0

  16.4

  22.8

  15.7

  17.7

  24.4

  316.9

  Gateshead

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  21.2

  16.5

  18.3

  21.0

  14.9

  19.8

  22.3

  316.0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  18.7

  14.7

  17.3

  20.8

  14.7

  22.8

  23.9

  16.8

  North Tyneside

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  21.1

  16.2

  22.1

  21.2

  15.2

  217.2

  23.9

  17.2

  South Tyneside

  flay

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  20.3

  16.0

  18.0

  21.4

  15.0

  217.9

  23.4

  16.9

  Sunderland

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.5

  16.7

  19.0

  22.4

  15.3

  218.6

  322.8

  316.3

  Isles of Scilly

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  15.3

  11.3

  n/ap

  15.1

  7.9

  n/ap

  16.9

  39.3

  Avon

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  24.2

  17.0

  18.5

  22.4

  16.0

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  Bath and NE Somerset

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  4—

  422.4

  416.6

  City of Bristol

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  419.5

  423.0

  415.6

  NorthSomerset

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  4—

  423,8

  416.0

  South Gloucestershire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/ap

  n/ap

  m/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  419.3

  424.2

  416.7

  Bedfordshire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  21.6

  17.3

  17.4

  21.6

  16.8

  19.0

  23.3

  17.8

  Berkshire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.8

  16.8

  17.3

  23.4

  15.7

  217.3

  323.5

  316.6

  Buckinghamshire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  24.2

  16.8

  23.3

  22.9

  16.1

  221.2

  323.9

  17.3

  Cambridgeshire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.3

  16.7

  18.5

  23.0

  16.1

  19.1

  24.4

  17.4

  Cheshire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.5

  17.0

  21.4

  24.2

  16.4

  24.2

  223.8

  17.0

  Cleveland

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.4

  18.4

  18.3

  23.4

  14.9

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  Hartlepool

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  417.3

  425.2

  417.1

  Middlesborough

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  4n/ap

  423.7

  416.2

  Redcar and Cleveland

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  4n/ap

  424.3

  417.2

  Stockton on Tees

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  414.3

  424.2

  417.1

  Cornwall

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  24.2

  16.9

  2.9

  23.3

  16.3

  217.1

  323.7

  17.4

  Cumbria

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.1

  16.5

  21.8

  22.2

  15.0

  219.8

  23.4

  16.9

  Derbyshire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.7

  17.5

  18.5

  21.7

  14.1

  218.0

  25.9

  317.4

  Devon

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  24.3

  17.9

  26.8

  22.7

  16.1

  39.6

  324.1

  317.1

  Dorset

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.7

  17.5

  n/ap

  22.9

  16.4

  n/ap

  24.6

  17.7

  Durham

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  21.5

  16.9

  20.5

  22.3

  16.1

  21.0

  24.1

  17.4

  East Sussex

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.4

  17.5

  19.9

  22.2

  15.8

  218.4

  322.8

  316.2

  Essex

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  24.8

  17.8

  18.4

  23.1

  16.6

  18.6

  323.0

  316.6

  Gloucestershire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.4

  17.4

  n/ap

  21.3

  15.7

  n/ap

  23.6

  317.3

  Hampshire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  24.6

  17.4

  13.4

  22.8

  15.8

  212.5

  323.0

  316.6

  Hereford and Worcester

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  24.2

  17.7

  n/ap

  22.4

  16.5

  13.3

  323.2

  17.8

  Hertfordshire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  22.5

  15.9

  20.2

  22.0

  15.5

  218.4

  22.9

  15.9

  Humberside

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  22.1

  16.8

  23.0

  22.6

  15.7

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  314

  315

  Pupil teacher ratios in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools by local education authority area in England: 1974, 1979, 1991 and 1997

  Position as at January

  1974

  1979

  1991

  1997

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  City of Kingston Upon Hull

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  421.0

  425.5

  418.2

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  421.4

  425.5

  417.0

  North East Lincolnshire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  420.8

  425.0

  417.9

  North Lincolnshire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  4n/ap

  424.6

  417.54

  Isle of Wight

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.9

  18.6

  n/ap

  22.8

  16.9

  n/ap

  2.322.6

  318.2

  Kent

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  24.3

  17.7

  14.6

  24.3

  16.6

  18.6

  2.323.9

  2.316.3

  Lancashire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  24.7

  16.6

  18.6

  23.1

  15.7

  217.9

  324.4

  16,7

  Leicestershire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.3

  16.4

  22.9

  22.9

  15.0

  22.9

  23.5

  17.2

  Lincolnshire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.7

  17.0

  22.2

  23.5

  16.2

  219.9

  23.9

  2.315.9

  Norfolk

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  22.8

  17.6

  17.9

  22.1

  15.4

  19.1

  322.3

  315.7

  North Yorkshire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  22.5

  17.1

  22.2

  22.4

  15.3

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  North Yorkshire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  419.5

  423.5

  416.4

  York

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  n/ap

  426.8

  424.3

  416.3

  Northamptonshire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  24.4

  17.0

  20.7

  22.6

  16.3

  218.6

  323.5

  316.8

  Northumberland

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.4

  17.5

  25.5

  23.5

  16.7

  28.3

  24.5

  18.6

  Nottinghamshire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  24.7

  17.0

  17.4

  22.0

  14.9

  215.0

  24.8

  17.3

  Oxfordshire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  24.2

  18.0

  21.0

  22.6

  16.6

  215.4

  323.6

  18.1

  Shropshire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.8

  17.0

  14.0

  21.4

  15.0

  21.3

  24.4

  316.5

  Somerset

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  24.6

  18.6

  n/ap

  22.1

  15.7

  n/ap

  323.5

  318.0

  Staffordshire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.2

  16.8

  28.9

  23.1

  15.8

  29.7

  24.9

  17.7

  Suffolk

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.4

  18.1

  24.4

  21.6

  16.4

  222.9

  322.3

  316.6

  Surrey

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  21.9

  16.8

  13.8

  21.3

  15.1

  14.2

  22.3

  16.9

  Warwickshire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.1

  17.0

  21.0

  21.7

  15.5

  21.1

  24.5

  17.4

  West Sussex

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  24.3

  18.5

  21.5

  22.1

  16.2

  216.0

  322.7

  316.8

  Wiltshire

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  n/av

  23.9

  17.7

  n/ap

  21.9

  15.5

  n/ap

  323.5

  317.0

  England

  22.5

  24.9

  17.6

  20.2

  23.1

  16.8

  19.1

  22.2

  15.6

  2.318.9

  34.5

  316.7

  n/ap = not applicable.

  n/av = not available.

  1 No comparable data for ILEA.

  2 Lower than 1991.

  3 Lower than 1979.

  4 No comparable data for the new unitary authorities

  Special Schools
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of local education authority maintained special schools had acting head teachers at the most recent date for which figures are available. [18805]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 2 December 1997]: Information from a Local Government Management Board survey in October this year showed that about 9 per cent. of LEA maintained special schools had acting or temporary heads.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment under what statutory authority Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools has been given the power to inspect research findings in initial teacher training institutions; and what conditions are imposed by Government on Ofsted for the awarding of contracts to consultants to carry out such inspections. [18806]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 2 December 1997]: HMCI has no powers to inspect research findings in initial teacher training institutions and does not do so.

  As a government department, Ofsted is expected to follow government guidance and best practice in procurement and contracting, and has an obligation always to seek best value for money.
  316
  I have asked Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member on both these points.

  After-school Child Care
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what will be the structure and level of charges for the additional after-school child care places announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; [19027]

  (2) what restrictions will be placed on eligibility for the additional after-school child care places announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; [19028]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the proportion of the 1 million additional after-school child care places which will be taken up by lone parents currently receiving income support. [19029]

  (4) what he expects to be the annual income from charges for additional after-school child care places announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and if the estimated costs of the scheme are gross of revenue from charges; [19030]

  (5) how many additional after-school child care places he expects to be in place by (a) April 1998, (b) October 1998 and (c) April 1999; and when he expects the target of 1 million extra places to be reached. [19034]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  It is too early to give detailed information of this kind. We expect that most of the funding will be allocated in response to bids and plans
  317
  which originate at local level. The precise nature of the projects supported will therefore vary according to local needs and circumstances. We shall be developing further guidance over the next few months. We expect the funding to be complemented by investment from other sources, such as employers. These projects are part of a wider National Child Care Strategy which will help parents, especially women, to balance family and working life and my right hon. Friend, Secretary of State for Education and Employment will make an announcement in the first part of next year.

  School Places
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his estimate of the number of children(a) of primary school age and (b) of secondary school age, who are currently without a school place (i) in total and (ii) as a result of exclusion. [18645]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Local education authorities have a duty to arrange suitable education for pupils who cannot attend school. In January 1997 these arrangements covered 25,000 pupils, including some pupils who were dually registered at a Pupil Referral Unit and at another school. We estimate that around half of these children were out of school following an exclusion. The majority of such pupils are of secondary school age. Additionally, it has been estimated that around 10,000 children are educated otherwise than at school under arrangements made by their parents.

  Written Directions
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on how many occasions written directions have been sought by permanent secretaries and other accounting officers in the past five years; in what circumstances. [19215]

  Dr. Howells
  No written directions have been sought in the past five years by permanent secretaries or other accounting officers in the Department for Education and Employment, nor by those in the former Employment Department or Department for Education.

  Waiver Clauses
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement of Government policy on the use of waiver clauses in fixed-term contracts. [18630]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 2 December 1997]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Government recognise that there may be circumstances where a job which is for a fixed specific period should not necessarily attract the same benefits on termination as apply where an open-ended contract is terminated. However, the Government are also aware that there may be cases where waiver clauses are abused and they condemn such abuse.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Minister without Portfolio
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Council what assessment she has made of the operation of the arrangements under which the Minister without Portfolio answers oral questions on his duties related to the Millennium Dome. [18921]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  None. There has been only one oral question for the Minister without Portfolio.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library the Scottish Office brief for the design of the Scottish Parliament and the brief to the transport consultants. [18134]

  Mr. McLeish
  We shall in due course make available the draft working brief for the design of the Scottish Parliament building. A copy of the brief for the transport and environmental impact assessment has today been placed in the Library.

  Smoking
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of people who have died from smoking-related diseases in Scotland for each year since 1979; and if he will provide a breakdown by(a) sex, (b) age, (c) socio-economic class and (d) health board area. [17857]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 1 December 1997]: It is not possible to be precise, but in 1992 it was estimated that some 10,600 people in Scotland died each year from smoking-related diseases, including lung cancer, coronary heart disease and stroke. No later official Scottish estimate has been made. The figure was based on estimates of the proportions of deaths from smoking-related diseases that were directly attributable to smoking. It would not be appropriate to apply these general proportions to the various sub-groups mentioned in the Question.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what has been the sum given since the commencement of the National Lottery in Northavon; and if he will list the individual awards. [18198]

  Mr. Banks
  To date 36 awards totalling £1,442,504 have been made to organisations in Northavon. I have arranged for a list to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Information on Lottery awards is now available on the Department's website www.lottery.gov.uk.
  319
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what National Lottery distributing bodies funding has been allocated to projects in each parliamentary constituency in the Anglia area; [18355]

  (2) what National Lottery Charities Board funding has been allocated to projects in each parliamentary constituency in the Anglia area. [18348]

  Mr. Banks
  The Department holds Lottery awards information by Government economic region. I have arranged for a table showing the breakdown of awards by constituency in the Eastern region (which comprises Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Essex but excludes Greater London) to be placed in the Libraries of the House. Figures for the National Lottery Charities Board are included in this table.

  Information on Lottery awards is now available on the Department's website www.lottery.gov.uk.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to amend the National Lottery Act 1993 so that convenience retailers may receive a return of more than 5 per cent. of sales. [18547]

  Mr. Banks
  The level of retailer commission is a commercial matter for the Lottery operator. The Government is concerned to protect the contribution which the Lottery makes to small retailers and the Director-General of the National Lottery will have this in mind when considering applications for the next operating licence.

  Tourism
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he intends to take to promote employment in the tourist industry. [18858]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  We shall continue to work with the tourism, leisure and hospitality industry to ensure that this fast moving and exciting sector reaches its full potential for generating wealth and employment. With the Tourism Forum, we are developing a comprehensive strategy for sustainable growth of the industry. Working Groups of the Forum are also looking at ways to improve staff management practices and to encourage more young people to consider a career in the sector.

  In addition, Sector Challenge funding will, for example, enable the Springboard Project to go nationwide with its promotion of positive information about careers in the hospitality industry to potential recruits, and is supporting the British Hospitality Association's development of a code of practice and awards scheme to encourage quality.

PRIME MINISTER

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Prime Minister which estates will be targeted by the social exclusion unit; and which local authority areas they come within. [18359]

  The Prime Minister
  The terms of reference for the social exclusion unit will be announced next week.

  Royal Yacht
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment Her Majesty's Government has made of the scope for future public support for the Royal Yacht Britannia after she is decommissioned. [18924]

  The Prime Minister
  Seven proposals for preserving HM Yacht Britannia are being considered. Most of these claim extensive public support for a particular proposal. This is being taken in to account in the assessment of the options. I hope that the announcement can be made soon.

  Ministerial Announcements
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Prime Minister how many ministerial announcements have not been made in the first instance to the House; and of those how many were(a) speeches to outside bodies, (b) press releases, (c) press briefings and (d) made by other means, since 1 May; and if he will make a statement about his Department's policy in respect of making public prime ministerial announcements. [18903]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 3 December 1997]: Any policy announcement that should be made to the House has been made to the House.

  Joint Intelligence Committee
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the function of, and what are the powers available to, the Joint Intelligence Committee; and if he will make a statement. [18693]

  The Prime Minister
  The Joint Intelligence Committee is responsible, subject to Ministerial approval, both for setting the UK's national intelligence requirements and for producing for Ministers and officials regular intelligence assessments on a range of situations and issues of current concern.

  The role of the Joint Intelligence Committee, including its terms of reference, is described fully in the booklet "Central Intelligence Machinery". The booklet was published in 1996, but there have been no significant changes to the arrangements relating to the Joint Intelligence Committee since its publication. A copy of the booklet is available in the libraries of the House.

  Minister without Portfolio
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister under what circumstances the Minister without Portfolio is required to gain clearance, and from whom, before holding meetings with persons about matters which relate to responsibilities of other members of the Government. [18920]

  The Prime Minister
  My hon. Friend's role is to assist me and other ministerial colleagues in the strategic implementation and presentation of government policy. It is for him to hold meetings as necessary to enable him to fulfil that role.

  Offshore Trusts
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will revise Questions of Procedure for Ministers to include recommendations relating to trusts in offshore tax havens. [19113]
  321
  The Prime Minister
  I have already revised Questions of Procedure for Ministers, which has been retitled as the Ministerial code, a copy of which was placed in the library of the House in July 1997. The Code advises Ministers that they should ensure that there is no conflict of interest between their official duties and their private financial interests. I see no need to include specific guidelines about offshore trusts.

  National Asset Register
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if assets held by(a) MI5, (b) MI6 and (c) GCHQ have been included in the National Asset Register. [18741]

  The Prime Minister
  As stated in the introduction, no information is given in the National Asset Register on assets owned by the security and intelligence services on grounds of national security. However, like other departments, the agencies will review their assets as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR). The CSR for the security and intelligence services was announced on 30 October and the terms of reference placed in the Library.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the limits of responsibilities of the Minister without Portfolio for food safety issues. [18907]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on 28 November 1997,Official Report, column 668.

  Telephone Tapping
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) of 30 October 1997,Official Report, column 861, and to the hon. Member for Lewes of 17 November 1997, Official Report, columns 17–18, on telephone tapping, if the policy applies to telephone interception and the use of electronic surveillance by MI6 and GCHQ. [18985]

  The Prime Minister
  I can confirm that the policy described in my answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North on 30 October 1997,Official Report, column 861, and to the hon. Member on 17 November 1997, Official Report, columns 17–18, applies in relation to telephone interception and to the use of electronic surveillance by any of the three security and intelligence agencies.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Asil Nadir
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Attorney-General what recent efforts his Department has made to contact Asil Nadir; and if he will make a statement. [17700]

  The Attorney-General
  None. Asil Nadir remains a fugitive from justice. The Central Criminal Court has issued a warrant for the arrest of Asil Nadir and Interpol 322
  has been informed. The Serious Fraud Office intends to proceed against him on charges of theft when he returns or is returned to the jurisdiction.

  Victim Consultation
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Attorney-General what consultations his Department holds with victims before deciding whether or not to proceed with prosecutions. [17702]

  The Attorney-General
  The police are required in certain cases and encouraged in others to pass to the Crown Prosecution Service information about the views of the victim and the effect of the crime upon that person. That information is an important factor in deciding whether it is in the public interest to proceed with a prosecution.

  Police Prosecutions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Attorney-General what prosecutions have taken place of police officers and other related parties in connection with the overturning on appeal of criminal prosecutions proven to be unsound in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [17696]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service does not keep statistics on particular offences it deals with. Consultation with relevant staff, however, suggests that there have been two cases, involving six defendants, in the last three years or thereabouts resulting in prosecutions, of which one case, involving four defendants, is still pending. There may be others.

  Diplomatic Privileges
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Attorney-General how many matters have been reported for prosecution under the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 since 1967; and how many prosecutions have been undertaken. [18689]

  The Attorney-General
  None. The Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 does not create any criminal offences.

  Extradition
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the role of his Department in requests for extradition from the United Kingdom. [17699]

  The Attorney-General
  Extradition from the UK is essentially a matter for the Home Office although the Crown Prosecution Service, which I superintend, is typically asked to act on behalf of the requesting State.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Bilateral Aid
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the proportion of the United Kingdom aid programme devoted to bilateral assistance. [18729]

  Mr. Foulkes
  In 1996–97, bilateral aid comprised 50 per cent. of DFID's programmes; multilateral aid was 47 per cent. The remaining 3 per cent. comprised mostly
  323
  administrative costs. (These figures are provisional subject to the forthcoming publication of British Aid Statistics.)

  Development Policy
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her estimate of the cost of establishing a development policy forum and publishing its annual reports. [18943]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We are planning to hold the policy forum and publish the annual report towards the end of 1998. The forum will incur only minimal costs (stationery, postage etc.) plus the possible cost of a venue.

  We have not yet decided on the exact form of the annual report and thus it is difficult to give a clear figure for the cost. However, a broad estimate would be between £40,000 to £50,000.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will take steps to rationalise the EU's development co-operation programmes into a single directorate during the UK Presidency. [18953]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Discussion is currently under way within the Commission on the establishment of a common services unit to handle aid administration for the external Directorates-General responsible for implementing Community aid programmes. The Directorates-General would retain responsibility for some aspects of the programmes but the exact division of tasks between them and the new structure has yet to be announced. Reorganisation of this sort is an internal management issue for the Commission, but member states have a legitimate interest in the effectiveness of the new arrangements. We will be keeping in close contact with the Commission and other member states about developments throughout the UK Presidency.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her estimate of the cost of the working group to be established by her Department to promote awareness of development issues. [18944]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The only expenditure directly associated with the working group will be the normal stationery and postage costs.

  There will be some cost for the time of the staff administering the group but until we have a clearer idea of how much actual time will be involved it is difficult to make an estimate.

  Kenya
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her recent visit to Kenya. [18967]

  Mr. Foulkes
  During her visit in October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development met President Moi and Finance Minister Mudavadi. She explained Britain's commitment to the elimination of poverty in poorer countries and our intention to work with those Governments which are themselves committed to achieving this aim. As well as meeting their President and the Minister of Finance, she 324
  visited two projects assisting poor people in an informal settlement in the Kibera area of Nairobi: one of which is providing credit to enable people to start or expand small businesses, and one working with HIV positive people and AIDS orphans.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much bilateral aid the United Kingdom plans to provide to Zimbabwe in the current year; and what percentage of the total United Kingdom aid budget that represents. [19208]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We estimate that direct bilateral expenditure on current aid projets in Zimbabwe, including ATP projects, will be around £13 million during the financial year 1997–98. This would represent approximately 0.6 per cent. of the total multilateral and bilateral aid budget. The final aid expenditure figures will be published in British Aid Statistics next year.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what date the Government decided to purchase or lease millennium-compliant computer systems; and when that decision was implemented. [18722]

  Dr. David Clark
  The Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) provides model contract clauses for Departments and agencies to use when purchasing computer equipment and services.

  In September 1996, revised Model Agreements were produced by the CCTA containing a clause on millennium compliance in each model contract, for immediate adoption.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those(a) Government Departments and (b) sections of Departments which will not be millennium compliant by 30 June 1999. [19198]

  Dr. David Clark
  According to plans submitted by Departments and agencies, Central Government business critical systems will be millennium compliant well before the end of 1999. The only such organisations not to specify a completion date before 30 June 1999 were:

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office: (September 1999)

  Historic Royal Palaces: (August 1999)

  Royal Mint: (Well before the end of 1999)

  Valuation Office: (End of 1999)

  A number of the plans received also indicate that PC replacement plans may run into late 1999.

  Further information can be gained from the plans, which are accessible via the Internet at: (http://www.open.gov.uk/citu/cituhome.htm).

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimate he has made of the number of IT specialists who will be required by Government Departments to complete millennium compliance; and
  325
  which Government Departments have indicated that they have shortages of IT skilled personnel to complete millennium compliance. [19199]

  Dr. David Clarke
  Government Departments have submitted their plans for achieving millennium compliance for their computer systems, and those are available in the Libraries of the House and on the Internet.

  I have written to colleagues asking them to specifically address the skills issue and requesting further information before the end of the month.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which Government Departments are now dealing with(a) non-governmental organisations and (b) suppliers which are not millennium compliant; and in each case at what date they will cease to deal with (a) and (b). [19200]

  Dr. David Clark
  The Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency in my Department has published detailed guidance on the action needed to deal with the Year 2000 date change problem. It is for individual departments and agencies, on a case by case basis, to manage their dealings with external organisations, having regard to the guidance.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what contingency plans he has established against failures in millennium compliance in Government Departments. [19196]

  Dr. David Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on 1 December 1997,Official Report, column 3.

  Civil Service Gradings
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if the Government's review of the working of government will include a review of the(a) transparency and (b) consistency of the Civil Service grading system. [18821]

  Dr. David Clark
  There is no single Civil Service grading system. As from 1 April 1996 pay and grading was delegated to departments and agencies for all Civil Servants outside the Senior Civil Service, enabling them to tailor pay and grading systems more closely to their business needs. We have no plans for a Civil Service wide review of grading systems.
  326
  Departments and agencies must evaluate their systems every three years, or earlier if they so wish. This is to ensure that they continue to reflect the key principles laid down in the Civil Service Management Code. OPS will work closely with departments and agencies on their evaluations, in support of the developing Better Government agenda.

  For the Senior Civil Service (around 3,000 staff), there is a common pay framework based on job weight, comprising nine pay bands and a Permanent Secretaries' pay range. Within this framework, departments can develop their own management structures according to the needs of their organisation. There are no centrally recognised grades.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) of 28 November 1997,Official Report, column 668, (1) if he will make it his policy to seek the consent of holders of public appointments to the publication of their individual ethnic origin; [19150]

  (2) whether he will make it a condition of holding a public appointment that the holder should agree to the publication of information relating to the holder's ethnic origin; [19149]

  (3) if applicants for membership of public bodies are required to state their ethnic origin; and if he will make a statement. [19148]

  Dr. David Clark
  The First Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Commissioner for Public Appointments' Guidance emphasise the principle that public appointments should be made on merit. Individuals are selected because they have the skills, qualities and experience required by the public bodies in question. Disclosure of ethnic origin or a requirement to allow the publication of this information should not be a precondition of appointment.

  In line with the Commissioner's Guidance, candidates for public appointments provide details of their ethnic origin on the basis of voluntary self-classification. This information is collected on the understanding that it is treated as confidential and will be used only for statistical purposes as part of the process to monitor the characteristics of those appointed to serve on public bodies.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the total cost to date of the benefit integrity project, including staff training; and what have been the total savings. [16561]

  Mr. Denham
  One of our key aims is to rebuild integrity in, and public support for, the Social Security system and the way in which public money is spent. We need to focus on those who are properly entitled to benefit. This is why we have set up the Benefit Integrity Project.

  The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. he will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 3 December 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the total cost to date of the Benefit Integrity Project, including staff training and the total savings.
  The total cost of the Benefit Integrity Project, including staff training, is £3,459,986.00 as at 31 October 1997.
  The savings at 31 October 1997 are £5,414,785.00. This level of savings has been calculated using the Department's standard method of assessment and takes into account increases to benefit entitlement as well as decreases. The project is expected to continue for two years, by which time we expect to achieve savings of approximately £74,000,000.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Income Support
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the extra money for pensioners on income support will be paid out before the end of December. [18737]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 2 December 1997]: Payments will not be possible before the end of December. Legislation is currently being drafted and will be referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee shortly. Once they have cleared the draft Regulations they will be laid before the House. As soon as they come into force the process of payment will commence. Payments will be made in time to help with heavy winter fuel bills.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the reasons for the control groups for the New Deal for lone parents starting in September. [18631]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 2 December 1997]: The control groups for the New Deal for Lone Parents did not start in September.

  Data for control areas which are comparable to the pilot areas have been collected since the New Deal for Lone
  328
  Parents began in July 1997, and will be used in the full evaluation of the scheme in due course.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents in the United Kingdom are currently(a) receiving income support and (b) receiving child benefit. [19146]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  We are able to provide information for Great Britain only.

  As at February 1997, there are 1,020,000 Lone Parents in receipt of Income Support. The Department estimates that in 1996–97 there were about 1.7 million lone parents in Great Britain. Their rate of take-up of Child Benefit has not been separately measured, but within the whole population take-up has been estimated at about 99 per cent.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children in the United Kingdom are(a) under the age of five years and (b) five-years-old or over, in lone parent families. [19040]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  For 1995–96, it is estimated that in Great Britain, 0.8 million children under the age of five years and 2.0 million children aged five-years-old or over were living in lone parent families. A child is defined as an individual aged under 16 or an unmarried 16 to 18 year old on a course up to and including "A" level standard (or up to and including "Highers" in Scotland). A lone parent family is a non-pensioner single adult aged 16 or over with children.

  Note:
  The 1995–96 financial year is the latest period for which data are available.

  Source:
  The data are taken from Households Below Average Income (HBAI) based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS).

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated total reduction in the cost of support for lone parents as a result of the changes proposed in the Social Security Bill for 1998–99 and each of the four subsequent years. [19041]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  The estimated net savings from the measure contained in the Social Security Bill to removal entitlement to the lone parent rate of Child Benefit for new cases are in the table:

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Savings

  £5 million

  £15 million

  £25 million

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total cost of support for lone parents
  329
  under the New Deal for 1998–99 and each of the four subsequent years. [19042]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The anticipated costs of the New Deal for Lone Parents for 1998–99 are £30 million. Funding is available only for the next three years as follows:

  1999–2000: £40 million

  2000–01: £39 million

  2001–02: £41 million.

  The total will comprise £150 million over the life of the Parliament. In addition, there will be £50 million to improve financial help with the cost of child care in the In-Work benefits.

  As announced in the Green Budget on 25 November Lone Parents making a new claim for Income Support from April 1998 will be offered the help to work that is provided by the New Deal for Lone Parents.

  An extra £25 million has been allocated from October 1998 to the New Deal for Lone Parents for those whose youngest child is under 5 and who are seeking support from the New Deal.

  Accounting Officers
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on how many occasions written directions have been sought by permanent secretaries and other accounting officers in the past five years; in what. circumstances; and on what dates. [19214]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  There have been no such directions issued in the last five years.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received on the use of a no-fault compensation scheme for medical negligence in place of legal aid for common law claims. [18280]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have not, so far, received any representations on this subject.

  Divorce
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on compulsory mediation in those divorce cases which involve children. [18213]

  Mr. Hoon
  Mediation, by definition, is a voluntary process and as such can take place only if the parties agree to mediate.

  Judges
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many of Her Majesty's judges in England and Wales are able to speak and 330
  understand the Welsh language; and if he will make a statement. [18211]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are a total of 37 of Her Majesty's judges in England and Wales who are understood to be able to speak and understand the Welsh language.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people from ethnic minorities are currently appointed full-time judges in England and Wales. [18207]

  Mr. Hoon
  The attached table sets out the figures for holders of full-time judicial office believed to be of ethnic minority origin. The figures are believed to be correct, but as the ethnic origin of candidates for judicial office was not sought before October 1991, the data may be incomplete.

  Judicial office holders of ethnic minority origin as at 1 November 1997.

  Post

  Total

  Of ethnic minority origin—Black/Asian

  Of ethnic minority origin— other

  Total of ethnic minority origin

  High Court Judges

  93

  —

  —

  —

  Circuit Judges

  552

  4

  2

  6

  District Judges

  336

  1

  3

  4

  Stipendiary Magistrates

  90

  2

  —

  2

  Chairmen of Industrial Tribunals (Full-time)

  78

  3

  —

  3

  Full time Chairmen Social Security Appeals Tribunals

  61

  1

  1

  2

  Pensions Appeal Tribunal
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received regarding the workings of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal of the War Pensions Agency. [18145]

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

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Tim Loughton, dated 4 December 1997:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about representations concerning the Pensions Appeal Tribunals. The Court Service is responsible for the administration of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals. They are wholly independent of the War Pensions Agency, which is an Executive agency of the Department of Social Security.
  Since April, I have answered five letters on the subject from Members of Parliament, including one addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary, one to the Secretary of State for Social Security and one to the Chief Executive of the War Pensions Agency.
  In the same period, staff in Court Service Headquarters have replied to 14 letters from members of the public. Of these, four were addressed to the Lord Chancellor, eight to the Court Service, one to the Home Secretary and one to the Open Government Unit.

  Courts Martial
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultations he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence in respect of reviewing Queen's Regulations and the system of service courts martial. [19114]

  Mr. Hoon
  None.

  Military Law
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) how many times since 1 May the Lord Chancellor has contacted the MOD in respect of cases brought under military law; and if he will make a statement; [19219]

  (2) if he will list the occasions on which the Lord Chancellor or his officials have contacted the Ministry of Defence since 1 May by (a) letter, (b) e mail and (c) orally in respect of disciplinary proceedings concerning Major Joyce; and if he will publish (i) that correspondence and (ii) minutes of such oral communications. [19220]

  Mr. Hoon
  In respect of disciplinary proceedings concerning Major Joyce, these communications remain confidential. Neither the Lord Chancellor nor his officials have contacted the Ministry of Defence in respect of any other cases brought under military law.

DEFENCE

  Territorial Army
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in respect of the Territorial Army in the present Strategic Defence Review; and if he will make a statement. [18365]

  Dr. Reid
  We have received many written submissions to the Strategic Defence Review about the Territorial Army and the other Reserve Forces. We have placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of those submissions whose authors have agreed that we should do so. In addition we have received a number of letters from hon. Members concerning various aspects of the Territorial Army. All of these inputs are being taken fully into account in work on the future role and structure of the Reserve Forces.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military service properties in the United Kingdom are for sale. [18650]

  1.14 (1.12) Imports of Defence equipment1

  Current prices (£ million)

  1975

  1980

  1985

  1990

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Identified2 imports

  50

  147

  246

  627

  634

  1,023

  1,126

  1,433

  1,527

  Split by commodity

  Armoured fighting vehicles and parts

  5

  7

  10

  12

  34

  42

  29

  83

  82

  Military aircraft and parts

  —

  2

  18

  316

  282

  769

  950

  1,137

  1,240

  332
  Mr. Spellar
  There are currently some 230 sites with the Defence Estate Organisation for disposal. This excludes small parcels of land, sites which are vacant or in the process of closing but are not yet ready for disposal and housing units in the Annington Homes portfolio.

  Nimrod
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the advantages of upgrading the current Nimrod aircraft in advance of the introduction of Nimrod 2000. [18593]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the reduction in operating costs of Nimrod aircraft that could be achieved through use of improved technology; [18615]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the capability of the current Nimrod aircraft to meet military threats before replacement by Nimrod 2000. [18617]

  Mr. Spellar
  The UK's ability to meet evolving military threats is continually assessed and steps are taken as necessary to address any significant shortfall in operational capability. In addition, operating costs are kept under constant review; new technologies and upgrades are introduced where they are affordable and provide the same or better capability with lower running costs.

  Foreign Equipment Purchases
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of foreign military equipment purchased by the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [18584]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA). I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Paul Altobell to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 4 December 1997:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the value of foreign military equipment purchased by the United Kingdom in each of last three years, since this falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency.
  The information is contained in our annual publication 'UK Defence Statistics' in Table 1.14—Imports of Defence Equipment. Copies of this publication are available from the House of Commons Library. For your convenience I attach a copy of the table.
  The table is compiled from HM Customs and Excise data and refers to deliveries of defence equipment which have passed through UK Customs. The equipment concerned falls under those headings in the UK Tariff and INTRASTAT Common Nomenclature categories which have been identified as covering purely military equipment.
  I hope you find the information useful.
  333

  1.14 (1.12) Imports of Defence equipment1

  Current prices (£ million)

  1975

  1980

  1985

  1990

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Warships

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Guns, small arms and parts

  6

  32

  40

  36

  48

  41

  36

  71

  46

  Guided weapons, missiles and parts

  25

  65

  119

  190

  163

  167

  107

  134

  124

  Ammunition

  14

  20

  35

  27

  34

  4

  3

  5

  9

  Radio and radar apparatus

  —

  21

  11

  32

  35

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Optical equipment and training simulators

  —

  21

  13

  15

  13

  —

  1

  3

  25

  Split by origin1

  NATO countries and other Europe

  46

  141

  220

  471

  503

  798

  862

  1,162

  1,205

  Asia and Far East

  4

  5

  16

  12

  12

  77

  93

  102

  112

  Latin America and Caribbean

  —

  1

  —

  —

  4

  4

  6

  3

  5

  Others

  —

  —

  10

  145

  115

  144

  165

  166

  205

  Source:

  DASA (Financial).

  Notes:

  1 Compiled from Customs and Excise data. They refer only to deliveries of defence equipment which have passed through UK Customs. They relate only to those headings form the UK Tariff and form the INTRASTAT Common Nomencisture which have been identified as covering purely military equipment. Exports totals differ from figures for Defence Sales which are based on new contracts signed.

  2 During the period covered by the tables, changes were made to the list of "identified" Defence equipment by:(a) parts of guided weapons and missiles being added from 1987.

  (b) parts of military aircraft being added from 1988.

  (c) military aircraft and parts being identified as "other than civil" rather than "military" from 1993 and

  (d) military radio/radar apparatus, optical and infrared equipment and simulators other than ground flying trainers being deleted from 1993.

  Further details are given in Defence Statistics Bulletin 4.

  1. Based on figures from the Society of British Aerospace Companies. They relate only to those items where the official commodity classifications do not distinguish between military and civil aerospace equipment. These are liable to alter from year to year in line with changes to the classifications. Exports for collaborative projects are excluded.

  2. Signed during the year for equipment and services. Figures taken from the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO) publication "The World Defence Export Market", compiled from a regular DESO survey of the defence industry.

  1.15 (1.13) Defence balance of payments: invisible transactions

  Current prices (£ million)

  1985

  1990

  1992

  19931

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Net balance

  -1,246

  -2,037

  -1,804

  -1,521

  -1,709

  -1,691

  -2,076

  Total debits

  1,620

  2,541

  2,321

  2,033

  2,164

  2,057

  2,284

  Expenditure2

  Germany

  872

  1,373

  1,207

  1,007

  1,060

  1,038

  1,307

  Other NATO countries

  286

  572

  506

  591

  604

  684

  734

  Mediterranean

  113

  169

  147

  183

  124

  135

  145

  Hong Kong

  92

  112

  93

  83

  62

  6

  1

  Other areas

  258

  316

  368

  169

  314

  194

  97

  Total credits

  374

  504

  517

  512

  455

  366

  207

  Receipts

  Receipts from US Forces in UK

  142

  153

  187

  155

  172

  136

  115

  Other receipts3

  232

  351

  330

  357

  283

  230

  92

  Notes:

  1 From 1993, the basis of the table has changed, as some administrative data formerly used to construct the table were no longer available. The table now shows figures, produced for the Office for National Statistics as a component of the UK Balance of Payments, which cover more receipts. More details are given in Defence Statistics Bulletin 4.

  2 Based on drawings of foreign exchange made to support our forces overseas.

  3 A mix of sales and receipts from other governments and international organisations for services provided overseas.

  Royal Yacht
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what fixtures, fittings and equipment he plans to remove from the Royal Yacht Britannia on her decommissioning. [18878]

  Dr. Reid
  Final decisions have yet to be taken. Following paying off, the Royal Collection and other Royal items will be removed for safe keeping. The Palace has indicated that it will be prepared to consider the loan 334
  or replication of certain items, subject to adequate safeguards, to a successful preservation group. Likewise the Royal Navy would be prepared to discuss with a preservation group what naval items could be kept.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to announce his decision on the future of the Royal Yacht Britannia. [18926]
  335
  Dr. Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) on 1 December 1997,Official Report, column 6.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) representations and (b) proposals he has received on the future use of the Royal Yacht Britannia; and from whom. [18925]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government have received a large number of representations and proposals on the future use of the Royal Yacht. It is not practical to quantify a total. These have been reduced to a shortlist of seven preservation proposals which have been assessed in detail. These are:

  Bankside Consultants Ltd. (Britannia 2000 Ltd.)

  Clyde Heritage Trust

  Forth Ports plc

  Lords of the Isles Ltd.

  Peel Holdings plc (Manchester Ship Canal Company)

  Portsmouth City Council in consortium with Flagship Portsmouth

  Swift International Developments Ltd.

  The Government hope to be able to make an announcement about the future of Britannia shortly.

  Equipment Exhibition
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will identify by name, rank and unit, the(a) Chilean and (b) Turkish military, security, police, paramilitary and special forces personnel who attended the Royal Navy and British Army equipment exhibition. [13673]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]: I have placed in the Library of the House a list of all overseas Government representatives who are recorded as attending RNBAEE 1997 as guests of the Government. The list excludes representatives of London Embassies who are routinely invited to such events.

  Trident
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost of the Trident nuclear programme(a) for each of the past five years and (b) since the programme was first purchased by the United Kingdom. [19232]

  Mr. Robertson
  The acquisition cost of Trident in each of the past five years has been as follows:

  Financial year

  £ million

  1992–93

  993

  1993–94

  892

  1994–95

  703

  1995–96

  403

  1996–97

  372

  These figures are at outturn prices for the relevant year. The total expenditure on procuring Trident up to
  336
  30 September 1997 was £8,820 million, also at outturn prices.

  The cost of operating Trident has been estimated at £200 million a year over the 30 year lifetime of the system. We are looking at the basis upon which cost estimates have been calculated in the light of operating experience and as part of the wider Strategic Defence Review.

  Courts Martial
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he intends reviewing Queen's Regulations and the system of service courts martial; and if he will make a statement. [19115]

  Dr. Reid
  The court-martial system was reformed on 1 April 1997 by a series of measures included in the Armed Forces Act 1996. The reforms were wide ranging and affected the pre-trial, trial and post-trial stages of the court-martial system. The purpose of these reforms was to reinforce the independence of the court-martial, principally by reducing the apparent influence of the chain of command, whilst preserving its necessary involvement.

  The reforms meet the European Court's concerns about the shortcomings of the system. The ECHR has recognised our actions, noting
  "with satisfaction that the UK authorities had made changes to the court-martial system with a view to ensuring the observance of their Conventional commitments".

  Although we are not taking any further steps at present to improve the procedures, we are aware that we cannot afford to be complacent. The system is kept under review and will, of course, be looked at as part of the process of preparing for the next quinquennial Armed Forces Bill.

  Queen's Regulations are a form of secondary legislation which contain much of the detail relating to provisions in the primary legislation. They also contain other administrative and disciplinary measures to assist with the overall command and administration of the armed forces. As with the primary legislation, these regulations are kept constantly under review and amended when necessary.

  Written Directions
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions written directions have been sought by permanent secretaries and other accounting officers in the past five years; in what contexts; and on what dates. [19213]

  Mr. Spellar
  No formal directions to MOD accounting officers have been sought or given since 1 May 1997. Under the previous administration, one direction was given within the past five years, in March 1995 in the context of the procurement of medium support helicopters for the Royal Air Force.

  Defence Intelligence Staff
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the present functions of the Defence Intelligence Staff; and how many staff are employed therein. [18918]
  337
  Mr. Spellar
  The function of the Defence Intelligence Staff is to provide timely and accurate intelligence warning, assessments, and intelligence and geographic support in the most cost-effective manner to MOD Ministers and Central Staffs, the Permanent Joint Head Quarters, NATO and other Government Departments as directed. It employs 4,589 in the headquarters, the Agencies and other parts of the Armed Forces.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flights have taken place for each year since 1967 between RAF Brize Norton and the United States in which special nuclear materials have been carried. [18922]

  Dr. Reid
  The number of flights carrying special nuclear material each year between UK and US depends on programme requirements which are confidential between the two governments. I am therefore withholding the information requested under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Major Eric Joyce
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions and on what dates(a) he and (b) other Ministers in his Department have met Major Eric Joyce. [19039]

  Dr. Reid
  To the best of our knowledge, no Defence Minister has met Major Eric Joyce since 1 May 1997. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State have never knowingly met him prior to that date.

  Over six years as an Opposition Defence Spokesman prior to 1 May 1997 I met a great many Members of all three Services at all ranks. To the best of my recollection, I met Major Joyce twice: once during the second half of 1995 and again in May 1996.

  RAF Watton
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) the ownership,(b) management and (c) future use of the site and buildings at the former RAF Watton. [19001]

  Mr. Spellar
  The MOD owns the freehold interest in the site of the former RAF Watton, Norfolk. The former airfield is under the management of the Army and used as an Army Training Area; the two areas for disposal namely, the former Technical and Border Radar Sites, are in the stewardship of the Defence Estate Organisation.

  The two sites in disposal have been offered for sale on the open market through local marketing agents. An agreed Planning Brief provides for residential use on the Border Radar Site and part residential use on the technical site. Unfortunately these proposed uses cannot be confirmed until the outcome of the Public Planning Inquiry into the Breckland District Local Plan is known sometime in mid-1998.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  E-mail
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the answer from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, of 10 November 1997,Official Report, column 441, if she will list the e-mail addresses of (a) Ministers, (b) senior officials and (c) chief executives of agencies for which she is responsible. [15880]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]: The addresses are as follows:

  (a) Ministers

  Margaret Beckett; tlo.beckett@tlo.dti.gov.uk

  Lord Clinton-Davis; tlo.clinton-davis@tlo.dti.gov.uk

  John Battle; tlo.battle@tlo.dti.gov.uk

  Ian McCartney; tlo.mccartney@tlo.dti.gov.uk

  Lord Simon of Highbury; tlo.simon@tlo.dti.gov.uk

  Nigel Griffiths; tlo.griffiths@tlo.dti.gov.uk

  Barbara Roche; tlosoche:@tlo.dti.gov.uk

  (b) Senior Officials

  Michael Scholar; tlo.scholar@tlo.dti.gov.uk

  Sir Robert May; robert.clay@osct.dti.gov.uk

  (c) Agency Chief Executives

  I have asked the Chief Executives of the Agencies to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Bernard Jenkin, dated 4 December 1997:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about The Insolvency Service's e-mail address.
  The Service currently has no e-mail address, either for myself or the Agency as a whole.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Bernard Jenkin, dated 4 December 1997:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question 97/1503 on electronic mail addresses on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency.
  My E-Mail address is:

  nortonj@ra.gtnet.gov.uk

  I am more than happy to accept mail by this route rather than conventional post or fax.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. Bernard Jenkin, dated 20 November 1997:
  I have been asked to reply to your question to the President of the Board of Trade about the e-mail addresses of Ministers, senior officials, and chief executives of agencies. My e-mail address is PAUL HARTNACK@PATENT.GOV.UK.

  Letter From John Holden to Mr. Bernard Jenkin, dated 4 December 1997:
  I have been asked to respond to your question to the President of the Board of Trade regarding the e-mail addresses of Chief Executives of Agencies for which she is responsible.
  There is currently no e-mail address for the Chief Executive of Companies House. It is expected that an e-mail address for the Chief Executive will be publicised within approximately 6 months as part of a wider external and internal communications initiative which should a its utility to customers and public.
  339
  Letter from Ian Jones to Mr. Bernard Jenkin, dated 4 December 1997:
  You tabled a Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade, for named day reply on 13 November, about e-mail addresses of Ministers, senior officials and Chief Executives of agencies. I have been asked to reply in respect of the Employment Tribunals Service.
  At present I do not have an e-mail address.

  Letter from Dr. Seton Bennett to Mr. Bernard Jenkin, dated 4 December 1997.
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about e-mail addresses. I do not yet have an e-mail address, but the Agency is currently setting up addresses for a number of its staff and I hope to be able to publish them very soon.

  Funeral Industry
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what monitoring she has instigated concerning whether undertakings received from providers of funeral services following recommendations by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission(a) have been and (b) have not been carried out; and what further action she intends to take to ensure that such undertakings are carried out. [16704]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 19 November 1997]: Following the MMC's report on the acquisition by Service Corporation International (SCI) of Plantsbrook Group plc, SCI gave an undertaking on 18 December 1996 to divest individual funeral directors' businesses in 10 specified localities, together with undertakings about the future conduct of its business. SCI sold the funeral directors' businesses on 4 April 1997. On 3 November 1997, I accepted a variation to the undertakings given by SCI to allow it to acquire Birkbeck Securities Ltd. (Birkbeck) on condition that SCI disposed of the funeral directing business of Birkbeck's subsidiary, H. Copeland and Son Ltd. within six months. That business has now been sold by SCI.

  The task of monitoring the continuing behavioural undertakings is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT). His duties in this respect are set out in Section 88(4) of the Fair Trading Act 1973. He is under a duty to advise Ministers if it appears to him that an undertaking has not been, or is not being fulfilled.

  It is now about one year since the undertakings were given by SCI. I understand that the DGFT is not aware of any evidence that SCI is failing to comply with the undertakings. However, his officials will shortly be undertaking a review of the situation in order to verify that the undertakings are being carried out.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what statistics her Department collates on the ownership and company status of funeral director companies and their subsidiaries; and if she will make a statement. [18742]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The Department does not collect such information.

  The statistical information collected by The Office for National Statistics (ONS) on service sectors such as funeral direction does not cover the level of detail requested. The larger firms in the sector are required to report financial information to Companies House but
  340
  many smaller firms in the sector do not have to do so. A number of funeral directors are also likely to be beneath the VAT threshold.

  Turkey (Military Equipment)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licences for sale of military equipment to Turkey have been refused in the last three years. [17860]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 26 November 1997]: Between 1 January 1994 and 25 November 1997, 11 applications were refused for standard or open individual licences to export to Turkey goods controlled under entries in Part III of Schedule I to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 (the so-called "Military List"). This does not include applications from which these goods or this destination were removed before a licence was issued.

  Applications for individual export licences refused between 1994 and 25 November 1997

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997 to 25 November

  Standard individual export licences

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Open individual export licences

  0

  2

  4

  0

  Tobacco Sponsorship
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she was consulted over the recent change of policy on tobacco sponsorship. [16940]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 20 November 1997]: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that this was a collective decision made in the normal way. It has been the practice of successive governments not to give details of the internal handling of individual decisions.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the Government's policy on the British coal industry. [18068]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 27 November 1997]: The Government's policy is to ensure secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices. I believe that the British coal industry can continue to make a significant contribution to meeting that objective. Since taking office, we have taken several steps to correct the bias against coal we inherited from the previous Administration.

  Post Office
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to increase the provision of post office services in urban areas and estates. [18851]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Decisions on the level of service provision and the location of individual post offices are an operational matter for the Post Office.
  341
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she last met the Chief Executive of the Post Office; and how often she has met him. [19227]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade met the Chief Executive of the Post Office on 22 July and I have met him on several occasions since May.

  Industry Council
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Industry Council held in Brussels on 13 November. [19651]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Council reached political agreement on the Draft Article 94 Regulation on State Aid. This will enable the Commission to bring forward state aid block exemption regulations under which member states would not need to seek prior approval for individual aid schemes and awards and in return would publish details of these state aids in the Official Journal and submit annual reports to the Commission.

  A constructive first discussion of the new shipbuilding aid regime took place. The Council agreed on a two step approach to replacing the Seventh Directive on shipbuilding aid. Step one, previously agreed at the Industry Council in Luxembourg on 24 April, would involve the extension of the current regime on which the first exchange of views took place. The Commission's proposed new regime would end operating aid in 2000, introduce regional investment and innovation aid and tighten criteria for restructuring and closure aid.

  The Commission presented its Communication on the treatment of ECSC funds after expiry of the Treaty in 2002. It felt that the simplest solution was for outstanding reserves to be transferred to the Communities under the Commission's supervision to be used for coal and steel sector research in line with the conclusions of the Amsterdam European Council. The Commission's proposals met with general approval. However some member states suggested that an independent foundation should be established to manage the assets and the research programme. Another suggested that further work was needed on the roles of the Commission and member states in managing the funds with further reflection on the impact of future Community enlargement. The Council concluded that the Communication should be referred to Coreper for further work leading to a more detailed discussion at a future Council.

  The Presidency introduced its note on the future competitiveness work programme, continuing into the UK and Austrian presidencies. I mentioned that I planned to hold a competitiveness dinner on 6 May to which I will invite Industry Ministers and members of the Competitiveness Advisory Group. Austria will use informal Industry Council to involve representatives of small and medium enterprises.

  Debates also took place on research and development, Aerospace and the Information Society. The Council agreed the conclusions on Electronic Commerce. There were presentations on SMEs, the Construction Industry and the Textile Industry.

  Acquired Rights Directive
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment the Government have made of the effect of the judgment in the Suzan case in the European Court of Justice on its policy towards the acquired rights directive; and if she will make a statement. [19211]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government are currently reviewing their policy on the Acquired Rights Directive and will shortly be issuing a public consultation document setting out and seeking views on all relevant issues, including the implications of the Suzan judgment.

  Offshore Oil and Gas
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what awards have been made in respect of petroleum production licences for blocks 204/14 and 204/15 west of Shetland. [19650]

  Mr. Battle
  I am pleased to announce the award of petroleum production licences for blocks 204/14 and 204/15 in the Atlantic Frontier area to a group of companies comprising ARCO British Ltd., Conoco UK Ltd., British-Borneo Oil and Gas Ltd. and Ranger Oil (UK) Ltd.

  We received six very strong applications for these blocks, which were offered for licensing by a Notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities, C205 of 5 July 1997. All six met the award criteria set out in the Notice, but the work programme submitted by the ARCO consortium offers the best scheme for timely and thorough exploration of the full range of prospects in both blocks.

  After applications for the blocks had been received, a Note was received from the Danish Government reserving its position regarding a possible claim to a small part of the North West corner of block 204/14. Our response to the Note stated that the UK has no doubts about its sovereign right to licence the block. Both the Danish and Faroese Governments have been kept fully advised about the designation and offer of the area concerned. All six applicants were informed about the Note and all confirmed that they wished their applications to proceed.

  Council for Science and Technology
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she will publish the Council for Science and Technology's recent advice on research issues arising from the Dearing Committee's report on higher education. [19652]

  Mrs. Beckett
  In the past, the Council for Science and Technology has been accused of being a rather secretive body. We wish to change this perception and raise its public profile. In future there will be a presumption in favour of publishing detailed advice from the Council.

  When I gave evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology on 29 October I said that we would shortly publish the Council's advice on the research issues arising from the Dearing Committee's report. I can now confirm that we are publishing this advice today. I must however make it clear that it represents the views of the independent members of the Council, not necessarily mine or other Government Ministers.
  343
  The Council's advice will feed into our broader consideration of the research aspects of the Dearing recommendations and we will be issuing policy statements in due course. The timing of these will depend on a number of factors, including the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review.

  More generally, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Science, Industry and Energy and I are now considering how to revitalise the Council as a key source of advice on science and technology issues and will make an announcement on this as soon as possible.

  I have arranged copies of the Council's advice to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Toys (Safety)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information her Department has collated to establish the number of children who have become ill from coming into contact with toys containing cyclobutanone. [18910]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  No accidents involving toys containing cyclobutanone have been identified in my Department's Home Accident Surveillance System, nor have any been drawn to the attention of the DTI from any other source. If the hon. Member has such evidence I would be grateful to receive it.

HEALTH

  Fair Trade (Coffee and Tea)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the oral statement by the Secretary of State for International Development, 5 November 1997,Official Report, column 332, if he will instruct officials to serve coffee and tea furnished by suppliers who adhere to fair trade standards in his Department. [15491]

  Ms Jowell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave him on 13 November 1997,Official Report, column 617. All procurement decisions in the Department are based on the Government's policy of value for money.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of community health councils; and what matters were discussed. [18300]

  Mr. Milburn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health met with representatives of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales (ACHCEW) on 1 July 1997 and discussed a range of National Health Service matters which they raised.

  My noble Friend the Baroness Jay, Minister of State, has agreed to meet representatives of ACHCEW on a six monthly basis and expects to meet them again early in the new year.

  Wigan and Bolton Health Authority
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the accident and emergency services of the Wigan and Bolton Health Authority with particular reference to those provided at Leigh Infirmary. [18353]
  344
  Mr. Boateng
  This is a matter for the health authority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently approved a change to the opening hours of the minor injuries unit at Leigh Infirmary. Wigan and Bolton Health Authority has been allocated £1.4 million in winter pressures money and will use this additional funding to increase the capacity of the hospitals and social services departments in the district to deal with rising numbers of emergency admissions.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional funding his Department is providing for research into the causes and prevention of breast cancer. [18525]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are committed to encouraging breast cancer research. The main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC). Since 1995–96, the Council has supported 81 projects on breast cancer with a total cost of £13 million. Six projects were also supported in MRC Units at a cost of £1.4 million in 1995–96.

  The Department of Health's Policy Research Programme (PRP) is currently funding studies into breast cancer with a total cost of £2.4 million. In addition, the PRP provides support of £420,000 per year to the Cancer Screening Evaluation Unit at the Institute of Cancer Research, which deals largely with breast cancer screening. Recent commissions include a contribution of £573,000 to the UKCCCR's (United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research) Breast Radiotherapy Fractionation Trial (the START trial) and over £100,000 to evaluate the East Sussex and Leeds/Wakefield pilot projects currently being established for breast screening in women aged 65 to 69.

  The NHS National Cancer Research and Development Programme is currently funding studies into breast cancer totalling some £500,000.

  Breast Screening Services
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has for improving the(a) breast screening service and (b) symptomatic breast service. [18511]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are committed to providing high quality breast services.

  In the light of the recent failure of the breast screening programme in Exeter, the Government have announced wide ranging action on the organisation and management of cancer screening, to strengthen quality assurance, eliminate weaknesses in the management of screening, and restore public confidence. In addition to this, we are funding research into ways to improve the standard of the breast screening service offered to women. This includes pilot schemes to evaluate the effectiveness of extending the screening programme to invite women aged 65 to 69 routinely for screening; and research into the possible benefits of screening women more frequently than every three years.
  345
  We intend to improve all cancer services and fully endorse the recommendations set out in the Calman/Hine document "A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services". As a first step we have made available £10 million of extra resources specifically for breast cancer services. The additional funding is supporting over 300 initiatives around the country to improve the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. Particular emphasis has been given to supporting projects that give rapid access to diagnostic services through the provision of one-stop clinics, speeding access to treatment by reducing waiting times and the provision of high quality care delivered in line with published guidance by specialist multi-disciplinary teams.

  Head Lice
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the number of cases of head lice in schools for each health authority in England for each of the last five years; [18714]

  (2) what advice is issued by his Department to health authorities to deal with the problem of head lice in schools; [18715]

  (3) what his Department has done to promote best practice in dealing with head lice in schools. [18713]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on the number of cases of head lice in schools is not collected centrally. In April 1996, the Department of Health launched a poster and leaflet campaign "The Prevention and Treatment of Head Lice". So far, over 1.5 million copies of the leaflet have been sent to parents, teachers and health professionals. The Department's publication, "Child Health in the Community: A Guide to Good Practice", issued to health and local authorities in September 1996, includes guidance on best practice in dealing with head lice in schools. We shall continue to work with the Department for Education and Employment to promote best practice, focusing on a "whole school approach"—where action is taken at the same time to detect and treat every case of head lice within the school thus minimizing opportunities for re-infestation. This approach is actively promoted by the voluntary organisation, Community Hygiene Concern, whose efforts we support through grant aid. In addition Consultants in Communicable Disease Control, who have local responsibility for public health programmes, are currently working on a review document on head lice.

  Departmental Press Office
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the changes he has introduced to his Department's press office. [18728]

  Mr. Boateng
  Good, effective, modern and reliable communication, including the provision of a good, effective, modern and reliable press office, is an essential duty of Government. The Department's Press Office is always looking for ways to improve its services to Ministers. Ministers are always looking for ways to improve communication and the provision of information to the general public and with hon. and noble Member of both Houses. Since 1 May, Ministers and the press office have been constructively working together to deliver the best possible service to both. They will continue to do so.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to increase public awareness of meningitis; [18879]

  (2) what sums his Department has spent in each of the last three years on increasing public awareness of meningitis. [18880]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chief Medical Officer (CMO) holds an annual press briefing for journalists to raise public, professional and media awareness of meningitis. CMO also writes to all doctors each year giving advice on the early diagnosis of suspected cases of meningococcal infection and stressing the need for immediate antibiotic treatment and urgent referral to hospital. The Department of Health contributes to the many articles in newspapers and the medical press, and television and radio programmes that appear during the winter increase in cases.

  This year's briefing took place on 3 November. This year, we have also revised the Department's information leaflet entitled "Knowing about meningitis and septicaemia" available to the public from GPs' surgeries. Meningococcal infections peak with most cases in children under one year, and there is a second smaller peak in late teenagers. Extra information is, therefore, targeted in these areas. The Health Education Authority (HEA), funded by the Department, produces the leaflet "A Guide to Childhood Immunisations", which includes advice on recognising the signs and symptoms of meningitis and is provided to new parents. The HEA also produce a leaflet targeted at students, "Look out for your mate", which is distributed to colleges and universities. The Department provides funding to both the National Meningitis Trust and the Meningitis Research Foundation to support their valuable information work. Both organisations took part in this year's press briefing.

  It is not possible to identify the amount spent on public awareness of meningitis separately as it is a key theme of the Department's, the HEA's and the meningitis charities', information campaigns at this time of year. The costs of preparing, printing and distributing leaflets and posters such as "A Guide to Childhood Immunisations" and "Look out for your mate" are subsumed within the HEA/DH contract covering immunisation awareness. Around one million copies of "A Guide to Childhood Immunisations", which is updated annually, are produced each year and around 1.2 million "Look out for your mate" leaflets and posters were distributed this year. 250,000 copies of the Department's leaflet were printed this year.

  Barnardos
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the change in policy by Barnardos to allow former children access to their personal files; and if he will provide a section 64 special project grant to Barnardos in support of its decision to allow former children access to their personal files. [19142]
  347
  Mr. Boateng
  There have been no representations to the Department concerning the change in policy by Barnardos to allow former children access to their personal files. No application for Section 64 funding has been received from Barnardos for a project of this nature.

  Anti-Smoking Initiatives
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision has been made in the current year for anti-smoking initiatives. [19105]

  Mr. Boateng
  In 1997–98, the Government are funding an adult smoking campaign costing £5.5 million being run by the Health Education Authority. A teenage smoking campaign costing £1 million is being run by Brewer Blackler Limited.

  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish the second report of Parliament on the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme. [19653]

  Ordinary admissions and day cases

  Over 12 month waiters

  Over 18 month waiters

  Over 24 month waiters

  Trust

  On 31 March 1997

  On 30 September 19771

  On 31 March 1977

  On 30 September 19771

  On 31 March 1977

  On 30 September 19771

  Ashford Hospital NHS Trust

  324

  418

  6

  6

  0

  0

  St. Peter's Hospital NHS Trust

  466

  486

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Middlesex University NHS Trust

  192

  289

  0

  37

  0

  0

  1 Figures for 30 September are provisional.

  Hospital Mergers
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the criteria in respect of(a) financial savings, (b) waiting list reduction, (c) increase in treatments and (d) reduction in managerial staff numbers he will use in his decision on the proposed merger between the Ashford (Middlesex) and St. Peter's (Chertsey) Hospital NHS Trust. [18419]

  Mr. Milburn
  Any proposal to merge National Health Service trusts will be considered on its own merits. Most importantly, they must lead to benefits for patients in improved health care. We have set a minimum target of £500,000 management savings which must be realised in the first two years of merger and be reinvested in patient care.

  General practitioner fundholding accounts

  Number of funds making savings

  Savings retained from budget (£000)

  Number of funds overspending

  Overspends incurred on budget (£000)

  Surrey Family Health Services Authority

  1993–94

  21

  1,559

  9

  522

  1994–94

  26

  1,380

  15

  1,085

  West Surrey Health Authority

  1995–96

  23

  952

  11

  462

  348
  Mr. Milburn
  The second Report to Parliament on the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme was published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people in the Ashford (Middlesex) Hospital NHS Trust area had been waiting for treatment for more than(a) 24 months, (b) 18 months and (c) 12 months on (i) 31 March and (ii) 30 September; [18416]

  (2) how many people in the St. Peter's (Chertsey) Hospital NHS Trust area had been waiting for treatment for more than (a) 24 months, (b) 18 months and (c) 12 months on (i) 31 March and (ii) 30 September; [18417]

  (3) how many people in the West Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust area had been waiting for treatment for more than (a) 24 months, (b) 18 months and (c) 12 months on (i) 31 March and (ii) 30 September. [18420]

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

  Fund holding
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by practice(a) the under spend and (b) the overspend of general practitioner fundholding practices in the West Surrey Health Authority area in each year since 1993. [18418]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information is not held centrally on expenditure from general practitioner fund holder budgets at practice level. Such information can be obtained directly from the practices concerned.

  The table details the number of GP fundholders showing retained savings (net of any savings voluntarily returned to their health authority before audit) or overspending in Surrey in each financial year from 1993–94 to 1995–96, and the total level of retained savings or overspends made on their budgets. These data are taken from GP fundholders' accounts. Audited data for 1996–97 are not yet available.
  349

  General practitioner fundholding accounts

  Number of funds making savings

  Savings retained from budget (£000)

  Number of funds overspending

  Overspends incurred on budget (£000)

  East Surrey Health Authority

  1995–96

  5

  250

  6

  171

  Source:

  GP fundholder audited accounts.

  Bed Blocking
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by(a) health authority area and (b) social services authority area the number of hospital beds blocked by patients waiting for social services placements. [18516]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information collected on delayed discharge, by health authority, has been placed in the Library. This information is not collected centrally on a social services authority basis.

  Accounting Officers
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions written directions have been sought by permanent secretaries and other accounting officers in the past five years; in what circumstances; and on what dates. [19216]

  Mr. Boateng
  Health Ministers have not issued any such directions in the last five years.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with groups and individuals opposed to xenotransplantation. [18912]

  Mr. Boateng
  No formal discussions have taken place with groups or individuals opposed to xenotransplantation. A wide range of opinions were received in response to a consultation exercise held between 25 January 1996 and 29 March 1996 by the Advisory Group on the Ethics of Xenotransplantation and detailed in its report, "Animal Tissue into Humans". Views were sought during a further consultation period which began in January 1997 with the publication of that report. The United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority has offered the Government advice on the responses and issues arising from this latest consultation exercise. This is presently under consideration.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the total cost to the National Health Service of millennium compliance. [19201]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information is not available to estimate accurately the total costs of millennium compliancy. The best estimate available from industry and other sources is that the total cost of resolving the problem for Information Technology systems in any organisation will be equivalent to the annual expenditure on those systems, For the National Health Service as a whole this amounts 350
  to between £200 and £300 million. This does not include expenditure in resolving the embedded chip problem for which no estimates are currently available.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Flooding (Thames and Medway Estuaries)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his assessment of the impact of rising water levels on the potential for flooding in the Thames and Medway estuaries. [17672]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department's current guidance to flood defence operating authorities is that an allowance of 6 mm a year should be made for relative sea level rise due to global warming and vertical land movements when assessing the need for further coastal defence measures in the south of England.

  Less Favoured Areas
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received from farmers in the less-favoured areas; and if he will make a statement. [17675]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I and my Ministerial colleagues have received many representations from farmers in the less-favoured areas. We are considering the case the industry has made for increasing the rates of Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance and I hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Hill Farming
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next proposes to meet hill farmers in Northumberland to discuss farm incomes. [17676]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is planning to visit Hexham later this month to meet local farming representatives.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives he has taken to improve(a) the incomes and (b) the security of hill farmers. [17681]

  Mr. Morley
  An announcement will be made shortly on support for hill farmers.

  Environmental Initiatives (Norfolk Broads)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is undertaking to promote environmental initiatives on the Norfolk Broads. [17677]
  351
  Mr. Morley
  We have just announced new targets for protecting and enhancing the grazing marsh land of the Broads by increasing the uptake of the Environmentally Sensitive Area scheme.

  Organophosphate Sheep Dips
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made towards a moratorium on the use of organophosphates in sheep dips. [17678]

  Mr. Rooker
  No veterinary medicine is authorised for use unless it meets stringent statutory criteria of safety, quality and efficacy. The Government act on the advice of the independent scientific Veterinary Products Committee, which has recently reaffirmed its advice that, provided they are used safely, there is no scientific justification for withdrawing organophosphate sheep dips from the market.

  We constantly remind users of the need to follow instructions and advice as to procedure in use of such authorised products.

  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to implement recommendations made in the 1997 Veterinary Products Committee Report, with particular reference to those relating to the use and purchase of organophosphorous sheep dips. [18164]

  Mr. Rooker
  New guidance from the Health and Safety Executive will be sent to all registered sheep farmers in the New Year. It will emphasise the importance of the Certificate of Competence in the Safe Use of Sheep Dips. It will explain practical measures for planning and carrying out dipping, including the steps necessary under the Control of Substances to Health Regulations 1994 (COSHH) to assess the risks and decide what precautions are needed, and will advise on safe disposal of used sheep dip.

  In parallel, the National Proficiency Tests Council is reviewing its testing scheme for the Certificate of Competence and will incorporate the recommendations of the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC).

  Other recommendations of the VPC, relating to supply of organophosphate (OP) dips by veterinarians, labelling, disposal, research and reviews of non-OP dips and other OP veterinary medicines, have been implemented or are being actively pursued.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people have notified his Ministry or the Department of Health to date that they are suffering from the toxic side effects of exposure to organophosphate sheep dips; and if he will make a statement. [18208]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department of Health does not keep records of human suspected adverse reactions (SARs) to veterinary medicines, which are reported to the Suspected Adverse Reaction Surveillance Scheme (SARSS) run by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. Reports of the 352
  Appraisal Panel for human SARs are published annually and are available in the Library of the House. The Panel's Report for 1996 will be published shortly. It will show that, for the 11 years up to December 1996, there were 602 reports of human SARs to organophosphorus sheep dips.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his main objectives are in respect of CAP reform. [17679]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I want to secure a market oriented policy with less costly farm support decoupled from agricultural production; a better deal for consumers and more emphasis placed on target environmental and rural development objectives.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reforms to the Common Agriculture Policy the Government propose; and what account will be taken of rural development policy and its impact on the rural economy. [18794]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government want to secure a market oriented policy with less costly farm support decoupled from agricultural production; and more emphasis placed on targeted environmental and rural development objectives.

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken to achieve biodiversity targets. [17680]

  Mr. Morley
  Actions taken by the Department are set out in a paper prepared for the UK Biodiversity Group "MAFF's Role in Implementing the Biodiversity Action Plans". I have today placed a copy in the Library of the House.

  Food Imports
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of United Kingdom food imports could be grown in Britain; and what success the United Kingdom has had in reducing such imports. [17682]

  Mr. Rooker
  Provisional figures indicate that last year the UK was 69 per cent. self-sufficient in terms of food and feed products or materials that could be grown in season, in the UK. This figure shows a reduction of about 4 per cent. on the average in recent years, mainly as a result of reduced output and exports of beef and higher levels of imported meat and meat products.

  Access to Open Country
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on access to open country. [17683]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  My Department has received a number of representations from farmers and landowners, conservation organisations and walkers.

  Milk (Dioxin Levels)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will establish a continuing survey of dioxin levels in milk in North-East Derbyshire; and if he will make a statement. [17684]

  Mr. Rooker
  Samples of cows' milk from farms in the north-east Derbyshire area have been analysed regularly since 1991, when elevated levels of dioxins were first discovered. Samples taken in July 1997 from 19 farms in the Bolsover area showed that levels of dioxins in the milk have fallen and are now generally similar to those found in other parts of the UK. The need for further surveys will be reviewed next year in the light of the results from samples taken in October this year and the next survey planned for July 1998.

  Environmentally Friendly Farming
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he has taken to encourage environmentally friendly farming. [17686]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are working with conservation and farming organisations to improve the efficiency and targeting of agri-environment schemes. Existing schemes are regularly reviewed and, where appropriate, we are also developing new initiatives. The pilot Arable Stewardship scheme, which will be introduced next year, is aimed at restoring the wildlife interest of arable farmland areas and includes measures for reversing the loss of plant and animal species which are largely dependent on arable crops. We have also established, through the National Agri-Environment Forum, a working group to address the environmental issues associated with the uplands.

  In addition, the Organic Conversion Information Service helps farmers decide whether organic farming would be appropriate for them, as well as providing more detailed advice for those considering conversion. We are reviewing the rates and structure of aid, under the Organic Aid Scheme, for those considering conversion to organic farming. We are also considering, in consultation with farming and conservation organisations, the practicality of drawing up a Code of Good Agricultural Practice for Wildlife and Landscape.

  For the future, the Government see a continuing and increasing role for environmental incentive schemes as part of a reformed CAP.

  Food Labelling
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve food labelling for consumers. [17687]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's policy on improving food labelling information for consumers. [17693]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave to our hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on 6 November 1997,Official Report, column 339.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the provision of abattoirs. [17688]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are currently 29 abattoirs operating the Over Thirty Months Scheme (OTMS) in the UK. These were awarded contracts in July 1997 following a competitive tender exercise run by the Intervention Board. It was necessary to reduce the number of abattoirs participating in OTMS as numbers of cattle entering the scheme diminished.

  The plants were chosen on the basis of objective criteria, principally proximity to the main production areas, hygiene standards and value for money. Together, they provide more than enough capacity to handle the number of animals now expected to come forward under the OTMS, with an allowance which can be factored in to cope with seasonal fluctuations.

  Some journey times may have increased, but in general, all cattle are travelling no further to abattoirs than they were prior to the OTMS and in many cases the distances are shorter. Also, the number of livestock markets participating in the scheme has not changed, so access for farmers should not have been seriously affected.

  Although there are no OTMS abattoirs in Sussex, sufficient capacity is available in the South East to handle effectively all cattle presented under the scheme in the area.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department spends on(a) food safety and (b) standards surveys; and how much he expects to spend in the current year. [17689]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department spends about £8.5 million on food surveys of which more than 95 per cent. is on food safety. Microbiological surveillance accounts for £413,000 with the remainder funding the food chemical surveillance programme. A similar level of spend is expected for the current year.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to improve standards of food safety. [17691]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are already taking such steps by the establishment of the Food Standards Agency and other related measures.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the number of food samples submitted each year from 1990 to date to public analysts for analysis; and if he will make a statement. [18911]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested forms part of our statistical return to the EU Commission, which is published and copies of which are placed in the Library of the House. However, the specific information requested is as follows:

  year

  Number of samples1 (UK figures)

  1996

  62,350

  1995

  63,726

  355

  Year

  Number of samples1 (UK figures)

  1994

  65,162

  1993

  67,959

  1992

  65,398

  1991

  46,976

  1990

  2—

  1 These are official samples only, i.e. those taken for the purpose of enforcement of the Food Safety Act 1990. They do not include samples taken for surveillance or other purposes, for which information is not held centrally.

  2 No data collected.

  Fruit Harvest
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from fruit growers regarding problems experienced with the present year's harvest. [17692]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department has received a number of representations in writing from Members on behalf of fruit growing constituents and from individual growers. In addition the matter was discussed when my noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary met the Horticultural Executive of the National Farmer's Union in July and subsequently visited fruit growers in Kent.

  Beef Ban
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress towards the lifting of the beef ban. [17690]

  Dr. Jim Cunningham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger).

  Rabies Committee
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the composition of the Kennedy Committee of Inquiry into rabies and quarantine has been finalised; and what is the target date for it to report. [18351]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 24 November 1997,Official Report, columns 410–11.

  Live Animal Exports
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 18 November 1997,Official Report, column 117, to which countries the pigs exported for breeding from January to October 1997 were exported. [18494]

  Mr. Rooker
  The computer records of animal health UK export certifications show the countries concerned as Antigua and Barbuda, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Chile, China, Columbia, Cyprus, Denmark, Falkland Islands, France, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Japan, Malaysia (Peninsula), Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Thailand, Russia, United States of America, Venezuela, Vietnam.
  356
  The information is provisional and subject to change.

  Agenda 2000
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to which elements of the Agenda 2000 proposals he plans to propose amendments. [18801]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government will respond to the Commission's formal legislative proposals once they have been published.

  Cattle Passports
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a breakdown of the cost elements and the amounts involved which he used to determine his current published estimated costs of a computerised cattle passport. [18831]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The cost of a cattle passport under the Cattle Tracing System has not yet been determined, although it is expected to be in the range of £5 to £10. The current estimated costs of the Cattle Tracing System are broken down as follows:

  £ million

  Set-up cost

  Database development

  3.5

  Project management

  2.3

  British Cattle Movement Service (Accommodation)

  3.4

  British Cattle Movement Service (Equipment and Services)

  3.8

  Total

  13

  Annual running costs

  Staff costs

  3.2

  Accommodation, administration and consumables

  3.0

  Common services and depreciation

  2.8

  Office supplies (including cost of "freepost" system for reporting cattle movements)

  6.0

  Total

  15

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated establishment cost of his proposed computerised cattle passport scheme; which MAFF locations will be involved in operating it and what will be their annual running costs; and what are the estimated running costs of the new scheme for each of the first three years of its operation. [18829]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The Cattle Tracing System will not only provide cattle passports, but also a computerised register of all cattle in Great Britain, their location and their movement history. The estimated establishment cost is around £13 million. It will be operated by the British Cattle Movement Service, which will be part of my Department, based at Workington in Cumbria. The estimated running costs of the system for each of the first three years of operation are likely to be around£15 million per year.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what charges will be made for the cattle passport scheme; what will be the costs of(a) its establishment and (b) its administration; and if these will be recovered in full from farmers. [18940]
  357
  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Minister to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) today.

  Unpasteurised Cows' Milk
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the advice from the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food on the sale of raw cows' milk for drinking consumption. [18717]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The advice of the Committee is unequivocal. This is why I have arranged public consultation on a proposal to ban the sale in England, Wales and Northern Ireland of raw cows' milk for drinking. We will reflect further when the results of public consultation are available.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what factors underlay his decision to consult interested parties on the sale of unpasteurised cows' milk for drinking consumption. [18716]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  After careful consideration of the issues, the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food expressed concern about the microbiological quality of unpasteurised cows' milk for drinking and recommended that the sale of such milk be banned in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Such sales are already banned in Scotland.

  This is a matter of public health concern and I considered it appropriate to consult interested parties on a proposal to ban its sale.

  Ministerial Announcements
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many ministerial announcements have not been made, in the first instance to the House; and of those how many were(a) speeches to outside bodies, (b) press releases, (c) press briefings and (d) made by other means, since 1 May; and if he will make a statement about his Department's policy in respect of making public ministerial announcements. [18893]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 3 December 1997]: Announcements made by the Department have followed established Parliamentary procedure. This practice is our policy.

  Ostriches
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for changes in the regulations governing the slaughter of ostriches. [18539]

  Mr. Morley
  I am not proposing any changes to the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 which set down detailed rules governing the methods of slaughter or killing of farmed animals including ostriches.

  Ostriches may be slaughter on farm, or in premises specifically licensed to handle ostriches under the Poultry Meat, Farmed Game Bird Meat and Rabbit Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995. We are also considering the possibility of amending the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 to permit ostrich slaughter in red meat abattoirs which meet specific structural requirements.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to reply to the letter of the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk dated 3 September, on the subject of the export of poultry meat to China; and if he will make a statement on his timetable for responding to letters from hon. Members on constituents' concerns. [19116]

  Mr. Rooker
  My right hon. Friend the Minister replied to the letter regarding the export of poultry meat to China on 2 December.

  This Department endeavours to reply to letters from hon. Members and peers within 15 working days. This Department received about 6,000 letters between January and October this year and 77 per cent. of these received a reply within this target.

  Tobacco Subsidy
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had on the EU subsidy to tobacco producers with the Commission of the European Union. [17664]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Commission is in no doubt about UK views and the depth of our concern. We expect new proposals next year. We will continue to press for the greatest possible reform.

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

Guardsmen Wright and Fisher
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the action taken by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with regard to the cases of Guardsmen Wright and Fisher was in conformity with the advice given by the Life Sentences Review Body.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State's decision to defer these cases for a year took full account of the board's advice. It also took full account of the materials on which the board had based its advice, including the representations received regarding the cases.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, which I hope provides the assurance that we seek; namely. that the decisions have been made purely on a judicial basis. Is the noble Lord aware of the effect on the morale of all military personnel in Northern Ireland, particularly those in the Scots Guards, who see this prolonged imprisonment, which is two years longer than that of Privates Clegg and Thain, as being based on political considerations? Can the Minister assure the House that this will be fully considered and that there is good reason that the imprisonment should be extended two years beyond that of Privates Clegg and Thain?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I do not believe that our procedures, including the decision of the Secretary of State, can be termed "judicial". Nevertheless, I understand the sensitivities of this particular case. The other cases to which the noble Lord referred are different in kind from these two cases.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there appear to be two standards of justice in Northern Ireland? There are people in Northern Ireland who have committed cold and premeditated acts of murder and remain free. Why are these guardsmen being subjected to another form of justice?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I do not believe that there are two standards of justice in Northern Ireland. The procedures we follow are intended to emphasise that there is only one standard of justice in Northern Ireland and that all individuals are judged on those terms.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree with the observation made by the present Lord
1476
Chancellor Lord Irvine of Lairg on the 6th November 1989, on the occasion of a debate on the Report of the Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment, of which I had the privilege of being a member, that,
"the duration of imprisonment should be decided by judges in an open process and not by the Executive behind closed doors".—
[Official Report, 6/11/89; col. 522.]
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I hear what the noble and learned Lord has said. However, the procedures that we follow in this case are those of the previous government. Those procedures differ from the procedures suggested by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the legal offence of murder covers a very broad spectrum of moral culpability? Does he agree that the present law, which requires a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for all murders, deprives the trial judge of the normal judicial function of sentencing the offender following conviction, having heard all the evidence, in the light of the judge's own assessment of moral culpability? Is not a consequence of that that the Home Secretary, representing the Executive, must decide the crucially important question of when it is proper to release an offender on life licence, always subject to recall, and not the trial judge? The Secretary of State may do that many years later. Therefore, is it not inevitable that suspicions and bitterness will often arise, always in my experience without any justification? Would that not be avoided if the mandatory sentence was abolished and a discretionary one substituted?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord asks a question that goes well beyond Northern Ireland and covers the procedures for the United Kingdom. I note what the noble and learned Lord has said, based upon his long experience. I simply reiterate that the Government have followed the procedures of the previous government.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the treatment of Guardsmen Wright and Fisher contrasts starkly with the treatment to be given to Gerry Adams next week when he is to be the honoured guest of the Prime Minister?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, we are dealing with two guardsmen who have been convicted by a criminal court. I do not believe that it is helpful to compare them with individuals who have not been convicted by a criminal court.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, from the views expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Dean of Beswick and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, does the Minister realise that this is not a matter of legal niceties but moral attitudes? Further, does he recollect that Mr. Gerry Adams has also been convicted of terrorist offences? Does the Minister understand that it appears to many people that the standard of justice is influenced by the desire of the Government to reach a political settlement?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I entirely repudiate the suggestion of the noble Lord. We seek to achieve a

1477
settlement in Northern Ireland, but that is quite separate from our approach to cases such as these. These individuals are being dealt with in accordance with proper procedures. I express surprise that the noble Lord makes these comparisons.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his Answer to this Question, of which I gave notice some time ago, comes as a welcome relief to me? One has the assurance that no extraneous factors were taken into account beyond the recommendations of the review board, and that at a time of political tension. Does the Minister think that that is a welcome and satisfactory relief?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he said. Perhaps I may make clear what happened. The Secretary of State, as I said in answer to the original Question, took full account of the advice of the Life Sentence Review Board. I cannot say whether that was the totality of the influence which led her to make her decision. On the other hand, I can assure the noble Lord that extraneous political considerations did not come into it. This decision was decided properly on the merits of those two individual cases.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, will the Minister explain a simple point? These two guardsmen are being treated as if they were criminals and had murdered in cold blood, whereas it all took place in the heat of battle. That is the distinction that I want to draw, and which many of us on this side believe should be explained by the Government.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, from the information that I have about these two cases, I do not believe that the events took place in the heat of battle. I am not certain that it is helpful to go into the details. The trial judge pointed out that the events took place in daylight, on a bright morning, when the suspect was retreating at all times, and increasing the distance between himself and the soldiers who pursued him over a distance of three streets. I am not sure that "heat of battle" is the phrase that I would apply to that situation.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, is it not the case that the man concerned tore the radio out of the patrol's vehicle and was fleeing while carrying a parcel, which I admit was not found, but which could have been a bomb, and was told many times to cease running away?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am not certain that it is helpful for me to get into speculation about some of the details. I paraphrased what the trial judge pointed out. I confirm that the man stole the radio from one of the soldiers. I cannot confirm the rest of the details, because I do not have them before me.

European Aerospace Industry
3.17 p.m.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux Lord Randall of St. Budeaux asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to encourage the restructuring of the European aerospace industry.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, Ministers and their officials are working closely with the UK aerospace industry and with other European governments to encourage the restructuring of that industry.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that the restructuring of the British aerospace industry must now take place because of the immense changes and the competitive disadvantages that we suffer as against the American aerospace industry? Is he also aware that were we to proceed along the lines being advocated by British Aerospace, we would establish a trans-national European defence and aerospace industry? There is concern that the defence market will change and that will have an impact on our defence procurement policy. Are the Government satisfied that British defence interests will be protected if the industry's proposals go forward?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, there can be no doubt that it is vital to be able to restructure and consolidate the aerospace industry so that we can compete internationally. The Government are using all their endeavours to achieve that purpose within Europe. In reply to my noble friend's second question, we shall of course use our best endeavours to ensure that in this respect our own defence industry is protected properly and is globally competitive. I believe that that is the objective to which my noble friend is alluding.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not clear that the best options are partnerships within Europe principally because the restructuring which has occurred in this country has not been followed in France? While it is possible to do deals with the Germans which are generally honoured, it seems to be extremely difficult to do deals with the French. Would it not make more sense in many cases to have partnerships with the United States?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the partnership which has been created in relation to the aerospace industry has been spectacularly successful. The Airbus has been successful internationally; it has been flown by a wide range of airlines, including American airlines. The allusion which the noble Lord draws is both unfair and inaccurate. Questions of consortia with the American aerospace industry are a matter for the industry to determine.

Disability Benefits
3.20 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their review of disability benefits includes tax, means-testing or replacement of benefits by services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, as part of our comprehensive review of spending we are undertaking a fundamental re-examination of the social security system, including those benefits paid to people who are long-term sick or disabled and their carers. The review will inevitably produce a wide range of possible options which we will need to consider very carefully.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I appreciate her long-standing commitment to disabled people and that I support the Government's attempts to help them back to work when they are able? The review is examining the possibility of lowering disability benefits and therefore there is a great wave of anger and anxiety among many disabled people. One can gain an idea of the feeling that exists by looking at the letters I have received from disabled people, not from the organisations. The most common words in the letters are "frightened", "anxious", "distressed", "disbelief', "horrified" and "betrayal". The reason is that the benefits cover the extra costs of disability. Those have not reduced for the individual disabled person; consequently, the benefits should not be reduced.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I share the concern expressed by my noble friend about the anxieties which may be experienced by disabled people. However, in our view there is a need to review the network of benefits for three reasons. First, the existing benefit system for disabled people has grown up piecemeal. It is a tangle. There are different benefits, with different rates, at different ages and with different linking rules. Some layer on to each other and some are mutually exclusive. Some are contributory and some are not. Some are means tested, some are taxed and some are neither. Most disabled people do not understand their entitlements.
Secondly, I am not confident that money is always properly focused. It is clear from our research that some disabled people continue to receive benefit after they have recovered, while the needs of other disabled people are not met. In some cases, life awards are paid to people who are predicted by their GPs to recover. We must examine that.
Finally, the existing disability structure presumes that disabled people are either sick, in which case they receive one set of benefits, or well, when they receive unemployment benefit. We all know that many disabled
1480
people are either sick, in which case they receive one set of benefits, or well, when they receive unemployment benefit. We all know that many disabledpeople are between the two. We need to review the benefits because we are trustees of £25 billion and we must ensure that it is wisely and appropriately spent.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I applaud the idea of reviewing benefits because regular reviews are desirable. However, may I make a special plea for funds which enable disabled people to go to work? Often, young disabled people need not only the moral support but also the therapeutic value involved in being useful in paid or unpaid employment. The mobility allowances have made a great difference in that respect.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. Not only do we accept her comments about the need to encourage people into work by ensuring that they have access to work, but the Government have recently announced their £195 million programme for welfare to work for disabled people. We are working with the organisations to ensure that the right projects are taken on board. Furthermore, my colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment are anxious to ensure the extension of civil rights for disabled people so that employers do not shelter behind false perceptions of their inability to work. Therefore, there can be no dispute around the House that the practice is entirely acceptable.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister a specific question. She will be well aware that the Social Security Advisory Committee recommended that lone parents losing a disability premium should be treated as still having an entitlement to the lone parent family premium for transitional protection purposes. The Government's answer to that was, "There seem to be very few of them so we won't worry about them." Surely, these people must be among the most distressed of any group in the country. Will the Minister review the matter immediately and do something to help them?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, people who lose a disability premium because they become fit and well are treated as new claimants.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, on the principle that employment where possible is better than receiving benefit—a principle to which the Government subscribe—will the Government continue the successful access to work scheme which was launched about four years ago, or is that also under review?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the access to work scheme is run by the Department for Education and Employment. As the noble Lord will know, partly as a result of the work of the All-Party Disablement Group of which he is a distinguished member, my

1481
colleagues in the DfEE have recently widened the eligibility of that scheme because they believe it has such an important part to play.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the Minister totally failed to answer the question!
Noble Lords: Baroness Williams!
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister accept that some people are genuinely disabled and unable to work full time or for more than a short period of time? Will she reassure people who are genuinely disabled that their standard of living will not be undercut as a result of the review?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I accept the point made by the noble Baroness. We are anxious for disabled people to have the opportunities to work which they tell us they want. But many disabled people are sick; they may have fluctuating conditions, progressively deteriorating conditions and so forth. It is unrealistic and inappropriate to expect that they will re-enter the labour market and it is extremely important that they receive decent and appropriate levels of benefit.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that direct payments will continue to be made to disabled people so that they may maintain their independence and control their own lives?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is a matter for the Department of Health. However, like the noble Lord, I believe that the direct payments issue, which received the support of the entire House, was an important step forward in putting disabled people at the centre of the care system and not dependent on it. Therefore, I have no reason to believe that there is any threat to it. On the contrary, most local authorities are seeking to expand their provision.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the expenditure on the benefits of disabled people. Is she aware that there are two reasons for that? One is demographic and the other is greater awareness. The Government can do nothing about the demographic factors and they should welcome the greater awareness.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I too am most anxious that disabled people should have the opportunities to work when they can and decent and appropriate benefits when they cannot. However, there is a clear problem in that in some cases there is a mis-targeting of benefit. That is not because disabled people are in any sense abusing the system but because the structures adopted by the department—for instance, life awards—mean that some people are not receiving the money that they should while others are receiving money which they should not continue to receive, perhaps because they have become well, which is good news for us all. That is why we need the review. Given
1482
the amount of money that is being spent on disability benefits—£25 billion—I am sure that your Lordships would expect us properly to scrutinise that expenditure.

Rail Passenger Safety
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their plans for passenger safety following the publication of the report of HM Chief Inspector of Railways on their safety record during 1996–97.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the report of the Health and Safety Executive's Chief Inspector of Railways shows that the long-term improvement in railway safety is continuing. But it also expresses concern, which the Government share, at an increase in vandalism and the danger of operators taking encouraging statistics as an excuse for complacency.
The Government look to the Health and Safety Commission and Executive, as the railway safety regulator, to ensure that safety standards are maintained, and improved where necessary.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In his report, the inspector expressed grave concerns, in the fiercest language which appears in that report, about delays in the promised implementation by Railtrack of installation and improvement of various mechanical devices which were supposed to stop trains going fast through signals. I shall not bore the House with all the technical details. The House of Commons Transport Select Committee echoed those concerns last year. Does the Minister agree that such concerns have been fully justified by the early evidence that failure or non-installation of automatic warning systems may have been a contributory cause of the Southall train crash in September? That crash was followed a month later by further instructions from the inspectors as to how the train operating companies should take care of and manage the existing automatic warning systems.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, on the general issue raised by the noble Baroness, the Health and Safety Executive's report was indeed phrased in strong language and put a very severe warning shot across the bows of the railway companies that they must not put commercial considerations ahead of safety. My right honourable friend the Minister for Transport made very clear in his response to the HSE's report that the Government share that view.
As regards the specifics of the Southall accident inquiry, the Health and Safety Commission's public inquiry will be extremely wide ranging and the report will be published by the HSC, which will advise the Government on the recommendations. Meanwhile, it would be wrong to speculate about the cause of that

1483
particular accident. Pending the inquiry, the HSE will not hesitate to take any necessary action. That is demonstrated by its prompt action, following the accident, of writing to train operators to clarify the rules relating to defective safety equipment in cabs.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is not the failure of signals one of the principal causes of accidents? Can the Minister say whether the introduction of automatic signalling has led to more or fewer disasters?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, in general terms, the safety record of rail is very good and one which continues to improve. Railway fatalities, excluding trespassers and suicides, were down to 25 in 1996-97. The number of significant train accidents per million train miles was also the lowest on record.
The issue of automatic train protection has been raised. That will be fitted on the West Coast main line, the Heathrow Express and on the new high speed routes. But the HSC advised the previous government that network-wide installation of the British Rail type of ATP could not be regarded as reasonably practical. It said that alternative safety investments would be likely to be more effective in terms of saving lives.
On the issue of the relationship between casualties and specific causes, perhaps I may write to the noble Lord.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, for many years, aircraft have had to carry black boxes which, if recovered, tell inspectors exactly what happened in the moments leading up to the fatal accident. Why is it not possible to do the same in relation to trains, so that instead of continually having to procrastinate and say that we must await the results of long-winded inquiries—as, for example, in the case of the Southall accident—the Government would be able to announce very shortly after the incident exactly what had occurred?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am not sure that I can accept the thesis which the noble Lord puts forward that it would automatically shorten the inquiry and that we should be certain that we had all the facts simply because of the presence of a black box. The railway inspectorate consists of a body of experts in that field whose membership and staffing has doubled since 1990. They are part of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive to which the Government look for advice as to the actions which should be taken to improve safety on the railways. The latest report shows how seriously and thoroughly that task is performed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is indeed a great deal of concern among the public not only about safety of railways but about the general standard of service offered at present? The Minister rejected my earlier suggestion of renationalisation because of the cost of £4,000 million, which is about as much as we are spending on 22 cases of CJD at present. Can she say now, since she has rejected that suggestion of renationalisation, how the
1484
commitment in New Labour's manifesto before the election, that the railways would be brought under control, will be achieved and how soon will it be achieved?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as I said when my noble friend Lord Stoddart raised this issue before, we have made it quite clear that at a cost of £4.5 billion, Railtrack renationalisation is not a priority for this Government. We must deal with the railway system as we find it rather than as we should have wished it to be.
However, we are committed to establishing more effective and accountable regulation by the rail regulator. We wish to ensure that public subsidy serves the public interest. I accept from my noble friend that there is public disquiet on issues both of safety and regulation in general.
We are also committed to establishing a new rail authority to provide a clear, coherent and strategic programme for the railways so that those expectations are met. Such considerations will be included in the consideration of an integrated transport policy and a White Paper is expected to be published next year. But, as my noble friend will be aware, in November my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport announced an interim railways package and three new measures in order to improve in the short term the regulation of the railways.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement made in another place on long-term care.
I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on the Statement, after the end of the Minister's initial reply to Opposition spokesmen, should be confined to,
"brief comments and questions for clarification".
There is a mandatory limit of 20 minutes from the end of the Minister's initial reply to the Opposition spokesmen.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.38 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Second Report from the Procedure Committee deals with a variety of matters, and I should like to draw some of them briefly to the attention of the House.
The report reminds the House of the conventions governing our debates. The Procedure Committee is concerned about the growing number of occasions when noble Lords who speak in debates do not remain to hear the closing speeches. For that reason the report sets out

1485
the present guidelines; namely, that a noble Lord who is taking part in a debate is expected to attend the greater part of that debate, and that it is considered discourteous not to be present for the opening and winding-up speeches and at least the speeches immediately before and after his own speech. The report also points out that a noble Lord who becomes aware that he is unlikely to be able to stay until the end of a debate should normally remove his name from the speakers' list.
To emphasise those conventions, the committee recommends that the advice in the Companion should be strengthened as indicated in paragraph 4 of the report.
The report reminds the House that noble Lords should remain in their seats and not leave the Chamber during a maiden speech or during the following speaker's congratulations. Those entering the Chamber are expected to remain by the steps of the Throne or below the Bar.
May I say in this connection that the convention that only the following speaker congratulates a maiden speaker is not being observed. I am sure that the House will wish to observe its conventions.
The report recommends that Questions for Written Answer should no longer be printed in the Minute each day until they are answered. It recommends instead that Questions should be printed and published only once, when they are tabled, and only republished if they are altered. This would save about £80,000 a year. A full list of unanswered Questions would be kept in the Minute Room and in the Library of the House, and noble Lords could consult it there.
One matter which the committee discussed is not mentioned in the report: namely, declaration and registration of interests. The committee considered a memorandum by the Leader of the House suggesting that there was a case for a further review of this matter by the Procedure Committee or a sub-committee.
However, the committee noted that there was no suggestion that the sub-committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, which drew up the present rules in 1995, had overlooked any important matter or that there was a defect in the present system of registration. The committee also felt that two years was too short a period for a proper evaluation of the Griffiths recommendations. So the committee decided not to recommend an immediate review of registration and declaration of interest. The committee will, however, consider the matter again at the beginning of the next parliamentary session.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 38).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. CARRY-OVER OF BILLS
The Committee considered a proposal made by the Commons Modernisation Committee1, and endorsed by the House of Commons2 that it should be possible for Government Bills to be "carried over" from one parliamentary session to the next in the same way as hybrid and private Bills. The Committee accepts that there is a case for the carry-over of some Government Bills in certain circumstances. The Committee agreed that the Clerk of the
1486
Parliaments, after discussion with the Clerk of the House of Commons, should prepare a memorandum for the Committee, to be considered at a future meeting, in which the practical details and any necessary safeguards are examined.
2. EXPLANATORY NOTES FOR BILLS
The Committee agreed to a proposal for "Explanatory Notes" on Bills, which was made by the Commons Modernisation Committee and has been agreed to by the House of Commons'. The Notes will be prepared by the sponsoring Department and will combine in a single document accompanying the Bill the material provided at present in the Explanatory Memorandum and the Notes on Clauses, but will extend and improve it. There will also be Explanatory Notes for Acts.
The Committee believes that it is desirable that—
—in order to establish that the Explanatory Notes cannot be amended in Parliament, the Notes should make clear that they had been drafted by the sponsoring Department and have not been authorised by Parliament;
—the Explanatory Notes should be neutral in tone and do not try to promote the Bill or the policy underlying it;
—the Explanatory Notes should be published separately from the Bill (and the subsequent Act), in order to avoid delay in publishing the Bill, to avoid the Bill being too bulky, and to give the public a choice of whether or not to buy the Notes.
3. REPRINTING OF QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWER
The Committee considered whether Questions for Written Answer should continue to be printed each day in the Lords Minute until they are answered, up to two weeks after tabling. If Questions were printed and published only when they were new or had been amended, an annual saving of about £80,000 could be made. The Committee recommends that Questions for Written Answer should be published only once, when they are tabled, and only republished if they are altered. A full list of unanswered Questions should be available for consultation in the Minute Room and the Library of the House.
4. ATTENDANCE AT DEBATES AND OTHER CONVENTIONS OF THE HOUSE
The Committee is concerned about the growing number of occasions when Lords who speak in debates do not remain to hear the closing speeches. The Committee wishes to remind Lords of the present guidelines in the Companion that a Lord who is taking part in a debate is expected to attend the greater part of that debate. It is considered discourteous for him not to be present for the opening and winding-up speeches and at least the speeches immediately before and after his own speech. A Lord who becomes aware that he is unlikely to be able to stay until the end of a debate should normally remove his name from the speakers' list (1st Report 1994–95; 3rd Report 1995–96).
The Committee has decided that the advice in the Companion should be strengthened by substituting for the words "A Lord who leaves early cannot expect to be answered by the Minister." the following:
"Ministers cannot be expected to answer, orally or in writing, points made by a speaker who does not stay to hear the Minister's closing speech."
The Committee reminds the House that Lords should remain in their seats and not leave the Chamber during a maiden speech or during the following speaker's congratulations. Those entering the Chamber are expected to remain by the steps of the Throne or below the Bar.
The Committee noted that the expression "the noble Minister" is increasingly being used instead of the correct form "the noble Lord, the Minister". The Committee draws the House's attention to the correct form of address.
5. JOINT COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS: NEW STANDING ORDER
The Committee agreed to a new Standing Order governing the appointment of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in order to reduce and simplify the Motions which have to be moved at the beginning of each session.

1487
6. BROADCASTING COMMITTEE: TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS
The Committee agreed that the functions of the Broadcasting Committee, which have become largely formal, should he transferred to the Administration and Works Sub-Committee, who already deal with issues of substance relating to broadcasting, and that the Broadcasting Committee should therefore cease to exist.
7. APPLICATION OF THE ROTATION RULE TO THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
The Committee agreed to apply to the Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee the exemption from the rotation rule which allows Sub-Committee Chairmen to serve for three sessions.
1First Report 1997-98: The Legislative Process (HC 190).
2On 13th November 1997.
3See footnotes 1 and 2.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, as one who attended the Procedure Committee of the House, should just like to make one or two comments on its report. The Chairman of Committees mentioned the question of attendance during debates and other conventions of the House. It has been brought to my notice that yesterday, when there were, I believe, five maiden speakers, three of them left and did not reappear for the winding-up speeches. It is most important that the various parties should din into their new boys the importance of observing the conventions.
One or two other matters were raised. There has been a certain amount of slackness recently about bowing to the Cloth of State upon entering the Chamber, and also about walking between the Woolsack and the Peer who is speaking. I know that these may appear to some of your Lordships to be trivial matters, but over the years these little courtesies have been the oil which enabled the wheels of business to turn easily and pleasantly. I believe that it is most important for us not to lose sight of that fact.
There is just one other matter that I should like to mention. The first item in the report concerns the carry-over of Bills. The report reads:
"The committee accepts that there is a case for the carry over of some Government bills in certain circumstances".
That means the carry over of a Bill from one Session to another. The idea is that government Bills should not fall at the end of a Session if they have not completed all their stages, but should be enabled to continue into the next Session. The report also says that the committee "accepts" the need for such carry over of government Bills, but I want to point out to the House that the committee was not unanimous in that respect; certainly, three members of the committee were very unhappy about the whole idea. I believe we felt—indeed, I felt so, and I was one of those members—that it was no bad thing for governments to have some hurdles to jump in getting their business through. I should also like to point out to the Government that, one day, they may find themselves in opposition and they may come to regret what they very much want at present.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, perhaps I may raise the matter of the Register of Members' Interests and the declaration thereof. Unfortunately, we are at a disadvantage today in considering what the Chairman of Committees has reported to us and what the Procedure
1488
Committee has decided in the interim. I say that because the current Register of Members' Interests is not available in the Printed Paper Office. A number of us were concerned that last year's register of interests did not appear to give a clear and complete indication of a number of Members' interests.
When we consider this particular item, it will he useful to see the current register to ascertain whether it is more complete than has been the case in the past. We also need to bear in mind the fact that, over the past few months, we have had a large influx of new Members to your Lordships' House. If the Procedure Committee were to review this particular issue within the next six months rather than after 12 months, taking soundings from all parts of the House before it deliberated on the matter, we might achieve a situation which does not leave Members of your Lordships' House vulnerable compared with the system which now pertains in the other place.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I should like to put two questions to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. The first relates to a matter raised by my noble friend Lady Saltoun; namely, the proposal to carry forward certain government Bills to the next parliamentary Session. That would represent a major departure from our traditional practice and would alter the balance of power to some extent between the Executive and the legislature. If the proposal were ultimately to be agreed to, can the noble Lord say what kind of Bills might be carried forward and how often that might happen?
My second question is on a rather more mundane topic. The report claims that there would be an annual saving of £80,000 if Questions for Written Answer were only to be printed once in the Lords Minute. That equates to a staggering £537 per sitting day, based on last year's figures. That represents about 1,000 copies of no more than 12 A4 sheets containing information most of which is already stored on computer. Periodic alterations should not have to involve the payment of expensive overtime. I wonder whether the taxpayer is perhaps paying just a little bit too much for the Minutes of Proceedings.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the Chairman of Committees said that the question of the register of interests had been discussed at the meeting. However, I believe that he also said that it is not mentioned in the report. I understand that that is the normal procedure if no change takes place with the subject under discussion. Nevertheless, it is deeply disappointing that further consideration of the register is to be deferred for such a long time. If I understood him correctly, the Chairman of Committees said that it would be three years before the issue would be reconsidered.
I raise the matter because of the growing concern about the inadequacy of the provisions for registration in your Lordships' House. It is now receiving attention outside the House, not only in newspaper reports but also by those who take an interest in such matters. This has arisen because of the massive publicity arising from

1489
what has occurred in another place. People are now asking, quite properly and understandably, why there should be different criteria between the two Houses. After all, your Lordships' House is an. essential part of the legislature and just as responsible in every sense of the word as the other House.
However, perhaps the crucial aspect of the matter is the fact that it is generally accepted that many more noble Lords hold directorships, chairmanships and other interests than are also held in another place where they all have to be declared. As I understand it, some of those categories do not have to be entered in the register of this House. In a recent leading article in a newspaper, some noble Lords were named along with the number of directorships and related offices which they held, none of which were included in the register of interests. My impression was that the persons so named were not acting dishonestly but that the article pointed out the glaring inconsistency compared with the strict criteria required in another place.
The behaviour of politicians is now more than ever under the searchlight of the modern media, and television in particular, but also, of course, radio and newspapers. We should not complain about that. Your Lordships' House is frequently praised for the quality of its work. We cannot afford to have any blemish on our conduct. It has to be said that the present system at least has the potential—I say no more than that—to raise doubts, as, indeed, is happening now. I assume that in considering this report today we can ask the Procedure Committee to think again on the procedures relating to the registration of interests. I trust that your Lordships will accept that view. Recently I heard someone ask, "What is the point of bolting the front door if the back door remains unlocked?". That appears to me to be a fair summary of the situation. I believe it to be a matter requiring urgent attention.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the proposal on the carry over of Bills is, as has been said, a substantial departure. As this appears now to be a proposal to be jointly considered between the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the House of Commons, it looks as if we could be embarking along a road over which I personally would not wish to travel. I wonder whether in those circumstances—I do not know whether this is possible in this House—before your Lordships' House ever has to consider this matter again, we could have the minority report of those who object in the Procedure Committee so that we all may be advised of the pros and cons of this proposal. I declare my position; I am dead against it.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, may I raise a short question on paragraph 3 entitled,
"Reprinting of Questions for Written Answer"?
The recommendation of the committee was that,
"Questions for Written Answer should be published only once, when they are tabled, and only republished if they are altered".
I fully support paragraph 3. On 3rd December last year there were 72 Questions spread over five pages. This 3rd December there are 186 Questions spread over
1490
12½ pages. The growth is enormous. At the same rate of growth the millennium should see us each day with some 350 Questions spread over 25 pages. I agree that something must be done to keep the Order Paper within reasonable bounds. I have one suggestion which I would like to make.
At present there is, I understand, a convention that a Question should be answered within a fortnight whenever possible. I would like to suggest to your Lordships that a Question that has been left unanswered for, say, 21 days should be republished daily until it is answered. We all have an interest in the smooth running and the efficiency of the proceedings of this House and indeed I think we are proud of this House's efficiency.
I therefore feel that there should be some spur towards answering a Question within a reasonable time. The knowledge that the attention of the House will be drawn to the fact that the Question is overdue for an answer would, in my submission, be as good a spur as any. Today's Order Paper contains one Question which has been left unanswered for 21 days. I am not concerned in any way with that Question or its merits; I know nothing at all about it. I merely mention that as a fact. I would suggest to your Lordships that the Select Committee on Procedure might consider whether an overdue Question should be republished until it is replied to.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I was one of those referred to by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, as expressing quite a lot of doubt about the wisdom of the carry over of Government Bills from one Session of Parliament to another. As I remember, the noble Lord the Leader of the House, as is his wont, introduced the subject and asked for responses. My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition was what I would describe as lukewarm on the subject, having studied it in the time of the previous government.
I argued against the proposal on the basis that it would increase the power of the Executive—that was exactly the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, just now—by removing the delaying power of either the Opposition of the day in another place or indeed of your Lordships' House as a whole. I recall the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, disagreeing with me and saying that the power to delay was somewhat overrated. Be that as it may, I think that it is probably true to say that the offending sentence in the first paragraph to which the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, drew attention probably reflects the Lord Chairman's summing up.
I recall asking specifically whether the substantive discussion on the carry over of Bills by the Government would be held after the paper by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of another place had been considered by the committee. The answer was in the affirmative. I therefore find it difficult to understand how the report can possibly state that the committee accepts that there is a case for it when that substantive

1491
discussion has not been held. In my view that sentence is at best erroneous and at worst—I am afraid I must say this—misleading.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I shall say a few words on one or two of the issues that have been raised, particularly the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. As I understood the proceedings in the committee, the one undoubted fact that the committee could neither accept nor deny was that the House of Commons had accepted the principle of carry over and that the Modernisation Committee report had been accepted in another place. Thinking back, I am sure that the Procedure Committee took the view that it would be a strange situation in which the House of Commons had accepted the principle of carry over but the House of Lords had not. Although there were some doubts expressed in the committee—I totally accept that; I do not claim that there was a unanimous feeling, nor would I claim that the Leader of the Opposition was particularly warm on this issue—there seemed to be a general acceptance that the principle of carry over should be examined at a practical level by the officials of this House and the officials of another place. When it has been examined it will have to return to the Floor of this House.
If I may lapse into Community jargon, it seemed to me, considering that discussion of the Procedure Committee, that there was an avis favorable to accept the principle of carry over by a majority of the members of the committee. We did not take a vote because, as far as I know, we never do take votes in the Procedure Committee. That was certainly my impression. Judging from the report submitted by the Lord Chairman of the Procedure Committee, that was clearly his impression too. I entirely accept that there were voices in opposition. Of course I accept that the measure is bound to have to come back to the House when the practicalities have been considered.
A number of questions were raised about the register of interests. I do not think that I can advise the House to take any decision on this other than the one which has been reached by the Procedure Committee. I say to my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington, it is not that it will be put off for another three years; when the Procedure Committee looks at it at the beginning of the next Session, the existing machinery will have been in existence for three years. There will be therefore a greater opportunity for discussion and more data from which the House can come to a judgment as to whether we wish to go further.
At this stage, I accept that that was a sensible position for the Procedure Committee to have taken. I support leaving the reconsideration of that issue until the beginning of the next Session.
I was interested in the mathematics of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, as regards the £80,000 savings. The House of Commons again has adopted this procedure: that a Question for Written Answer is printed only once. As I understand, the savings have been very great. The
1492
£80,000 figure was a sum produced by those who consider such matters in detail. It seems to me a great saving so far as concerns the expenses of this House.
4 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I shall not attempt to detain the House long. I merely wish to record my gratitude to the Leader of the House for the guidance he has given the committee and the House this afternoon. I entirely support the guidance he has given us.
The noble Lord is correct in saying that I had some reservations about the issue of carry over, not only as to whether it would impinge on the present powers of your Lordships' House, but also as regards the circumstances in which another place might feel it wanted to introduce Bills being carried over from one Session to another. The Leader of the House was extremely wise, if he will allow me to say so, in suggesting that officials of both Houses should consult together and report back to the Procedure Committee. It will in due course report back to your Lordships' House the results of those consultations. I understand that the original proposals for carry over—perhaps the Leader of the House will indicate dissent if I have this wrong—have been modified. It is now proposed that Bills to be carried over might be of a highly technical nature and would be discussed through the usual channels. Some of the impediments would be drawn to your Lordships' attention just as they would be in another place, in particular with the advantage of advice from officials.
I believe that the Leader of the House is entirely wise in suggesting to your Lordships that we await the report of the officials so that we can discuss this potentially extremely important matter further.
I wonder, too, whether noble Lords might feel inclined to consider, for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, what seemed an extremely ingenious suggestion which can do nothing but improve in a minor but important way the ability of Parliament to hold the Executive to account. It may well be that the noble and learned Lord's suggestion could be further considered in due course by the Procedure Committee. Subject to the guidance of the Leader of the House, I am disposed to view that suggestion with some sympathy.
On registration of interests, the noble Lord the Leader of the House has done the House a favour. As the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, pointed out, it is right that a functioning House of Parliament—as is your Lordships' House—should be seen to take these matters extremely seriously. Of late such issues have become increasingly a matter of public interest and concern. It is right that your Lordships should be aware of that and should take these matters to heart, and be seen to do so. Equally, your Lordships will be aware that at present we are not an elected Chamber. The nature of the written Summons to your Lordships' House is different from the qualification that enables Members of Parliament to sit in another place. In many ways the circumstances are different. Thanks to the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, we have a system which is newly established. So far as I know, there have

1493
been no complaints. On purely pragmatic grounds there is no prima facie case for altering the present system. Nevertheless, I wholly subscribe to the view of the Leader of the House that these matters should be reviewed at regular intervals. It seems wise that your Lordships should take his advice that we let the present system bed itself in for an appropriate but not excessive period before we consider the matter again. The Procedure Committee may come to the conclusion that the system does not need amendment. Nevertheless, we would be wise to consider the issue if only to assure people outside this House that it is a matter about which we are not complacent.
I am grateful to noble Lords for allowing me to intervene. With those considerations, I hope that your Lordships will feel able to support the Motion on the Order Paper.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords in view of what has been said by the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition about carry over and the registration and declaration of interests, I do not propose to add much.
On carry over of Bills, I confirm what the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition said. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, referred to the matter. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for having warned me half an hour before the House sat today that the matter was likely to be raised. That enabled me to look into the matter. I confirm the recollection of the Leader of the House on the committee's decision. Acting as chairman, I summed up the discussion on that matter. It is my clear recollection that the committee decided to accept the idea of carry over in principle but subject to certain practical matters and safeguards, which are to be the subject of discussions between the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the House of Commons.
In that connection, it must be borne in mind that we would not have come to a conclusion on principle if we had not considered the issue of practicalities and safeguards. But, having considered the practicalities and safeguards, if the Procedure Committee is not satisfied, it would be open to it, as it always is in our domestic committees when reconsidering matters, to defer the matter for further consideration or to throw it out altogether. To that extent, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, will be somewhat reassured.
There is no doubt in my mind that it was a clear decision of the Procedure Committee to come to a conclusion on that matter of principle so that it could consider these other matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, mentioned the register of interests. I am sorry that it is not available at present. The register is to be published either on Monday or possibly tomorrow. It should have been published earlier. There were many last minute amendments. If those were to be incorporated, it was not possible to send off the register until Tuesday of
1494
next week. I suggest one word of compensation to your Lordships. The delay will mean that the register is up to date and complete, although the date on which we had hoped it would be available has passed.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, raised a number of other points. She is right to say that some maiden speakers have not remained in the Chamber for at least part of the remainder of the debate after making their maiden speeches. It was not an isolated occasion this week; it occurred last week too. Since we have also referred to the congratulations after maiden speeches, perhaps I may mention an exodus during congratulations expressed on Tuesday. Two noble Lords withdrew during the congratulatory remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. The noble Lord was sitting in his usual seat at this end of the far Benches by the aisle to my right. Those noble Lords passed directly in front of him. That is another transgression which the noble Lady mentioned—namely, passing between the speaker on his or her feet and the Woolsack. She is also right in saying that some noble Lords fail to bow to the Cloth of State on entering. With that gentle reminder on those three points, drawn attention to first by the noble Lady, I hope that noble Lords will remember to observe those conventions.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was among those who referred to carry over. When we come to reconsider these matters, the points he made will be borne in mind.
As to declaration of interests, there has been no evidence whatever of wrongdoing in your Lordships' House in the two years since the Griffiths Report, so no matters have had to be referred to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths's sub-committee. As already indicated, there have been no suggestions that the sub-committee overlooked any important matter.
It may be worth making the further point that in some ways your Lordships' rules are much tougher and tighter than those in another place, particularly so far as categories 1 and 2 are concerned. We face more stringent restrictions. To give one example, if a noble Lord were paid a consultancy fee by a firm, he would be prohibited from speaking in the House on any matter relating to that firm, whereas a Member of another place in similar circumstances would not be prevented from so doing. That is just one example of how your Lordships have instituted tougher rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, mentioned the topic of Questions for Written Answer. We have already had some evidence from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, about the large number of Questions appearing in the Minute. That is one consideration. Another is the number of copies bought each day and the nature of the contract with the Stationery Office. I appreciate that, among others, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has been attracted by the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, as one to be considered. The great merit of the Procedure Committee's recommendation to your Lordships today is the fact that it is simple and straightforward. The proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, would involve some additional monitoring and therefore

1495
some additional administrative work. There is also the danger that, if a Question were taken off the Minute and then came on again, it could cause confusion and might even cause a department which had not answered the Question to regard it as having been tabled afresh and the timing would thus start again. That might not be an advantage.
I suggest that, since the proposal made by the Procedure Committee to your Lordships is a new one, we should wait and see how it works out. As we know from experience, there is nothing to stop the Procedure Committee returning to these matters. Perhaps the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, can be borne in mind so that, when further consideration is given to this matter, we can consider instituting his proposal as well. I repeat in that regard my earlier reservations and words of caution.
I am anxious not to go on for too long; I think I have covered all the points that were raised. If I have not, I shall see that noble Lords who have not received an adequate response are answered in writing or orally.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1997
4.15 p.m.
Lord Dubsrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th October be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order implements the report of the Law Reform Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland on hearsay evidence in civil proceedings, published on 27th October 1996. I pay tribute to the expertise of the committee, under the then chairmanship of Sir Robert Carswell, in its work on this difficult area of law reform.
This is a fairly short but very technical order. It effectively abolishes the common law rule excluding the admission of hearsay evidence as far as civil proceedings are concerned. It also abolishes the common law exceptions to that rule, but with certain safeguards which I shall mention. It also re-states the rules of evidence relating to the admission of previous statements of witnesses in proceedings in line with the changes to the hearsay; and it makes provision for the proof of certain documents and records.
The order is broadly similar to the Civil Evidence Act 1995 for England and Wales. That Act implemented the Law Commission's report on the hearsay rule in civil proceedings, published in September 1993. The order is similar to the 1995 Act, but there are some differences in the recommendations of the Law Reform Advisory Committee, which are being implemented in this order, and the order reflects those differences. I shall mention one of the main differences. The order, unlike the 1995 Act, does not contain a specific requirement to serve a notice of intention to adduce hearsay evidence, although the question of notice and its sufficiency goes very directly to the consideration of the court in weighing
1496
the hearsay evidence. I emphasise that the draft order implements all the recommendations of the Law Reform Advisory Committee.
I turn briefly to the main provisions of the order. Article 2 provides for the interpretation of the order and I draw particular attention to the definition of "civil proceedings". In essence the order applies to civil proceedings in which the strict rules of evidence apply. Article 3 abolishes the common law rule against the admission of hearsay in civil proceedings, subject to the safeguards in Articles 4 to 6.
Article 4 paves the way for other parties to call the maker of a hearsay statement and cross-examine him as a witness. Article 5 sets out guidelines for the court in weighing hearsay evidence and Article 6 contains various rules as to the competence of the maker of a hearsay statement and the credibility of that person.
Article 7 re-states, with amendments, the rules relating to previous statements of witnesses. Articles 8 and 9 provide for the admission and proof of statements in various documents and records. Article 10 re-enacts, for Northern Ireland, provision already contained, for England and Wales and Northern Ireland, in Section 10 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995, which section is not yet in force. The order is a technical but useful measure of law reform. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th October be approved.—(Lord Dubs)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister says that the order follows the 1995 Act covering Great Britain. Can he tell us whether the early days of the working of that Act have been regarded as satisfactory by those involved with it in the courts? It seems to me that those of us who are parliamentarians and politicians cannot complain about the use of hearsay evidence since we rely continually on hearsay evidence. Is there any hearsay evidence about the operation of the 1995 Act in Great Britain?
I understand that the reason for the non-admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal cases is thought to be that it might mislead juries. In Northern Ireland, in the Diplock courts, there are no juries. It is thought possible that the principle of hearsay evidence might be extended to such courts. I think that that would be difficult but I should like to know whether the Government are considering it.
I echo the thanks of the Minister to Lord Justice Carswell and to the committee for its work in preparing the ground for the order.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, I too welcome the introduction of this order. As we were told, it is broadly similar to the Civil Evidence Act 1995. But what puzzles me is why the provisions for Northern Ireland were not included in that Act when it was a Bill before this House and the other place. Why do we need such an unsatisfactory procedure whereby an order, which cannot be amended—not that I seek to amend it—has to be brought separately before the House? The process whereby Northern Ireland legislation is brought before us as an order and we are told to take it or leave it

1497
has gone on for far too long. It is time the Government reconsidered this procedure which they so frequently bring before us.
I agree that the exclusion of hearsay evidence is no longer necessary in Northern Ireland because in civil cases there is no longer a jury and the decisions are made by the judge. The original idea in excluding hearsay was in case the jury attached too much weight to evidence that was not reliable. When it is being considered by a judge, he will be able to assess the weight of the evidence before him, and therefore this safeguard is no longer necessary.
I join in congratulating the Law Reform Advisory Committee on the work it has put in on this subject.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I rise briefly to support what was said by my noble friend Lord McConnell and also to say that I particularly welcome Article 8 regarding proof of statements contained in documents. When, in a previous incarnation, I was sitting as a justice of the peace, time and again one was hampered by the unavailability of a certain document. On those occasions when a copy was obtained, I was required by law to reject the document because it was not the original.
I know that technology has moved on greatly since then, with copying and fax machines, and sometimes they need to be scrutinised carefully. But that is provided for in the words,
"in such manner as the courts may approve".
A district court, a county court or a High Court therefore has the discretion at its disposal to judge the authenticity and validity of documents. I have pleasure in supporting the order in general.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his description of this fairly technical but nevertheless important piece of legislation. I also tender my thanks to the Law Reform Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland for its work on the matter.
I do not want to refer to the details of the legislation; they are basically welcome, as other noble Lords have said. I want to pick up on a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, though from a slightly different point of view, and seek some advice from the current Government on their view.
The noble Lord mentioned that in most senses—not absolutely, but in most senses—this piece of legislation is a reiteration of the Civil Evidence Act 1995. It was asked why such legislation should not incorporate Northern Ireland. I am one of those who is absolutely committed to devolution and obviously there is a case for keeping a separate Northern Ireland statute book.
Given the evidence of the past couple of weeks, which has been positive in terms of the talks in Northern Ireland, I hope that we may be looking towards some kind of legislative body in Northern Ireland within a reasonable time. In the light of that—this may apply to other parts of the United Kingdom—have the Government given any thought to how to approach the question of which pieces of legislation will be carried
1498
forward by a Bill which refers to England, Wales and Northern Ireland (Scotland has a different form of law) and which will be carried forward separately for Northern Ireland even when Northern Ireland has its own legislature?
I am not sure that the Minister will be able to reply. However, it is an important time. Government have not fully considered the implications of this and should perhaps be giving some thought to it. I hope that it may not be long before it will be very relevant indeed. I await with interest to hear what the Minister says.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have contributed to this short but interesting debate. Perhaps I may try to deal with the various questions that were asked.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked what experience we had had with the Civil Evidence Act operating in England and Wales. It is too early to comment fully on the Civil Evidence Act because it only recently came into force. However, we have had no negative feedback, and evidence from other common law jurisdictions suggests that the order should work well in practice. Until we have a longer period of experience in England and Wales I cannot be more helpful to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord asked also about the Diplock courts. The remit of the Law Reform Advisory Committee does not extend to the criminal law in Northern Ireland. Hence that committee made no recommendations on this issue. The Law Commission's report on hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings is under consideration but the Government have no plans to extend the changes suggested by the noble Lord to the Diplock courts.
The noble Lords, Lord McConnell and Lord Alderdice, with a somewhat different emphasis, asked about the use of the procedure of Order in Council legislation. That is an issue which goes well beyond this order and covers a great deal of Northern Ireland legislation. Let me state the principles.
Orders in Council are an established means of making primary legislation for Northern Ireland in the circumstances of direct rule. The Government recognise the defects of the system but it is not practical, nor necessarily desirable, that all the Northern Ireland provisions should be enacted by a Bill at Westminster. However, we are always ready to consider with an open mind whether a Bill should be used to legislate on a matter which might otherwise be dealt with by an Order in Council. For reasons of practicality, that cannot always be the case; each instance is looked at on its merits. The Bill that is under debate in this House dealing with processions in Northern Ireland is a precise example of a Bill that it was thought should go through the full parliamentary process.
Let me also refine the answer in terms of this specific measure. It was decided not to extend the Civil Evidence Act 1995—which was based on a Law Commission Report—to Northern Ireland because at that time Northern Ireland's own independent law reform body, the Law Reform Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland, was examining the subject with a view to bringing forward its own proposals. Civil evidence has

1499
always been dealt with in Northern Ireland by way of separate legislation and in a number of respects the law in Northern Ireland differs from that of England and Wales.
Against that background of a separate legislative framework, the Law Reform Advisory Committee, under its chairman, now Lord Chief Justice Sir Robert Carswell, put forward recommendations which in some respects differed from the 1995 Act. The Government accepted the committee's recommendations in full. That meant that the most appropriate method of implementing the recommendations for reform in Northern Ireland was by the procedure we have before us today.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, covered the same point but with somewhat different emphasis. The Government are not dogmatic in their attitude towards legislating for Northern Ireland. We look at each piece of legislation on a case-by-case basis. There are benchmarks used in coming to decisions about how to legislate for Northern Ireland that are based on the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. That categorises legislation as accepted, transferred or reserved matters. Civil evidence falls between transferred or reserved matters and as such is suitable for legislation by way of an Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, was asking more about the future than about the present. It is something that will have to be considered as the talks process develops. But the noble Lord will understand that it is difficult for me to give a broad and significant long-term answer this afternoon, as I was not prepared for his question when he asked it. However, I agree that it is an important and reasonable question at the present time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Northern Ireland) Order 1997
4.30 p.m.
Lord Dubsrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th October be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to introduce measures which will remove burdens on business in Northern Ireland. It follows and builds on the general thrust of the 1996 Deregulation and Contracting Out (Northern Ireland) Order.
The Government are committed to cutting unnecessary red tape by introducing a simpler regulatory system for business. We are also conscious of the burdens regulations place on the citizen and are committed to seeking to improve the regulatory interface in this area. The order is consistent with the thrust of our efforts to improve the quality of regulation. The provisions in the order make good sense. That is demonstrated by the small but valuable response to the consultation exercise. Public comment was invited, and almost 300 individuals or bodies with a particular interest in the order were contacted directly and their
1500
comments sought. Only 22 responses were received. We have to assume that the rest did not feel strongly about the order one way or the other, or else they were just favourably inclined.
The order contains eight measures to benefit business. Of these measures, six will ensure that parity is maintained with deregulation orders which apply in Great Britain and which were made under powers contained in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The six will remove constraints for new credit unions seeking registration, increase opportunities for the expansion and growth of credit unions and broaden the pool of savings and incomes from which members can directly benefit; they will remove restrictions and reduce costs on industrial and provident societies; they will remove resolution restrictions on private companies; they will increase the number of gaming machines permitted in registered clubs from two to three and allow the Department of Health and Social Services to vary this limit in future by subordinate legislation; they will extend the validity of a vehicle's first MoT certificate; and they will remove redundant controls on the manufacture, storage, sale and use of rag flock for upholstery.
The remaining two provisions are unique to Northern Ireland. Article 9 removes restrictions on the use of pre-payment meters for purchasing energy efficiency goods and services. Article 10 removes the requirement of exporters of potatoes to non-European Union countries to have a potato shipping licence.
The order is a sensible and reasonable provision. It removes unnecessary or outdated obstacles to commerce in Northern Ireland without compromising the Government's commitment to ensuring that adequate protection for the public is maintained. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th October be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I, like, I am sure, all noble Lords, am in favour of deregulation. The proliferation of regulations is enormous. They are a terrible burden to small businesses, large businesses and government. Regulations grow like weeds. Therefore, the task of deregulation is a completely continuing one, just like gardening.
Some acts of deregulation are more significant than others. Some just tidy up the statute book, or parts of the statute book, which no one uses. Article 8 of the order repeals the Rag Flock Acts of 1911 and 1928. I do not imagine that will_ reduce the burden on business very much. It is probably quite some time since a business filled in a form required by those Acts. That is not a reason for not repealing the Acts if they are no longer required but it means that there is not much saving for business from that article.
There are some more significant changes, as the Minister set out, for credit unions, industrial and provident societies and for companies. They are desirable in themselves. The amendments to the potato marketing Act look to have some significance. However, it seems to me that by the order we are getting rid of most of the Act. Can the Minister say whether

1501
there is anything left of the potato marketing Act; and, if so, why it has been left? Why not repeal the whole affair?
The order is supposed to allow companies to save £7.5 million. I presume most of it is from the clauses relating to the credit unions, companies and industrial and provident societies, but it would be helpful to know that.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated on bringing forward the order. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, made a comparison with gardening. It was the setting up of committees that came most to my mind. Once established, committees, with a constant agenda of apologies, minutes, matters arising and the date of the next meeting, usually have a sufficient agenda to continue even when their purpose has long since been forgotten. It is often the same with regulations. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, some of the regulations were established in 1911 and have continued until now. The Government are to be congratulated on bringing the order forward. We welcome all the changes, not least the fact that there will be estimated savings to Northern Ireland business of £7.5 million. That will be widely welcomed at home.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I shall be brief in view of the importance of the succeeding debates. I am a little puzzled by the words in Article 7,
"vehicles adapted to carry more than eight passengers".
We all recognise that Orders in Council cannot be amended. However, it would make the legislation more readily understood if we had an explanation as to the meaning of that phrase. Does it really mean "vehicles adapted" or does it mean "vehicles constructed"? It is difficult to envisage how a vehicle could be adapted and also comply with the road traffic and safety regulations.
The phrase I have just quoted also appears in the public processions legislation which is currently before your Lordships. The references in Article 7 will probably become law before the public processions Bill becomes law. I am sure the Minister will agree that it is important from the point of view of the police traffic division that it should have clarification on that point.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I have one question on Article 7 concerning motor vehicle tests. It says that the first time an MoT is necessary it can last for a period of up to 13 months. Does this continue for ever and a day, which is not said? In other words, on successor periods, can it be a 13-month period or any other time when the test takes place; or does it have to be an exact 12-month period for successor tests?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I shall try to do justice to the questions that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked about the financial savings to business. The main savings are on Article 6, dealing with gaming machines, where we estimate that businesses will save roughly £2.5 million; and on Article 9, dealing with electricity pre-payment meters,
1502
where we estimate the saving will be some £5 million. Smaller sums will be saved on various other measures that we have before us.
The noble Lord also asked about the potato marketing provisions. He asked why we did not repeal the whole of the Act. The sections in the Act dealing with the licences are repealed. However, I should like to look further into the question asked by the noble Lord and write to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, asked about the use of the word "adapted" in relation to public service vehicles carrying more than eight passengers. That word is taken from the legislation that is being amended. It is my understanding that the intention is that it is to apply to all vehicles carrying more than eight passengers. If that is not correct, I shall write to the noble Lord. I shall also have to write to the noble Lord about the other point he raised.
I do not believe that the noble Lord. Lord Alderdice, asked a specific question to which he expected an answer. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, asked about the extension of the length of the period under which MoTs will be carried out. Again, it is a fairly technical point as regards the time period. Although I believe that I know the answer I prefer to check. I shall write to the noble Viscount when I have had a chance to look into it. I hope that I have dealt with all the specific points that were raised.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Long-Term Care: Royal Commission
4.41 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement is as follows:
"As people approach old age, many become anxious about how they will be looked after, how much it will cost and who will pay. So, at the general election, we promised we would establish a Royal Commission to work out a fair system of funding long-term care for the elderly. Today, I can announce that the new Government are keeping another of their promises. The Queen has agreed to the setting up of the Royal Commission whose terms of reference will encompass the United Kingdom as a whole.
"It is to be chaired by Professor Sir Stewart Sutherland, Principal and Vice-Chancellor of Edinburgh University. I am confident he will bring to the commission the skills and experience necessary to ensure rapid and vigorous scrutiny of the issues involved and practical cost-effective proposals to deal with them. He will be joined by eleven other commissioners: Professor Dame June Clark, Professor of Community Nursing at the University of Swansea; Sir Nicholas Goodison, deputy chairman of the Lloyds TSB Group and former chairman of the Stock Exchange; Dr. Iona Heath, a GP in Kentish

1503
Town who represents the Royal College of General Practitioners on the British Geriatrics Society; Joel Joffe, a human rights lawyer, founder director and former deputy chairman of Allied Dunbar Assurance and former chairman of Oxfam; David Lipsey, political editor of the Economist and a public interest director on the Personal Investment Authority; Professor Mary Marshall, director of the dementia services centre at the University of Stirling; Claire Rayner, writer, broadcaster and president of the Patients' Association and a former nurse; Paula Ridley, the chair of the Liverpool Housing Action Trust; Professor Robert Stout, Professor of Geriatric Medicine at Queen's University, Belfast; Robin Wendt. the former secretary of the Association of County Councils and a former civil servant at the DHSS; and Len Woodley QC, a Recorder who chaired the Laudat Mental Health Act Inquiry.
"Briefly, the commission's terms of reference will be to examine the short and long-term options for a sustainable system of funding of long-term care for elderly people, both in their own homes and in other settings, and to recommend how, and in what circumstances, the cost of such care should be apportioned between public funds and individuals. I have placed the full terms of reference in the Library of the House.
"The commission will consider the implications of its recommendations for younger people who have long term care needs because of illness or disability and have regard to the Government's review of pensions. The Government want both sound and swift advice, so the commission has been asked to report within 12 months; it will therefore be different from previous Royal Commissions.
"This commission will be different from its predecessors in other ways, too. In the past, some Royal Commissions have included representatives of the pressure groups involved in the topics to be covered. This one does not. The commissioners are not supposed to be representatives. They are there to take a fresh look.
"However, pressure groups and representatives of users and carers should have their say. So the commission will establish a reference group of organisations to help gather views and receive advice. The chairman of the commission is today inviting a whole range of organisations to serve on this reference group. It will include charities and other groups involved in long-term care, the financial services sector, NHS, local government and other service providers together with representatives of the major religious faiths in the UK. By this means the commission will be able to draw on the most up-to-date experience of users and carers.
"The commissioners will also be making visits around the country to listen to other users and carers. They plan to be out and about so that they can really get the full flavour of the current concerns in different parts of the country.
"The task of this Royal Commission is neither simple nor easy but it is important. The present situation cannot go on much longer. People are
1504
entitled to security and dignity in their old age. So we must find a way to fund long-term care which is fair and affordable for both the individual and the taxpayer. With the independent advice of the Royal Commission, I hope we will be able to establish a consensus from which we can fashion a sustainable system of long-term care which will meet the needs of elderly people well into the new century.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.46 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. The issue of long-term care and its funding is one which, for thousands of families up and down the country, has become an ever-present and personal reality. We on these Benches are in no doubt of its importance. If we look at the demographic position, older people represent the section of the community which is growing the fastest. The proportion of the population aged 85 and over has doubled in the past 25 years to 1.8 per cent. and it is expected to continue rising over the next 15 to 20 years. It is estimated that 5 per cent. of people between 75 and 85 years of age and over 20 per cent. of all those over 85 years of age will eventually require long-term residential care at a cost of £20,000 or even more, each year, for an average of three years.
For the state to fund that cost it is necessary for an individual to prove need on the basis of a means test, a principle which has applied ever since 1948. Many of us know the worry and sense of unfairness felt by elderly people who are sometimes obliged to sell their homes in order to pay for long-term care while those with no assets whatever and who have made no attempt to provide for their needs in retirement pay nothing and receive exactly the same care. We all understand those concerns. Before they were elected, the Government, I believe, criticised the means testing rules, but without a means test the cost to the public purse would be very considerable.
During the last Parliament the means test thresholds were changed substantially. The amount of an elderly person's capital assets, protected under the rules of means testing, was tripled. That was a positive step. But the sense of unfairness felt by many people did not go away. In May last year the previous government published a White Paper called A New Partnership for Care in Old Age which in essence proposed a partnership between government and the individual to encourage people to take out indemnity insurance or annuities to cover the possibility of their needing long-term care in old age, offering them in the process the incentive of having more of their assets protected in any means testing procedure. The proposal that we put forward represented an addition to the programme of care in the community, not a slice out of those programmes.
We felt that the benefit of this approach was that it would enable any amount of protection to be secured—any sum of cover, large or small—and could even be of benefit to those whose need of long-term care might, as it were, be just over the horizon and would not simply

1505
be applicable to those of younger years. The Community Care (Residential Charges) Bill, prepared by the last government, would have achieved those objectives.
One of my worries about a Royal Commission is that it will take a good many months to reach its conclusions. The Government will then need to take their time to consider those conclusions. The whole matter is one which in any case requires fairly extended lead times to achieve change on any appreciable scale. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the Royal Commission will be operating strictly to the 12-month timetable that she mentioned.
In the meantime, over and above that, will the Government consider the possibility of bringing back the Bill drafted by the previous government as a government Bill? The Minister may say that she does not wish to pre-empt the Royal Commission's findings. If she does, I would respectfully say that I do not see that as being a satisfactory answer to the many thousands of people who cannot wait for the Royal Commission to report, and for the Government to cogitate, produce a White Paper, and, in due course, publish a Bill.
The issues are clear and salient. The risk of an individual needing long-term care at some point in his or her lifetime is plainly an insurable risk. Do the Government accept that part of the solution, at least, must lie in private provision, perhaps through annuities or as a standard element in pension schemes? Do the Government agree that saving for long-term care is feasible for most people to undertake during a working lifetime? If the Government do agree, what is to stop them pursuing those ideas sooner rather than later, whatever the Royal Commission's conclusions turn out to be? This does not seem to be a matter of mutual exclusivity.
I wish to make a comment or two upon the Royal Commission itself. While, for the reasons I have explained, we on this side doubt whether a Royal Commission is the most appropriate route to take in the current circumstances, nevertheless we join the Government in warmly welcoming Professor Sir Stewart Sutherland to his new post as chairman. We have every confidence in his ability to look at these important matters thoroughly and dispassionately. He is well suited to the appointment. We wish him and his fellow commissioners well in the task ahead of them.
Will the Minister assure the House that Sir Stewart and his commission will examine all the options for schemes which might enable more people to bear the costs of their own care while, at the same time, protecting their assets from the means test along the lines that I have described? Will they look also at the comparative merits of private care and local authority-funded care and the need for a level playing field between the two when a local authority takes responsibility for funding a residential care place?
I repeat my good wishes to the commission. We await its report with considerable interest and anticipation.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, it is hard to find anything in the announcement to criticise. The commission has a
1506
wide remit. It has good names. It includes studying the question of long-term care for young people. It is to co-operate with other inquiries. I have just one question for the Minister. Will she assure us that it is not just the funding of long-term care at which the Royal Commission will look, but how that care is to be provided and the kind of care that will be most effective?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl and the noble Lord for their welcome for the Royal Commission, and, in particular. the chairmanship and membership. I shall respond briefly to the noble Earl on how this matter is to be looked at in the context of earlier proposals, specifically the partnership proposals of the previous government. We made clear early on that we did not intend to go ahead with that scheme: in our view, it was a partial solution designed to help relatively few people. I have no doubt that that might be one of the elements thought to be worth considering by Sir Stewart and his colleagues. I imagine that it will come on to their agenda.
On the more general point as to whether the Royal Commission is, in a sense, kicking into touch some of the earlier proposals and acting merely as a delaying exercise to make it possible to postpone some of the choices and decisions between previous and current suggestions about social insurance and other possible ways of funding long-term care, I reinforce the point that the Royal Commission does not have the luxury of a leisurely timetable. It has a clear and practical remit and the requirement to report in about a year.
The Government have already said that they will respond quickly to the commission's findings and take its recommendations seriously. A prompt report from the commission will allow legislation within the lifetime of this Parliament should that be considered necessary. In response to both the noble Earl and the noble Lord, I reinforce that all is on the table. Various schemes have been proposed in the past by the previous government and other distinguished experts. Part of the remit involved in having these individual contributors to the discussion take a fresh look is to assess those proposals further, both in the context of the demographic needs to which the noble Earl referred and the Government's comprehensive spending review and pension review.
The point made by the noble Lord about the type of care as well as the financing of the care is important. It is a valuable point to re-emphasise. The commission will look at types of residential care, types of care through which people are supported in their own homes, and the kind of care that can be provided by a mixture of funding and within the context of individual contributions and state contributions. There is no pre-assumption about the nature of the care which will be provided. As I said when repeating the Statement, our primary concern is to ensure that people can expect both dignity and security as they get older.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, I welcome the setting up of the Royal Commission, providing that it

1507
reports within 12 months, and the fact that the Minister said that long-term savings must be given every encouragement. Will she explain the logic behind raiding pension funds for the elderly by £5 billion a year, cancelling health care insurance for the elderly, and, finally, yesterday making TESSAs and PEPs less attractive than they were under the previous government?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I say, as the noble Lord would expect, that we have taken the position that those provisions which we have introduced are in the interests of the many and not the few. The ISA scheme which the Government have now proposed is designed to extend the ability to save to those people who we feel will be most vulnerable and in most need of protection as they get older.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I too welcome the Statement. There are two main reasons. First, payment for long-term care, as everyone in your Lordships' House will be aware, is currently a mess. Secondly, it affects every man, woman, and indeed, child in this country. I welcome also the establishment of a reference group, particularly with its emphasis on consulting users and carers. Does my noble friend agree that it is vital that any proposal made for changes to funding for long-term care must command the support of the whole nation, as did the original proposals in the 1940s? I welcome the news that the commission will be out and about. Will my noble friend give an assurance that the commission's decisions and recommendations will also be put out to the widest possible consultation before final decisions are implemented?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, especially because I know that the organisation which she leads (the Carers' National Association) has been approached to be part of the reference group, and, I believe, has accepted. That is a useful beginning towards establishing an authoritative group of people on the reference group. Of course the point she makes about the need to establish a consensus around whatever proposals are made is well taken.
My honourable friend, Mr. Boateng, the Minister with direct policy responsibility for this area in the Department of Health, has talked elegantly about the need to achieve consensus across the generations before any proposed plans are accepted. On the point of consultation, once the Royal Commission has reported, I am sure that there will be a period for consultation, but I am mindful of the points made by noble Lords about not building in enormous delay. There is, as always, a tension between consultation and action, but I am sure that that will be resolved.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, obviously I have not had time to read the full document in the Library, so may I ask whether the terms of reference will enable the Royal Commission to look at the interface in terms of care between social services and the health service and, in particular, services such as physiotherapy which are available only to the health
1508
service and which can help to extend elderly people's physical ability to move? Will the Government also bear in mind the importance of preventive care, which has a wider role to play? Finally, will the wider target group include people from the Councils for Voluntary Service which have long experience of co-ordinating various agencies in order to solve problems?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I have the exact terms of reference in front of me. I realise that the noble Baroness has not had the opportunity to read them in the Library. The specific point about physiotherapy is not made, but I would feel that it is encompassed in the term which refers to looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the current arrangements. The one thing that is clear about the delivery of care in the community is the so-called "Berlin Wall" between health and social services. That could be demonstrated to be a weakness of the current arrangements to which I am sure attention will be drawn. With regard to the specific membership of the reference group, the organisation to which the noble Baroness referred does not appear in the list that I have before me, but that does not necessarily mean that it is not included. I believe that the list simply records those who have already been approached.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, when repeating the Statement, I noted the phrase—I believe that I quote it correctly—that the Royal Commission will "have regard to the Government's review of pensions". Does that mean that if the pensions review results in a compulsory element of contribution for the second pension, it will not be appropriate for people to be compulsorily required to contribute towards their possible need for long-term care in old age? If I may phrase the question slightly differently: do Her Majesty's Government agree that there are fewer arguments for compulsion for long-term care contributions because the risk of need for care is less obvious than the risk of need for a pension from the age of 60?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I suspect that my noble friend is asking me to pre-judge some of the intellectual discussions which will undoubtedly form the meat of Sir Stewart's inquiry. My noble friend has put his finger on an important point. At the moment all I can say is that we clearly understand the direct relationship between the Royal Commission and the pensions review. There are obvious links to ensure coherence between the different aspects of the reviews of government policy in terms of the pensions review, a wider look at the welfare state as a whole, and the Royal Commission. As a government we need to ensure that those different groups, all of which are considering the same problem but from slightly different angles, produce a coherent policy in the end.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will the Royal Commission consider the position of the dependants of the person who needs long-term care? So often, the cost of such care is so great that it puts the dependants into a serious and difficult financial position which can at

1509
times have detrimental effects on those dependants' health and, as a result, can cost the National Health Service a considerable amount of money.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that point is covered in the provisions which specifically relate to the interests of both carers and users. It is reflected in the inclusion of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley in the reference group as a representative of the Carers' National Association. As the noble Lord rightly points out, those who are looking after the frail and elderly should be an important consideration. That point was reflected also in the comments of the noble Earl who referred to those people who have been compelled to sell their marital home when one partner enters long-term care. I am sure that that problem will be addressed and that the general issue which the noble Lord raises will be covered by the broad umbrella remit to look at the concerns of the carers as well as of the users of services.

Financial Consequences of Enlargement: ECC Report
5.5 p.m.
Lord Barnettrose to move, That this House take note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Financial Consequences of Enlargement (10th Report, Session 1997-98, HL Paper 41).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think that I have ever been more delighted to be called to move a Motion. I have been asked, uniquely, to give an apology on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. I have never had to apologise for my noble friend previously, but I do so now because he will be unable to speak in the debate. That apology applies also to my noble friend Lord Kennet.
Before turning to the Motion, perhaps I may welcome our two maiden speakers, the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, and my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing from them.
I should like to take this opportunity to thank the witnesses who appeared before our committee. I am sure that those noble Lords who have read their evidence will appreciate how valuable those witnesses were in helping us to prepare our report. I should also like to take this opportunity—I am sure that members of my committee would want me to—to thank our Clerk, John Goddard. We have been especially fortunate in the quality of our Clerk in helping us to prepare this report. I thank also the members of my committee because, if we have been fortunate in our Clerk, we have been especially fortunate—I certainly have been fortunate—to have such brilliant and hard working committee members. They have helped to prepare what I hope your Lordships will accept is an excellent report.
We have worked to a tight timetable and I apologise to your Lordships for the delay in publishing the report. As I understand it, the report was available to your
1510
Lordships in the Printed Paper Office last Friday, although that was not generally known. The tightness of the timetable arises because we felt it right to try not only to get our report out, but to have a debate on the Floor of your Lordships' House, before the Luxembourg Council on 12th December which I hope will not only take note of, but act upon, the points made in our report. If your Lordships have in some way been embarrassed by not receiving the report quickly enough, I apologise, but I hope that when your Lordships have an opportunity to read it, you will realise why we have produced it in this way.
I start by speaking of the structure of our report. The introduction comes in Part 1, but perhaps somewhat unusually we have highlighted a sort of scene-setting paragraph, using the words "coming home" which is what the applicant countries of the eastern European area believe is what would happen if they could successfully become members of the European Union.
Part 2 contains the summary of our opinion and what might be called the bald points. We have put them up front because—I know that this does not apply to your Lordships—there are some outside this House who may not read the whole of the report and such points might help those who suffer from what might be called "report fatigue", of which noble Lords will be aware. Although. as I have said, there are some outside who do not necessarily read reports in their entirety, perhaps after they have read our main points, they will want to read the whole report—I hope so.
Part 3 is the factual background to the report. I hope that your Lordships will find it helpful.
Part 4 is the summary of the evidence of the witnesses to which I have already referred. Again, it brings out the important points in the evidence that we have received from some very good witnesses.
Part 5 is our full opinion, to which I now turn for the main part of my remarks. We believe that there is huge potential to be gained from enlargement in this direction. Successful enlargement of the Community will make for great advantages not only for the applicant countries, but for the existing 15 countries of the European Union. Equally, there is huge danger if we miss this opportunity. There could be a slide towards tension and instability in Europe among those applicant countries. We should like to see a successful enlargement. However, we believe that the financial consequences of enlargement have been inadequately thought through. That is a great worry.
I read with great interest the speech of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary during his visit to the Czech Republic. Naturally and quite rightly, he was very pleasant to his hosts. He clearly recognises the need to bring the Czech Republic and others into the Community. Much thought has been given to that by the Commission itself in the excellent report Agenda 2000. That sets out a realistic route for enlargement.
That said, we do not believe that the Ministers of the member states, including the UK, have seriously thought through the financial consequences both to the existing 15 members of the European Union and the countries that we hope will come in. My right honourable friend

1511
the Foreign Secretary was very enthusiastic and said many things with which I wholeheartedly agree. I am not sure that he discussed his speech with the Treasury. If so I would be surprised if that department had given any thought to the financial consequences, let alone give my right honourable friend any advice. Both in this country and many others within the European Union—I am worried because my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington nods in agreement—there is concern in government about paying more or receiving a smaller rebate.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Helen Liddell, gave evidence to the committee. She said that our rebate was set in stone. That took my mind back to another lady, Mrs. Thatcher, now the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who said that Britain wanted its money back. I believe that that was the phrase she used. If every member state pursues that line, the chances are that financial success in enlargement will be pretty remote. We all know that it will be difficult. In some countries general elections are imminent. Nothing will be done before the autumn of 1998 and the German elections. I am sure that they would not agree to anything until those elections were out of the way. Win or lose, somebody will be in charge in that country who will I hope be able to make some decisions. Other existing members of the European Union will be holding elections at some time. There is a worry about the ability of the 15 countries of the European Union to reach agreement about successful enlargement of the Community. Even without imminent elections both the Germans and others will press strongly for an alteration to our rebate which many see as unfair. The committee did not discuss it in those terms. The committee wanted to see the UK do well within the Community. One is not speaking about fairness or unfairness in terms of rebates. The committee agrees with the comment of the Foreign Secretary that successful enlargement of the Community would be a great advantage to this country.
How will enlargement be paid for? There are probably three ways in which it can be done. No doubt noble Lords can think of others. The first is economic growth. That is usually regarded as the painless way of paying for a number of matters. Secondly, there is the possibility of raising the own resources ceiling, which at the moment is 1.27 per cent. of the European Union's GDP. To be utterly realistic, the likelihood of that occurring is pretty slim. (I wish that my noble friend would stop agreeing with me. It would be even worse if the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, began to agree with me.) Thirdly, there might be cuts in structural funds and the common agricultural policy.
As to growth, between the years 2000 and 2006 it is estimated by the Commission that the European Union's 15 will grow on average by 2·5 per cent. (I am glad to see that my noble friend is now disagreeing with me. This is not my view but the view of the Commission.) It is also estimated that the applicant countries will grow by an average of 4 per cent. I have never had much faith in forecasts, even weather forecasts. If a forecast were made about tomorrow I would be uncertain. Those growth forecasts for the period 2000 to 2006 may be achieved—I underline "may"—but the committee is
1512
uncertain whether they will be. The figures are spelt out in paragraphs 79 to 83 of the report. The committee views those figures with scepticism, although not the same kind of scepticism as is sometimes displayed in your Lordships' House.
One important section stands out. Even with an average growth of 2.5 per cent. among the 15 and 4 per cent. among applicant countries, it is estimated that it will take about 25 years for the latter to achieve 50 per cent. of the 15's average GDP. That gives an indication of the seriousness of what we are talking about here. To narrow the gap to that extent will require European Union assistance for at least a generation following accession. Therefore, the financial consequences of enlargement are very serious indeed. It is foolish to disregard the problems that it will create.
If growth does not achieve very much, I come to the other points: the structural funds and the common agricultural policy. We believe that those issues are pivotal to the financing of enlargement. That word is worth repeating because the committee spent some time discussing it. We believe that governments and Ministers have given insufficient thought to the full scale of the required reforms. As to the structural funds, the situation would be difficult enough without economic and monetary union. I do not intend to go into it. The fact is that there will be a significant impact on vulnerable regions within the existing 15 member states, including the UK, in terms of the level of structural fund grants. That will occur whatever happens, because there will be a requirement to cut down the areas within the European Union that are now in receipt of structural funds. I would very much regret that because some of those areas are not far from where I live. It is a fact that they will have to be reduced.
With regard to the common agricultural policy, the committee has deliberately not dealt with the details. It is not an agricultural sub-committee, and that will be dealt with by the appropriate committee. However, if we look at the financial consequences of enlargement, we cannot ignore the fact that the financing of the common agricultural policy as now cannot continue. There must be substantial reforms.
There is a further cost to the applicant countries which has not been considered in any way: NATO enlargement. In his speech in the Czech Republic the Foreign Secretary referred to the hope that some of the applicant countries would become members of NATO. Costs will be applied to those countries which are now applying for NATO and EU membership, but no one has given the slightest thought to them.
Equally, there will be a need to build strong and honest institutions in the applicant countries. That is crucial to the whole question of enlargement. I was pleased to see that we in the UK will be helping them to create decent, strong and honest institutions. There would be serious financial consequences if they did not have such institutions. Some members of my committee went to Athens and to Dublin and saw the difference in the way in which institutions manage sensibly to use the cohesion fund. The same will apply in the case of the structural fund.

1513
I turn to the opening of negotiations. There are two options. The first is to start bilateral negotiations with all 10 countries. For some reason that is called the "regatta" approach. Perhaps someone may know the reason for that. The second option is to have bilateral discussions at the outset with the five countries which we have listed, plus one; that is, Cyprus. It is anybody's guess what will happen there; I should not like to speculate. I am pleased to note that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary recommended that negotiations should start with the five countries. I hope that that recommendation will be accepted at the Luxembourg Council. If its members agree nothing else, I hope that on 12th December they will agree that.
There is a further important factor, to which the Foreign Secretary referred. The other five countries must not feel that they are being overlooked. It is vital that they are not thought to be overlooked. We must convince them that if they achieve the acquis communautaire they could overtake some of the first five countries in obtaining entry to the Community. That point was made to us by Commissioner van den Broek when we were in Brussels, so it is beginning to be recognised. The Commission believes that accession will most likely be in 2002. I believe that that is a little optimistic, given the difficult financial problems that we face.
In conclusion, I have missed much in our report and I am sure that members of my committee will fill in the gaps. I did not wish to take too long in opening the debate, but I believe that I have dealt with the major issues. The clear central issue is that we and other member states do not pay lip service to enlargement, but that we recognise the financial implications. The prospect of enlargement has already stimulated reform in the 10 applicant countries. Any delay and wrangling over what would be comparatively marginal costs to the 15 members of the European Union would do immense damage. Therefore, I hope that the tremendous opportunity of enlargement will be grasped. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary—I am sorry to refer to him again, but he is the only Minister who has commented on the issue—intends to launch the European conference early in the spring in order to deal with some of these issues. I urge the 15 members of the European Union at their meeting on 12th December and at the conference mentioned by the Foreign Secretary to provide a positive response to the great challenge which enlargement provides. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on the Financial Consequences of Enlargement (10th Report, Session 1997-98, HL Paper 41).—(Lord Barnett.)
5.24 p.m.
Lord Garel-Jones: My Lords, I have listened to a number of maiden speeches since I came to this House. I hope that your Lordships will not think that it is a routine matter if I say that I and all other noble Lords who entered in what might be referred to as a "bumper bundle" are grateful for the warmth and courtesy of our
1514
eception from Members on all sides of the House and from the staff. It considerably enhances what would in any event be a great privilege. I and all the new Members are grateful for that.
I rise with trepidation to address your Lordships for the first time, not least because having had some responsibility for European policy I am well aware of the standing of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the sub-committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. In another place I had substantial experience of their courteous precision.
Perhaps I may begin by making a few remarks which I regard as entirely uncontroversial; at least I believe them to be uncontroversial in your Lordships' House. The Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty were all signed by Conservative governments. I do not regret that, nor do I resile from any of them. I wish to touch briefly on two subjects: monetary union and political union. Monetary union is a high risk strategy. The loss of exchange rate flexibility—the safety valve that has hitherto enabled nations to adjust to underlying divergencies—could exacerbate tensions to a point which would raise a question mark over the political project itself; not to mention a whole range of technical difficulties which must be overcome.
I have no difficulty whatever with the cautious enthusiasm which the Government have expressed for monetary union, hedged in as it is by the conditions laid out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nor do I intend to lie awake at night—for a decade perhaps?—over the cautious scepticism put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. If monetary union works Britain will join. The Leader of the Opposition has left the door open, just, for such an eventuality, and I welcome that.
There are those, some of them in this very House, who believe that a single currency equals a single government. They say that they do not wish to see that at any price. Together with my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition, on balance I should prefer to wait and see what that price might be because sovereignty does not reside at any fixed address. Already in 1944, Professor Von Hayek said that the one thing which would undermine the prospects of peace and order after the war would be an attempt by nation states, large or small, to regain unfettered sovereignty in the economic sphere. That was true then and it is truer still today in the global economy in which we live.
If economic sovereignty is a moving target so, too, is political sovereignty. The difficulty is that the debate on Britain's place in Europe has been polarised. On the one hand, there are those who believe that the European Union is some kind of harbinger of a brave new world, where the individual and selfish aspirations of nations can be subsumed in a supra-national structure where Liberals lie down in peace with Social and Christian Democrats. Others have a vision of brave little Blighty sailing an independent course through these increasingly difficult waters.
Charting one's way through these noisy extremes is no easy matter. In recent years, your Lordships' House has been a consistent voice of sanity. This report,

1515
unlikely as it is to elicit much interest from the extremists, will he regarded as a serious contribution to discussion by those who have the worthy if unexciting ambition of trying to make the European Union work. For those of us who plough that particular furrow, the arguments involved are humdrum; the outcome is uncertain; and the compromises which must be made along the way are difficult. Not for us the simple either/or luxury enjoyed by the extremists.
But if we are to find a balance between the mechanisms for co-operation between nation states without burying that sense of belonging to nationhood which is so important, plough on we must. We must seek to entrench the inter-governmental pillars which emerged from the Maastricht Treaty. To do that, we must try to make them work. That means, for example, in the interior justice pillar, leading the search for new methods of fighting trans-border crime. In the common foreign policy and security pillar, in spite of all the set-backs and difficulties, we must contribute with enthusiastic realism to the search for common positions on foreign policy and security matters. It means sustaining the trans-Atlantic link through NATO and the US leadership of the NATO alliance; and yes, building the WEU but standing staunchly against those who believe that the WEU is some sort of Euro-friendly substitute for the NATO alliance.
In the first pillar—and I believe paragraphs 100 and 101 of the report refer to that—we must be robust, (I think that is the word) in advancing the case for more equitable voting weight to be given to the larger countries; for a reduction in the number of official languages; for annual presidencies led by a troika, headed by one of the large member states; and above all, in the first pillar, we must come forward with new and imaginative proposals for including the democratically elected parliaments of the member states in the legislative process. It is all very well to scrutinise draft EU legislation as we now do in this Parliament, and I wish that all other member states did that, but we need to find a way after that in which to insert the views of national parliaments into that whole complex comitology procedure that takes place between the Commission, the Parliament and the Council. That is crucial and Britain could be in the lead in such an area. The report makes it absolutely clear that, unless we have those bits of plumbing right, that alone could also undermine prospects for the European Union.
But having said all that, it simply is not good enough, as many do, to say, "Oh, I am in favour of a single market. I want a free trade area full stop". If you have a free trade area, by definition, you need regulations to define that area and by definition you therefore need a supra-national body capable of imposing its authority on those regulations by law. The Commission's right of initiative and the authority of the European Court of Justice should be defended staunchly by Britain because Britain is, and I think continues to be under this Government, the standard-bearer of free trade within the European Union.
This is a political project. It will be difficult to find the balance between sovereignty and lost sovereignty. But Britain has no need to subscribe to the dreamy
1516
idealism of some of our partners to influence the direction of the union. She only has to make up her mind once and for all that that is where she belongs. Once that is acquis, as they say in Brussels, then and then only shall we be in a position to exercise our full influence.
Those of us who have a settled opinion in this matter, as I do, believe that we enjoy one important ally in this matter; that is, the common sense of the British people and their unwillingness to relegate Britain, our country, to the sidelines. In that, as in many other areas, your Lordships' House has been very much in tune both with the interests and aspirations of the British people and I look forward to contributing to your Lordships' deliberations on those matters.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, few things could give me greater pleasure than to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, on his maiden speech on behalf of the whole House. The speech was elegant, good humoured and subtle. Those of us who have had the pleasure to know him expected that. It was also the speech of someone who might be described as a natural European, if such a thing exists: at any rate, someone who is at home in Europe, who knows the countries of Europe and who has been able to define his thoughtful approach to things European from the vantage point of his ministerial appointment in the Foreign Office. We look forward to hearing from the noble Lord on many future occasions.
Those of us who have served on Sub-Committee A of the European Communities Committee in recent years have been very fortunate. We have dealt with a number of important subjects. We have had the company of interesting contributors to the debate and, above all, we have had an extremely skilful chairman in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. We are all grateful to him.
One of his skills was to persuade the committee to agree unanimously on a report, although its members had a whole variety of views on what should follow from that unanimously agreed report. Your Lordships will find that my views on the cost of enlargement are not in all respects the same as those of our chairman or, indeed, I suspect of others who will speak.
I shall make four brief observations. The first is fairly obvious. Ever since I became involved in European Community matters in the 1960s, I have been unable to understand the contrast between "deepening" and "widening". In my view, there is no contrast between the two. Indeed, widening the European Union is an expression of the common interest of the members and in some cases an expression of a rather important and profound common interest.
When Spain, Portugal and Greece were welcomed to the European Community, the community made a small but not insignificant contribution to stabilising democratic institutions and the rule of law in those countries. I have felt since 1989 that we had and continue to have a similar responsibility with regard to the post-communist countries of eastern and central Europe. Indeed, I have felt and continue to feel that the

1517
European Union has not properly discharged its responsibilities because it is now eight years since 1989 and it should have been possible to hold this debate years earlier.
Indeed, I am one of those who believe that early membership of NATO for those countries is in some ways a substitute for what the European Union has failed to do. It would perhaps have been better if the European Union had been first to welcome the new democracies. In any event, I see no particular problem with respect to the five countries which we are now discussing for accession.
My second observation takes me to our subject, which is the subject of cost. At first sight the cost of membership for the new members or for the candidates is enormous. Those noble Lords who have had an opportunity to read the committee's report will have seen what the Polish negotiator told us. Perhaps I may say in passing that I believe that Poland is the test case among the five. In some ways Poland is the Spain of eastern Europe. It is a country of major importance but also of considerable size and therefore a very important addition to the Community if the negotiations succeed. Those who have read the report will have seen the figures given by the Polish negotiator, Mrs. Danuta Hubner. She has been quoted as saying, and has confirmed, among other things, that Poland would have to spend 3.2 per cent. of its total GNP for each of 10 years to achieve the environmental, health and safety standards alone which the European Union is setting. Indeed, we have not even mentioned the subject of agriculture in our discussions.
This is the subject of reaching the so-called acquis, the level which the European Union has set for its members. It is a large sum but, nevertheless, I cannot help observing that something quite odd is happening here. We say democracy and the rule of law; we say that we want to welcome these countries into a Community which is committed to those values; and we talk details—details which in some cases have literally nothing to do with democracy and the rule of law. The cost that we are talking about so far as concerns the accession countries is, in large part, a burden which is not visibly related either to the stability of democratic institutions or to the functioning of a market economy.
I looked through details of the last entry negotiations and saw that days were spent on subjects like the training of dentists, the provisions for the conservation of wild birds and the introduction of fire-proof doors in houses of multiple occupation. Here we have the European Union, yet the entry negotiations will be concerned with such subjects. I have long found that hard to bear; indeed, it is nearly unbearable. In discussing detail I hope that we shall not lose sight of the objectives which we are pursuing—namely, to have the post-communist countries at the table with us in the context of the EU.
That leads me to my third observation. We also learned that the candidate countries are quite realistic. They do not expect the cost of what they have to do to be borne by the budget of the European Union. Nor, incidentally, do any of them expect there to be a change,
1518
an increase, in the ceiling of 1.27 per cent. of GNP which the Union is prepared to spend on its affairs. The changes related to the acquis will be brought about by policies which those countries are pursuing in any case, including changes in agriculture.
There are fundamental changes in the agricultural structure of these central European countries going on in any event. Poland is extremely inefficient agriculturally. It is not the great threat which some seem to think that it is to the vested interests of the present members. Some of those changes will be brought about by borrowing, and both the EBRD and the European Investment Bank are aware of the special task that they have in that connection. In other words, it is not the budget of the EU which will have to cover the cost within the candidate countries. No doubt there will be some derogations; indeed, in some areas the countries need more time than the period of negotiation itself.
Basically I can see no reason—I state this briefly and without having the time to produce all the back-up argument required—in terms of the acquis or other conditions why Slovenia and Estonia should not be members by the year 2002 and Poland by the year 2002, 2003, or some such time. Indeed, Slovenia could probably become a member in 1999 if we wanted it and if we thought purely of the necessary preconditions of membership in the terms that we are discussing today.
Of course, that will not happen; and I come now to my fourth observation. They will not be members by the year 2000 or 2002; indeed, I doubt whether they will he members by 2005, the reason being—and this in a sense is my key point—that the cost of enlargement is crucially the cost perceived by present members to themselves of enlargement. The real obstacle is not what potential new members have to do; they can do it. The real obstacle is what present members fear will happen to them; and that is partly political.
In some European countries there is a fear. The noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, is better placed than I am to confirm and discuss that aspect, but in Spain there is a fear that the whole European Union is moving north-east and away from the interests of countries in the south. In some countries, like Sweden and Denmark, there is a sense that it was wrong to single out Estonia and not include other Baltic states at an early point. Similarly, in France there is a strong sense that Romania should have been included among the first five.
Above all, there are fears that the cohesion fund money will no longer be available and that the structural fund money will have to be cut. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, gave us some indication of what might happen in parts of the United Kingdom. Then there is the great and almost metaphysical fear in France and in Germany that the common agricultural policy may have to be reformed. That is quite likely to be the case. I argue that that is a greater obstacle to the rapid conclusion of entry negotiations with the new candidate countries than the cost to those countries.
One must fear that the negotiations will be protracted. One must fear that the popularity of the EU will decline in the candidate countries. When the moment comes and referenda have to be held in those countries, one must

1519
wonder whether there will still be the kind of majority which one would like to see for such an important step for those countries.
I therefore conclude by saying that I very much hope that the UK Government at least will not only start these negotiations at an early date, but that they will also continue to press, after their EU presidency, for the continuation and rapid conclusion of the negotiations with those who are starting after the Luxembourg summit in a few days' time. I repeat what I said at the beginning of my remarks: we have a great responsibility to do what little we can, but to do at least that, in order to ensure that the enormous gain in liberty, in democracy and in the rule of law, which I link to the year 1989, is not lost for reasons which are quite minor in relation to the task.
5.49 p.m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I very much value my first opportunity to speak in this House on such an important and lucid report. Perhaps I may, first, thank my noble friend Lord Barnett for his welcome and, secondly, for his valiant attempts to get my title right. It is infinitely preferable to be called "old scoon" rather than "old scone", as has sometimes been the case during the past few days. I should very much like to praise the work of my noble friend Lord Barnett and his colleagues. They have put their finger on exactly what is wrong with the Commission's Agenda 2000 proposals and the economics of European enlargement.
The report quite rightly points out that enlargement is vital for the security and stability of all the peoples of Europe. I declare an interest as Chief Executive of the RSPB, Europe's largest wildlife conservation organisation. As an environmentalist I have always thought that the European Union generally was a good thing. Much of this country's more enlightened environmental law and policy is drawn from European law. But I suppose that during the process of thinking about enlargement I began to wonder whether I was right as I thought about some of the costs and benefits of the European Union, and particularly the costs and benefits of the common agricultural policy which comprises half of the European Union budget. If one looks at it in the context of value for money, it is hardly a roaring success. The common agricultural policy is probably the single most significant cause of major declines in European Union wildlife and habitats over the past 30 years. It is closely followed in terms of poor value for money and adverse environmental impact by EU structural fund policy.
The report also recognises the environment as an essential element in the enlargement. If one looks at the accession states, the environmental record there is a bit of a mixed bag. In many cases outdated technologies under past regimes contributed enormous backlogs of environmental damage that will require attention. But in some ways it is the economic inefficiency of the former CEE states that has meant that, unlike the rest of Europe, land uses of forestry, agriculture and water management are considerably underdeveloped by EU standards. Almost by default the rural environment of the central and eastern European states is high quality if one
1520
measures that in terms of richness of wildlife and habitats which we are losing at a great rate elsewhere in Europe. I shall ignore at this point the pigeon-holing of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, in relation to the importance of birds when he ranked them with fire doors.
Before anyone thinks that I am talking about protectionism for the central and eastern European states in terms of putting their environments and agricultural and rural economies into aspic, and idyllically thinking of haywains and chaps with scythes, 1 assure the House that that is not the case. I am talking about economic growth both in the rural and industrial sectors of the CEE states having to be environmentally sustainable growth. If I may summarise the situation, we have expensive, environmentally damaging agricultural and structural policies in the existing 15 states of the European Union, with a fast declining natural environment, but a comparatively buoyant natural environment in central and eastern European states. I suggest that we cannot afford financially or environmentally—nor should we wish to—simply to export the policies that we have here in the west to the centre and east of Europe.
If enlargement is to be achieved in a way that is economically and environmentally acceptable, I believe that we must resolve three issues. First, the report rightly points out that reform of the CAP which reduces its financial costs is pivotal. I very much like those words of the report. Apart from needing to release money for other budget lines, the common agricultural policy is quite simply bad value for money. Yet only recently the European Commission has allowed an outline CAP reform to be agreed which will increase the total budget for the common agricultural policy over seven years. We see a proposal that maintains a high level of subsidy in the form of compensation payments to farmers for price cuts.
The CAP has to be made more affordable and more environmentally sound by reducing these compensation payments, by time limiting them and by redirecting some of the money to more positive rural employment and environmental schemes as part of a more extensive greening of the common agricultural policy. In enlarging the Community we must not simply extend this wasteful and environmentally damaging agricultural policy but develop lower cost and environmentally suitable alternatives that fit the economic stage of development of the central and eastern European states.
My second point which I believe needs attention concerns structural funds. Under enlargement structural funds must not be allowed to continue to be the "thugs" of Europe. There is substantial evidence that infrastructure dominated EU funded development such as roads, dams and irrigation schemes—old-fashioned concrete pouring schemes—which we have seen funded from structural funds not only cause environmental damage in existing member states but are often not even effective in terms of creating jobs or promoting regional development. The structural funds certainly get my thumbs down. When we extend these into central and eastern Europe they must be accompanied by much stronger environmental safeguards. Having wreaked

1521
wasteful destruction in western Europe, we must not let the structural funds do that in central and eastern Europe. In the rural areas particularly the model of big infrastructure development is uniquely inappropriate and damaging. We must focus on developing the special strengths of the rural areas and developing projects which are appropriate in scale and which draw on their skills and natural assets.
Thirdly, I touch on a point that the report rightly acknowledged: namely, that environmental protection is a key element of a functioning market economy. The report acknowledges the difficulties that the accession states will face in meeting the Community environmental obligations under the acquis. I do not believe that it is in the interests of the European environment, nor in the interests of an effective functioning of a single market, for environmental standards in the accession states to be lower than in the rest of Europe for any significant time. There needs to be considerable financial, technical and institutional development expertise injected into the CEE states using the loan process that the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, mentioned, but also by using current aid budgets and certainly by effective targeting of the pre-accession measures.
EU enlargement is vital for the peoples of Europe, but so is a healthy environment. The current common agricultural policy and structural funds are financially and environmentally unsustainable. They must not simply be exported eastwards without considerable reform—reform which, I am afraid, has not been sufficiently robustly begun in the Commission's Agenda 2000.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, it falls to me from these Benches to speak in the name of the whole House and to congratulate the noble Baroness on her maiden speech which I thought was accomplished, relevant and extremely thoughtful. This does not come as a surprise to one who has studied her curriculum vitae because she is a lady of remarkable accomplishments. She has revealed to us that she is the chief executive of the RSPB which I believe to be the voluntary organisation with the largest number of members in the country, which is an extraordinary tribute.
In addition, she has had a distinguished career in her role in the health authorities of this country. She was the chairman and president of the Institute of Health Service Management. She has served on the BBC general advisory council and as a trustee of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. She is also a member of the Environment Secretary's round table on sustainable development. This is a career of extraordinary achievement and it is evident from her excellent speech today that she will play a prominent part in our deliberations. Perhaps I may be permitted to add that this extraordinary career of achievement makes her admirably suited to be a Member of these Benches. However, I do not hold that against her because her contribution will be to the House as a whole.
1522
I believe that the report prepared by the sub-committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is essential reading for anyone who wishes to make a success of the British presidency of the European Union next year, as enlargement negotiations will be a large part of our responsibilities. I have for long believed that the future and character of the EU is more likely to be determined by the number and nature of states admitted to membership than by any other factor. The report is a guide to the problems and possibilities of a financial kind which we shall have to navigate if we are successfully to launch the enlargement negotiations. I shall cover a few of the salient points, and emphasise one or two key issues mentioned in the report, and some additional factors which I believe to be important.
First, I like the catch-phrase at the heading of Part I on page 5. It suggests that accession to the European Union is seen by the CEE states as "coming home". I very much agree with that sentiment. However, I agree also with the converse proposition that without the admission of the CEE states, the Union is not fully European. I regard those countries as being European, whether we are thinking in political, cultural or geographical terms. The strength of my feeling derives in part from personal experience, having spent about one-third of my professional life dealing with the countries of this region.
I began by studying the progress of communism in the infant German Democratic Republic when living in Berlin. In the 1950s, at the height of the Cold War, I spent four years in the Northern Department of the Foreign Office, which dealt with the USSR and its east European empire. After an interval of 15 years spent travelling first in Latin America and then in Greece, I became the counsellor at our embassy in Moscow during what the Russians now call Brezhnev's years of stagnation, an apt description. It was in Moscow that I began to ponder the Europeanness of Russia, a difficult but essential subject. Where does Europe end? In the west, we tend to think instinctively of General de Gaulle's well-known phrase regarding Europe "from the Atlantic to the Urals". But I am not sure that the Russians themselves would agree with that. In Moscow I looked up the definition of "Europe" in the large Soviet encyclopedia. I was surprised by the indeterminate, short and woolly article under that heading. That in itself was intriguing, as the whole point of the encyclopedia was to lay down the party line in a short and authoritative manner. Imprecision suggested uncertainty.
Perhaps I may be allowed to divert for a moment on a personal anecdote. The encyclopedia provided an occasional source of merriment—a real pleasure in that grim environment. One day the embassy received a letter from the publishers of the encyclopedia instructing all subscribers to remove certain pages from the volume dealing with the letter B. On inspection those pages referred to the life and career of the recently disgraced Beria. The letter told us that further pages would follow to fill that missing section. When they arrived some weeks later, they were found to contain an elaborate entry about the Irish philosopher Bishop Berkeley, who had not previously been thought to merit attention.

1523
That type of thought control could have its Orwellian moments. Some years earlier in Berlin there came into my hands a copy of a circular letter from the Ministry of Education in East Berlin sent to all the major libraries in the country instructing them to return for destruction copies of certain well-known classic German works which were now to be withdrawn from circulation. I do not recall all the books listed, but one was Fichte's classic and seminal work, Speeches to the German Nation. Above all, I remember the place to which those books were to be returned. It was called, "die Zentralstelle fuer Altliteratur". The address of all places, was, Weimar. That was really an Orwellian memory hole. It is worth recalling it at this moment.
I also recall discussing with Russian officials in Moscow the Russian relationship to Europe. Those people explained to me that the USSR was both a European and an Asian power. Of course, as the disciples of a world-wide creed they could not wish to limit their activities to a single continent, or even to two continents. Their mission was global in scope and ambition. Yet when one considers the components of Russian culture, it seems impossible to deny its European characteristics. Russian composers of this century and the last must be classified in that way, and so must the great writers in Russia of the last century. Pushkin, Gogol and Lermontov are all in the mainstream of European writing. I concede that Dostoevsky is more native Russian than European, but interestingly his reputation is less highly esteemed in Russia than in the west. Nevertheless, in a sense the Soviet officials had a point. Russia is too large, too much sui generis to be neatly categorised in one group or another. She is in a separate category of her own among the states in continental Europe—so vast yet oddly amorphous, and with great latent talent and power in every department of life.
I dwell on Russia in particular because there is just one sentence in the report which makes me ponder and pause for thought. It is in the first part of paragraph 1 which states:
"If enlargement is successful the peoples of Europe could enjoy conditions of security and stability without parallel in their history".
In one sense that does not say a great deal. Those countries have enjoyed little of either peace or prosperity for two centuries or more. I certainly hope that enlargement will bring them stability and prosperity. But I suggest that security is another matter.
The key question is how the enlargement of NATO is to proceed. This is not the subject of the report, and discussions about the enlargement of NATO are proceeding separately. The cost of enlargement, as the noble Lord. Lord Barnett, reminded us, is mentioned in the report as another burden to be shouldered and taken into account. But it will be the NATO negotiation which will be critical to the security of Europe in the ordinary sense of the word security. It is a very thorny subject—thornier than any noble Lords have suggested in the debate.
All the CEE states want to join NATO as well as the EU so as to provide for their essential security needs. There is a vacuum in eastern Europe since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. But there are obvious dangers also in
1524
extending the NATO umbrella so far as to include the Baltic states which are regarded by Russians as falling within their own sphere of influence, and even of belonging to the historic territory of Russia. The same kind of severe difficulties—although not to quite the same extent—occur in the case of Poland. In this debate it is relevant to pose this question. Do we want to extend NATO membership right up to the western frontier of Russia? That problem is not part of the European Union's enlargement negotiations, but it is closely connected. If we are to establish a new and lasting relationship with the CIS, as we should and must, we need to consider the security issue with great care and seriousness. This is the essential corollary to EU enlargement and should proceed in parallel with it. Indeed, I am almost tempted to call in my aid the extraordinary phrase invented by the late Aldo Moro, when Prime Minister of Italy, who described his effort to create a new and very precarious alliance with the parties of the centre left with their deeply felt historic antagonism, as a policy of "parallelismo convergente"— that is, converging parallelism. Moro's political style was virtually incomprehensible to non-Italians, and was ridiculed by many Italians. But his odd phrase conveys the essential difficulty of the task in front of us.
I should mention one other item on the hidden agenda in this process: the latent divergence between those seeking to bring about the enlargement of Europe to the east and others whose ambitions lie in the south. Some noble Lords have already referred to this matter. There is no doubt that Germany is strongly interested in the accession of the CEEs, where so many of her political and economic interests lie; but other member states—notably, France, Spain and Italy—wish the EU to be more active in the Mediterranean and to expend EU resources in North Africa. No doubt, in order to promote prosperity in the Maghreb, they would like to see us invest in such well known matters as steel mills and airlines. They hope by so doing to stem the flow of migrants from the Maghreb into southern Europe.
The EC's Mediterranean members are also reluctant to forgo the benefits of the structural and cohesion funds which have brought them such prosperity in the past decade. This subject is well discussed in the report and the sensible conclusion is that economies must be made to these funds in order to finance the changes needed in the CEEs to prepare them for accession. But these conclusions will be extremely unpopular in southern Europe, where it is felt that the richer countries of northern Europe should finance the accession of the CEEs. No doubt the recent proposal by the Commission to remove Ireland and the British regions from Category I eligibility for regional funds was made in order to show that the Commission is proposing a policy of equal misery for all.
Sub-Committee A has over the years produced a series of thorough and illuminating reports on key questions, and the latest report is a worthy addition to the list. I hope that the House and the Government will find it as valuable as I have done.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not follow his line. He has vast experience of parts of the world of which I have too little knowledge to be able to do so and do it justice.
Perhaps I may start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, for his chairmanship of the committee. He carried out his task with his accustomed style, experience and charm. He managed to lead the committee—which was not necessarily united on all matters relating to Europe—to produce a unanimous report. I join the noble Lord in the tribute he paid to our Clerk, Mr. John Goddard. who guided us with great ability and was of great value to the committee.
Perhaps I may make one criticism of this system of reports. That criticism does not apply to this report in particular. and I shall say why that is the case. On these matters much of the vital evidence that is required is only obtainable abroad, normally in Brussels: one has to see the commissioners in Brussels to obtain valuable evidence. The rules say—I do not know whether they are rules of this House—that only three or four members of the committee may go. We assemble and we hear valuable evidence from lots of people but we are not allowed to travel abroad to hear the key evidence, which most of us would like to be present to hear. I am sure that in the other place the whole committee troops off to see what is happening on the shores of Barbados, or wherever it might be. This is a matter which I believe deserves consideration. In the present case we were lucky. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and the Members who went with him to Brussels gave the committee very full and accurate accounts of what had taken place. I am sure we lost nothing in the process, although one felt that one would have liked to have had the opportunity to ask certain questions.
It became clear that all the applicants for accession are very keen to join. That is obviously because of the economic security that membership would provide, the trading prospects it would open up and the higher standards of living in the Community. I recognise that there are also considerable benefits to the 15 EU members. I should add the reservation that I am perhaps less enthusiastic than some members of the committee about some developments in Europe. I hope to have the opportunity to discuss later the views on economic and monetary union expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, in his maiden speech. There are differing views, but none are relevant to this report. I was therefore only too happy to be party to the unanimous report.
Serious problems arise, both for the applicants and the 15 present member states. The Commission appears to have tried to cover these in Agenda 2000, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in his opening speech. However, it does not deal with them in depth in that report or say how it will resolve them. There are some very wide gaps, particularly in the financial field, with which we are concerned.
This enlargement is different from previous enlargements. The last one involved Austria, Finland and Sweden—relatively small, rich states without a
1526
large agricultural sector. The five candidates of the eleven candidates for accession which we have mainly discussed are all large and relatively poor and have very large agricultural communities. They are quite different from the previous candidates and will no doubt present serious problems with regard to the finances of the enlargement.
As the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, Agenda 2000 speculated on rates of growth: 4 per cent. for the applicant countries and 2.5 per cent. for the present members. We heard evidence that, even on those speculative projections—and who can say what the rate of growth will be five years ahead—it would be at least 25 years before the applicant countries would achieve even half the standard of living of the present members of the Community. Indeed, some evidence regarded that as a considerable underestimate. It will be a major problem. There must be either a considerable reduction in the benefits that the Community pays to its present members or a considerable increase in our own resources, fixed at the moment at 1.27 per cent. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, there are only three options: first, to cut down what is being paid out; secondly, to expect the applicant countries to pay the difference between their rates of growth and that of the present members; or, thirdly, to increase our own resources above the 1.27 per cent. One of those options—that concerning the rates of growth—is purely speculative and the other two are very unattractive.
The committee did not deal with the CAP; agriculture was not within its remit. Time did not permit it and the sub-committee was not the appropriate one to deal with the subject. About half the outgoings for the Community are for the CAP. The next highest item is the structural and cohesion funds, which we were unable to go into in depth. Yet agriculture employs something like a quarter of the working population of the applicant countries. For the EU15 it is 5 per cent or under. Agriculture provides 9 per cent. of GDP of the applicant countries; for the EU15 the figure is 2.4 per cent. There is clearly a massive problem in trying to adjust one to the other. Such evidence as we had made it clear that the applicants would not he prepared to accept a second-grade agricultural policy. They do not want to see us continue to enjoy the fruits of the present CAP, albeit reduced by the lower level they would be taking. It is a very real difficulty which must be sorted out by the member states before we can look seriously at how we are going to finance the problems.
The other major areas of finance are the structural and cohesion funds. They are the second largest part of Community finance. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, referred to it as being "pivotal" and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, in her maiden speech, endorsed that word. I was one of those who said it was "critical" and not "pivotal". I am not sure what the distinction is but I am happy to accept that the way in which we deal with the structural and cohesion funds is nevertheless extremely important.
None of the 15 member states of the Community will willingly accept reductions in their share of the structural and cohesion funds. As has been said. Germany has an election next year and will not

1527
contemplate any reduction of any kind, and most of the 15 will be having elections during the period when adjustments will be necessary. I therefore find great difficulty in seeing where any saving will come under those two funds.
On a previous occasion the sub-committee was given evidence and formed the opinion that funds from the cohesion fund were only payable to nations whose average GNP was below 90 per cent. of the average of the Community; and it was not payable to any of those if they were also eligible to join monetary union. It now appears that the Commission is having second thoughts and considering that even those who are joining monetary union may be permitted to receive cohesion funds. We could perhaps speculate as to why this sudden change of opinion—if it be that—has come about at this time when support is needed on a variety of matters.
My conclusion is that unless the gross national product of the applicant countries is much better than forecast or the existing members are prepared to give up larger slices of their subsidy from the CAP or from the structural and cohesion funds, or we are all prepared to increase the own resources figure of 1.27 to something higher, serious financial problems will occur. I do not see that they will be easily resolved. It is necessary that the applicants, the members of the Community and ourselves, give whatever thought we can to the problem of resolving those difficulties by sharing fairly in the benefits that would flow from their membership and at the same time persuading our fellow members to accept some of the sacrifices, which I believe will be extremely painful.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in first thanking our chairman, my noble friend Lord Barnett, for keeping us in order and making us sign up when he wanted us to sign up, only allowing us occasionally to declare our dissident views from what we signed up to. I therefore greatly welcome this opportunity for debate. I also want to join my noble friend Lord Barnett and the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, in paying tribute to our clerk—Mr. John Goddard—for his excellent helpfulness not only on this report, but also on previous reports.
Today we heard two excellent maiden speeches, both of which were well-informed and detailed. I am sure that those maiden speeches tell us that these new Members will be a great addition to our Chamber and we look forward to hearing them in the future.
On 13th March 1996, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, introduced a debate on enlargement. I believe that I was the only person to say, at cols. 866 to 868 of Hansard, that I was not sure that it was a good idea. I have always felt that people go into enlargement in a rather emotional, romantic way. The fall of the Berlin Wall following the tremendous misery suffered by the eastern European countries somehow brought about the idea that Europe should be one. We are very explicit in the first paragraph of the report when we say that it is all about "coming home." Indeed, I wanted the report to be called, "The Cost of Coming Home". It is the aspect I shall discuss this evening.
1528
My noble friend Lord Dahrendorf said that he could see no contradiction between deepening and widening. I see huge contradictions between the two. When enlargement was first pushed powerfully by the UK, among other countries, it was precisely to weaken the deepening of the Community which was then on order. The retreat from the deepening of the Community, which we have seen paradoxically since the Maastricht Treaty, will be further damaged by widening. Some of the problems that we are discussing—problems for the 15, not just for the five coming—are caused because, in order to sell the Maastricht Treaty, certain limitations were accepted on the size of the budget.
I know of no confederation of such a large size that can survive on 1.27 per cent. of GDP. Wasteful though it may be and full of fraud, it is one of the cheapest confederations in history. The total budget of the EU in 1999 will be less than 70 per cent. of the social security budget of this country. The CAP costs less than the interest the UK Government pay on their debt. Wasteful though it is, we must keep it in perspective.
We are accepting this arrangement without having even yet sufficiently absorbed the three newcomers, Spain, Greece and Portugal. The doubts we have about the structural funds indicate that. We are going to add five, plus one other country with perhaps another five standing in the background. It has been difficult enough to absorb four poor countries among 15. If we look at the full expansion—we can leave Cyprus out for the time being—it means that there will be 14 poor countries out of 25.
I see no public financial arrangement which can, on the one hand, say, "We are not going to spend more money on the total budget", and, on the other, "We will still absorb these countries." Indeed, as is well known, before the Second World War there was no idea that Europe could be a political union. After all, the British Prime Minister thought Czechoslovakia was a far away country with which we were not concerned. Now suddenly we feel that union is urgent—imminent and urgent. It is not just that it is a good idea; it is imminent and urgent.
As many noble Lords pointed out, the difficulty is not with the five or the 10; the difficulty is with the 15 that exist. One of the saddest consequences of the Maastricht Treaty has been the strains of convergence. I was a wild single currency enthusiast, if I can put it that way. Over the years one has seen the costs of convergence, which were not foreseen, place a tremendous strain on the Community spirit among the 15. That is not only why the UK is always conscious of its rebate and what it gets out of the system, but also why Germany announced that it too is not sure that it is getting enough out of the system.
No federation can survive when all the members of the federation want to be net debtors to the general budget. The simple idea that the richer countries should voluntarily make a positive contribution to the budget has eroded already, even before we consider enlargement. Therefore, all the various things we list about the difficulties of enlargement have to be seen from the perspective that, as we prepare for enlargement

1529
in a rather uncritical and enthusiastic fashion, which troubles me very much, the communitarian spirit has eroded very badly. Indeed, we have seen in the dash for convergence that countries have not co-operated at all. They have followed separate deflationary policies. They have run beggar-my-neighbour policies. And that is among the old six; it is not among the 10. If the old six now run economic policies with no community spirit, as we have seen, we shall put a great strain on the Union.
However, I think enlargement will go ahead. I have spent a lifetime thinking that things should not happen and they then happen. What I think will happen is that the budgetary constraints will be acute. It has not yet dawned on many local authorities in the United Kingdom and elsewhere that they will not receive any structural funds. They will have to start zero budgeting. I said that to a local authority conference about four months ago. I had to talk about a report on structural funds. The people there looked at me as if I were a mad man. I said, "I've seen the future and I am telling you. You are not going to get any money and you had better start preparing for zero budgeting." The days when East Anglia could be classified as a region deserving European aid are numbered. I do not think the UK should get structural fund aid at all. Certain areas will get it because that is how the European Union works. But I do not think that it should work in that way, certainly if we are to absorb 100 million extra people.
The European Union 15 will have to get their acts together if they think that within the current budgetary constraints they will be able to absorb the new countries. As there is no climate for expanding the budget, we shall have to fall back on the prospect of cutting the structural and cohesion funds or cutting the money spent on the common agricultural policy. I wake up every day surprised that the CAP was not abolished the night before. The Berlin Wall has fallen but the common agricultural policy goes on. It is no less an injustice not only for Europe but for the third world as well. There we are. It is in the politics of the Union that the reform of the CAP will not be done if only to make members agree to enlargement. That is the paradox of the situation. And, of course, the CAP benefits the richer countries of the Union.
I do not want to go on with this long and sorry tale. What the report points out—I hope the Government will take note of this—is that there is serious trouble ahead if we are to take enlargement on board. Unless we say early on that the cohesion funds have to go—except perhaps for Greece—and that the structural funds will have to be drastically re-ordered so that only deserving regions get them, and unless we say that the common agricultural policy should be halved, if not totally eliminated, by the year 2002, enlargement will not be an easy process. In an ideal world we would all see enlargement as being of great benefit. If it were only a political union, there would be no problem. If it were only a union to encourage democracy, there would be no problem. But it is an economic union. There are serious consequences from having an economic union. I do not believe the major players have recognised what the consequences are.
1530
I shall make one more point. We have not considered the economic consequences of enlargement. We have considered only the financial consequences. The idea of getting 100 million more people in a single market with free movement of labour will have drastic consequences for the labour markets of western Europe. One is absorbing 100 million relatively cheap but skilled labourers. Wages in western Europe will suffer. It may still be that enlargement is a good idea, but people who talk about it should say that this is one of the likely consequences. We have to be prepared for it. If we are to have enlargement, we have to prepare now for that consequence. With that happy thought, I shall sit down.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Haslam: My Lords, having been ceremoniously transferred from Sub-Committee A to Sub-Committee B before my former colleagues started on this study, I knew they would produce an excellent and readable report. It has in fact exceeded even my high expectations. As ever, the masterly chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Barnett shines through.
I shall be brief as I have only one point to make. I agree wholeheartedly with the main conclusions of the report, but would particularly like to emphasise the views already expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Desai, that the reform of the common agricultural policy, with the objective of reducing its costs, is pivotal to the financing of the proposed enlargement. It seems to me that enlargement creates a splendid opportunity for a root and branch review of the CAP, and that this should not be missed.
The process of enlargement will undoubtedly add to the existing serious unemployment problems in the European Union. With this in mind, I believe that the opportunities should be seized to boost the finances of the structural funds at the expense of the CAP, with the outcome that the former funds will quickly exceed the latter. I was somewhat perturbed, therefore, when I read on page 13 of the report that the financial framework proposed by the commission for 2000-2006 in no way represents such a radical re-shaping, and indeed the two funds barely converge during this period.
As has been evident in many member states, and particularly in Ireland, Portugal and Spain, the structural and cohesion funds can obviously be deployed on a much broader canvas and for much more deserving causes in generating durable employment opportunities. This was very apparent to me as a member of Sub-Committee A when we studied the structural and cohesion funds earlier this year. In contrast, the CAP is focused on a narrow front, in what I believe has always been a very privileged sector for far too long. One has the feeling that the Commission's financial framework reflects too much what it believes it can persuade the German and French governments to accept, and thereby, I believe, does not meet the really radical approach that is so badly needed.
Finally, as a naïve industrialist, and as a non-farmer, I have never understood why agriculture should uniquely benefit from a form of permanent state aid whereas industries and other businesses have constantly

1531
to re-shape their activities to respond to their evolving competitive environment. This strengthens my belief that the current CAP should be the pivotal contributor to the cost of financing enlargement.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I begin by once again thanking my noble friend Lord Barnett for his chairmanship of the committee. It is always a pleasure to work with him. He does it extremely skilfully. He has a very good, human way of holding our noses to the grindstone. We usually end up, certainly under his chairmanship, with a very good report, with a great deal of thanks going to our Clerk, John Goddard, whose support to us has been absolutely vital.
I also preface my remarks by endorsing what my noble friend Lord Barnett said about what really worries us, which is that the financing has simply not been thought through. It worries us because of what we wrote in paragraph 7 of the summary of the opinion of the committee:
"Enlargement, if successful, could lead to unparalleled security and stability for the peoples of Europe. If the opportunity is missed there could he a slide towards the tensions and instability which have so disfigured Europe in this century".
That is not just something merely to be desired; it is an absolute imperative.
So the question of financing has to be taken extremely seriously. The Secretary of State of the German Foreign Office came to see us and reminded us that the German taxpayers had so far forked out 176 million deutschmarks to help pay for crisis management in the successor states of Yugoslavia. He sensibly added a comment that if enlargement made these crises less likely, it was a bargain at half the price. I thoroughly agree with him.
That brings us to this question: will the much talked about 1.27 per cent. ceiling be enough? That depends on who one talks to. If one talks to Treasury Ministers of the net contributor countries, one will be told that they will insist that the cost to the EU budget for all 10 applicants up to the year 2000 will be under the 1.27 per cent. ceiling. That is very much the view of our own Treasury.
The Commission is a little less dogmatic. Part III of Agenda 2000 contains this statement:
"There are various indications that it should be possible to cover the development of priority measures to be financed from the Community budget over the period 2000 to 2006 without raising the own resources ceiling".
It is to be noted that it refers to the priorities and not the total cost.
But let us now turn to what the genuinely sceptical have to say. The European Parliaments Committee on Foreign Affairs produced a working document in which it said:
"Do the financial resources required for enlargement exist or will the ceiling need to he revised? The probable reply is that they do not exist. It would appear extremely difficult to cope successfully with the impact of the accession of II countries which have such widely varying levels of development and are lagging so far behind the current levels in the member states unless the appropriate financial efforts are made".
1532
The subsequent draft report of the committee says that it believes:
"that the gulf between the political, strategic and economic importance of enlargement and the exiguous resources available to carry through this large-scale operation, which will change the face of our continent and the Union's position on the international scene, are just too exiguous".
The Budget Committee of the European Parliament also had something to say on this which is in much the same vein. It said:
"The existing margins for financing enlargement are to a large extent based on virtual savings bound with an uncertain decision-making process spread over a period of time".
When one sets that against the insistence of Treasuries that the 1.27 per cent. ceiling cannot and must not be broken, one can see that there is not exactly a consensus.
Of course, governments will have the last word. But that does not mean to say that they will not in the end be proven to have made a disastrous decision. No wonder Hans van den Broek in his evidence to us said in connection with the funding:
"This discussion, in fact, is still developing and I find it difficult to see where exactly we are going to end up".
I do not blame him! The cost is probably not calculable. But at least the basis on which the availability of funds to meet those costs is calculated should be realistic and transparent, and it is not.
What I find interesting is that, if one looks back to recent enlargements, the financial packages were accompanied by the raising of the own resources ceiling as a result of an assessment of the requirements. But this time there seems to have been a reversal of approach. Rather than being the outcome of a process, the ceiling has become a given "a priori", and worse, to be financed with a package of uncertainties.
The European Parliament's Budget Committee working document of September 1997 put the matter this way:
"The existing margins for financing enlargement are to a large extent based on virtual savings".
I repeat that from my earlier quotation. It is important to bear in mind that it is talking about virtual savings. As my noble friend Lord Barnett has pointed out, two-thirds of the expenditure within the ceiling is to be met from supposed economic growth rates of 2.5 per cent. in the 15 member countries and 4 per cent. in the applicant countries. As we point out in the report, that is highly speculative.
Some IMF figures quoted in today's Financial Times show that the annual average GDP growth in the OECD area between 1990 and 1995 was 1.9 per cent. But now of course we have the Asian crisis. There is now serious restructuring to be done in those affected countries and their economies. The transition will be lengthy and painful. It is bound to have an impact on western economies, as demand for imports weaken in Asia and Asian currency values fall.
We should also be on the alert for a possible liquidity crisis and higher interest rates as the stabilisation programmes mop up money on a massive scale. After all, 55 billion dollars for Korea is certainly not chicken-feed. Let alone the EU 15, the central and

1533
eastern European applicant countries and the Baltic states need the spill-over effects of this crisis like a hole in the head. We should not count on 2.5 per cent. or 4 per cent. Of course, they may turn out to be achievable rates. But why are we gambling the security and stability of an enlarged Europe on such a string of uncertainties?
The remaining one-third of the costs are to be met from the reform of Community policies, as we have been told. We examined that in some detail in the report and I shall make only a couple of brief comments. First, we had better get on with these reforms. Time and again I have heard officials and parliamentarians from the applicant countries expressing their fears that foot-dragging on reforms which, as the report points out, must take place before the accession of new members is in fact a tactic to delay enlargement. The EU 15 must demonstrate their good faith in this matter and show that that is not so. It was pretty depressing to hear President Chirac say in Salamanca the other day, at the Franco-Spanish Summit, that he was not willing to accept an EU which called into question the interests of France and its farmers. He had the grace to go on to say after that that we should have the courage to put the reforms through. But the two different remarks did not sit too well together.
The German Agriculture Minister is reported to have said that the Community's proposals on reform of the common agricultural policy are simply unnecessary. So far, Chancellor Kohl has not refuted him and probably will not do so until after the elections in 1998. So much for the sense of urgency!
Here, in parenthesis, I draw the attention of my noble friend on the Front Bench to a matter concerning the cohesion fund which needs settling since we are talking about the fund. It had long been understood that the cohesion fund was a convergence fund. That was the popular interpretation of what it was all about. It was there to prepare countries to enter monetary union. That has been the belief. As we recorded in the report, when we were in Brussels and spoke to Commissioner Liikanen, the Budget Commissioner, he said that the lawyers in the Commission had now come to the conclusion that it was not a convergence fund. If that is so, the countries that are entering EMU will be allowed to continue to draw on the cohesion fund—I repeat, "if that is so". However, it is very important that we get it clear once and for all. Her Majesty's Government would do well during their presidency to insist on that being clearly, finally and definitively settled.
There are just too many doubts about the financing of the enlargement. The report sends out some clear warning signals. To be so uncertain how resources will be mobilised to meet a known cost is bad enough; so clearly to underestimate the cost, as I am convinced is the case, only makes it worse. It is simply not good enough to say that the European Union will have to be satisfied with whatever measure and quality of enlargement can be bought within the 1.27 per cent. ceiling. As our report insists in paragraph 84, the financial perspective to be agreed for 2000-2006 should contain a provision for review before 2002 of the own resources ceiling. Of course, I accept that there will be
1534
other sources of finance from the international financial institutions. But the 1.27 per cent. ceiling looks to me to be pretty fragile.
I turn now to two non-financial aspects of enlargement: the time-frame and the negotiating process. Applicants are naturally in a hurry. As the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, pointed out, all this should probably have happened long ago. Many countries have populations which will all too easily turn against the idea of accession if it is seen to be pushed off into the distance, but in their own interests they need to be given a more realistic assessment of the timescale. Hungary's Foreign Minister, Laszlo Kovacs, says that negotiations with his government can be wrapped up by 2000, with accession one or two years later. However, Commission officials are saying that negotiations with Hungary could well take not two but three or four years.
Poland's Prime Minister, Buzek, says that negotiations can be completed by 2000, with accession the following year. His president says that it will not take even that long. However, the Commission is saying that Polish entry by even 2003 is an ambitious target. The chairman of the European Union Parliamentary Foreign Relations Committee agreed with that when he met us. Again, Prime Minister Buzek says that five years will be enough to complete the agricultural transition in Poland. Commission officials are unofficially saying that it might take up to 10 years.
Those are just three examples of widely varying perceptions. We need greater transparency, more realism, but no unnecessary foot-dragging, which could be highly counter-productive and eventually more costly. With negotiations beginning at the end of next March, we can reasonably expect the first accession or accessions in 2003. But even that does not leave much time for the EU's own reforms to be completed.
What of the negotiations themselves? As my noble friend Lord Barnett and other noble Lords have pointed out, our report endorses the five-plus-one approach. I endorse it too, but with some misgivings. From a practical point of view, for the EU 15 it makes sense, but it lays a heavy responsibility on them and on us to ensure that the remaining five are not left feeling out in the cold. That, unfortunately, is what they do feel and it is essential to counteract it. It is essential to minimise the damage to their efforts to achieve regional solidarity. The Madrid decision to select a few starters does some damage to those efforts. Moreover, as those countries say, it goes somewhat against the spirit of what was earlier agreed in both Essen and Copenhagen.
A country like Bulgaria knows that it is not ready for accession—and it says so—but why, it asks, cannot a serious negotiating process start now. The so-called "structural dialogue" proved to be no more than embarrassing formalities and empty exercises in protocol observance. That is Bulgaria's view. Why is not the European Union more directly and continuously involved in helping to prepare those countries for an eventual start to negotiations? As a former Foreign Minister of Bulgaria put it to me last night at a meeting in Paris, "Must the European Union keep us at a safe distance until others, like the IMF or the World Bank,

1535
have declared us economically fit to be considered ready to start negotiations? This is politically divisive in a region of vital importance to Europe's stability". I agreed with him that the proposed European conference must serve to include the next wave in a meaningful, substantive process, leading to the opening of negotiations at an appropriate time. Such countries must he on this side of the door waiting to come to the table. not on the far side of the door in the corridor, waiting for the door to be opened to them. That, to my mind, is a political imperative.
I yield to no one in my conviction that enlargement is an imperative, not an option. This is surely the most significant, complex and absolutely necessary enterprise that Europe has undertaken in its long process of post-war construction. In this continent's long history, the great geo-political enterprises have always had both winners and losers. Indeed, many had that as their objective. However, in this case we are in an enterprise where there are supposed to be only winners. If we fail to finance the enterprise appropriately, promptly and adequately, there will he losers—perhaps all will be losers, even those who think they are at least temporarily winners. The effect will be felt far beyond the borders of the Union and for far longer than any of us is here. We simply cannot afford that.
6.56 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I very much welcome this debate today and the fact that it is taking place on the eve of the Luxembourg summit and the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Union during which the first negotiations are expected to start. The committee has done this House and the European Union a great service by the speed of its deliberations, considering that the Agenda 2000 document was only published in July.
As has been said, it is now almost exactly eight years since the tearing down of the Berlin Wall. I was unable to visit Berlin at the time and had to be satisfied with watching events, transfixed, on the television. I therefore treasure as no other a gift that I was given by a friend in January 1990—a tiny piece of concrete from the demolished Berlin Wall. So I plead guilty to the charge expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I have an emotional wish to bring such countries home to Europe.
It is because I grew up on Cold War rhetoric and believed what we said about liberating central and eastern Europe for freedom and democracy that I believe that we have a moral duty to complete a successful enlargement. However, even that is not the major reason for expanding the European Union. The principal motive is our own self-interest in stability and security. We also need to change for our own sake. We need to change the European Union to be more democratic, more relevant and more effective. We should therefore welcome the dynamic impact of enlargement towards those ends.
The report does not pull its punches, noting that enlargement is a challenge of momentous consequence, but that national governments do not appear to recognise its sheer scale. The report warns of the absence of the
1536
political will that is needed to accomplish the necessary reforms to the policies and institutions of the European Union. The committee commends the realistic route plotted by the Agenda 2000 document, so the task is to persuade our member state governments to face up to the implications and for them to persuade our citizens that enlargement must happen.
While Agenda 2000 may be a route to the start of negotiations it is not a strategy for the accomplishment of a reformed European Union. It is perhaps an overworked cliché that history will not forgive us if we blow this opportunity, but I believe that it would be a misjudgment of huge consequence if we failed to seize the chance to reunite Europe and lay the foundations for unprecedented peace, prosperity and partnership on our Continent. Far from being an opportunity that is difficult to afford, it is one that we cannot afford to bungle if we really care about making our citizens safe. Here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. Security does not encompass merely military security through NATO; it includes economic, environmental and civil security through the European Union.
One of the points made in the report is that the institutional reforms must be agreed before the first accessions are ready. One of the major disappointments of the Amsterdam Treaty was that the heads of government ducked such issues as the need to streamline the Commission probably to one per member state and reweight the votes in the Council. Mr. Tony Blair was reported at the time as saying something to the effect that institutions were boring. I take issue with him since a citizens' Europe must mean effective, democratic and transparent decision making as much as tackling unemployment or crime. It is strange that a government who at home are rightly keen on constitutional reform, because they believe that that leads to better government, should be so shy of it on a European level. We know that the European Union will simply seize up if there is no streamlining of the institutions.
I was encouraged by the reports of the speech of the Foreign Secretary Mr. Robin Cook in Budapest on 26th November. In terms very similar to the committee's opinion, he said that,
"without reform, enlargement will remain beyond reach".
He urged all member states,
"to accept that our common interest in a modernised and expanded Union outweighs narrow national interests".
We know that words must be translated into reality. However, according to reports, his speech was calculated to convey a message of complete and unequivocal British support for enlargement. The Foreign Secretary indicated that it was the intention of the Government not only to push hard the Agenda 2000 package of reforms but to shake up the decision-making machinery. I hope that he includes the machinery of the common foreign and security policy because enlargement will make that even more important.
Further, I am glad to note that the Foreign Secretary distinguished this Government's approach from that of the previous Conservative Government. The latter was suspected of promoting widening of the EU through enlargement only as a Trojan horse to scupper

1537
deepening in a federalist direction. One matter to note is that if monetary union fails enlargement will be derailed. I add that the Foreign Secretary did not say that. While I am sure that unfortunately it is wrong to conclude that the Foreign Secretary is a closet federalist, I admit that his approach to enlargement causes my regard for his somewhat austere intelligence and integrity to recover after his decision to continue the delivery of Hawk aircraft to Indonesia.
Many noble Lords have said that reform of the common agricultural policy is top of the list of policy reforms. In particular, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, on her maiden speech. I am a mere townie, but I listen avidly not only to "The Archers" but also "Farming Today". I admit to being bemused by the operation of the CAP. I have enormous sympathy with the terrible difficulties being suffered by beef farmers, made worse by yesterday's announcement, apparently related not only to the frustrations occasioned by the BSE crisis but also to the collapse of prices.
Perhaps it is time that we townies had greater leverage over the CAP. Where on earth do all of these subsidies go? The CAP costs taxpayers £28 billion a year. To the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that may not be very much, but it is £28 billion. We have some clues. Since 1992 cereal farmers have received up to £12 billion excess subsidy due to a failure to anticipate record high cereal prices. The annual cost of set-asidepaying farmers to produce absolutely nothing—is almost £1 billion.
It is perplexing to read these figures and then hear of the undoubted distress of small farmers. It does not take any great agricultural knowledge to work out that the money is not going to the right places. Very little of it appears to be going to support rural development, small family or hill farms, organic production or environmental improvements, and rather too much goes on another Mercedes for the cereal barons or the City types who own the big farms. I understand that we also spend £715 million a year to subsidise tobacco production. That demonstrates a somewhat bizarre conflict with today's meeting of EU health Ministers considering a ban on tobacco advertising.
We cannot carry on like this. I commend my own party's proposals for replacing price support with targeted income support and countryside management contracts to encourage sustainable farming and land management responsive to the concerns of taxpayers who foot the Bill. These reforms are vital in themselves, but unless something radical is undertaken the rapacious financial demands of the CAP will torpedo the chances of successful enlargement. There must be headroom in the EU budget to ensure sufficient aid for accession. That aid must be directed especially to infrastructure investment such as transport networks. I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that it must be sustainable and environmentally friendly investment. We must help them to meet environmental standards and build up the quality and capacity of public administration and law enforcement as well as the financial and banking services in the applicant states. But we must be able to demonstrate to all citizens in
1538
the existing 15 member states that the European Union delivers value for money. We must be able to squeeze value out of every last penny of expenditure and see what can be cut, reformed or funded differently.
In his tour of Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic the Foreign Secretary made clear that the UK supported the view, which the committee also expressed, that negotiations should be commenced with the five-plus-one rather than adopt the regatta approach. It is vital that even if there is differentiation in the timing of the talks it should not be permanent differentiation. To borrow a phrase usually used in the context of European Monetary Union, they must be "pre-ins" rather than "outs". There should be no velvet curtain to replace the iron or concrete one; otherwise, the confidence necessary to attract the direct private investment which is so vital will not be present. The European conference of all the applicants which is to be launched in February is designed to demonstrate the inclusiveness of the enlargement process and must not be a public relations exercise. It must be real.
The enlargement of the European Union is an investment in our future. We will boost our prosperity by the enlarged trade opportunities and assure our own security if our close neighbours and partners are democratic, prosperous and respectful of the rights of minorities. This debate is about financing enlargement, but the cost to EU countries and the United States of the Bosnian war is a reminder of the expense of instability and conflict.
I am grateful that this debate has taken place today. I hope that the message we send to the Foreign Secretary, other existing member states and future member states is that we are determined and enthusiastic to make a success of enlarging the European Union to almost 500 million people. But the United Kingdom Government must have a firm strategy for the kind of European Union that it wants to achieve. As all noble Lords have recognised today, this issue is highly political rather than technical. It may be 10 to 15 years before all of the current candidates are fully integrated. We had better get cracking and keep up the momentum. A successful enlargement offers the prospect of a transformed European Union and a major contribution to European stability in the 21st century.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may suggest that she misunderstood what I was trying to say about security. Of course economic security is vital, but it is surely also important that a country in this part of Europe should be able to live securely within its own frontiers without fear of being gobbled up by its neighbour. That is what has happened in this part of the world for the past century or two. That is what I am seeking to draw to your Lordships' attention. I hope that that may clear up this misunderstanding. I happen to believe that a conventional military pact of the NATO kind is not at all appropriate to this area of Europe.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, it is my most agreeable first duty to congratulate the noble Baroness on her maiden speech. I congratulate her most sincerely.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, it was a good speech, but it was not a maiden.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I thought that it was the noble Baroness's maiden speech. It covered the ground and I am sure that what she said about the CAP, and the eloquent defence that she put up for enlargement will have been greatly appreciated in all parts of the House.
I turn now to the report. I find myself substantially in agreement with a large part of the critique of what is basically Agenda 2000. The Select Committee's report is largely a critique and comment upon that document. It is a useful critique because the whole approach of the Commission, which authored the document, has been to try to reassure the existing 15 members of the Community that no real problem faces them as a result of the enlargement and the introduction of the new member states.
The Commission managed somehow to convey that reassurance by choosing a questionable growth rate of 2.5 per cent. per annum in the EU itself and 4 per cent. in the applicant countries. If that were achieved, the increase in own resources would be such that no serious problem would face existing members. It is extraordinary how neatly the increase in own resources, given those growth rates, matched the particular problems of existing members of the Community. It retained the ceiling of 1.27 per cent. That is hardly a sanctified sum, but nevertheless it retained that ceiling.
Secondly, the existing members can go on enjoying the cohesion and structural funds with a slight decrease towards the period 2003-2006. The extra resources generated are sufficient, apparently, to meet the needs of the much poorer countries which will be coming aboard during the period covered by the report. Finally, and this was a triumph, it even managed to say that, although the CAP would have to change in the period up to 2006, there would be increased expenditure under the CAP head for existing members, as the emphasis of the CAP moved from guaranteed prices to structural changes and the other part of the CAP.
I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who said that the greater difficulty in accommodating a substantial increase in the membership of the EU lay with the present 15. That is not to say, however, as I am sure he would not for a moment argue, that there are not serious problems for the applicant countries and the existing member states.
The applicant countries, as we have heard from different speakers, are poor. Compared with the average standard of living in the 15, they are woefully behind. We should not minimise the weight of the obligations that the acquis will impose upon the applicant countries. My mind goes back to when we first applied to join the European Community, as it then was. We had to accommodate—it was a difficult enough problem then
1540
to digest it—the, as it were, legislative achievement of some 15 or 16 years of Community life, together with the basic treaties (the Rome Treaty, the ECSC Treaty, the Atomic Energy Treaty) as well. But now here we are 40 years, as it were, after the main event, and the applicant countries have not merely to absorb the basic treaties, with which we had some difficulty, but in addition we now have the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty and the Amsterdam Treaty.
The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, again quoted the figure aptly, but to achieve the same environmental and health and safety standards as exist in the Europe of the 15. and to which the applicant countries will be bound to adjust themselves, something like 2.3 per cent. of their GDP per year for 10 years will have to be spent on that exercise alone. There is no question of the task which has been set the applicant nations being in any way an easy one.
As for the 15 members states of the EU, I agree with and should like to reinforce the scepticism that my noble friend Lord Barnett, the chairman of the Select Committee, expressed about the achievement of their crucial growth rate. I looked up, quite naturally, what the growth rate has been in the 15 during the past two decades. I had to make some adjustment because all the members were not there. I take 1979-88 as the first decade. The GDP growth on average was 2.3 per cent. in the Europe of the 12, or whatever it was at that time. In the subsequent decade—that is, from 1989-98, and obviously making an estimate for the last year—the growth rate will be 2.1 per cent. on average.
We now have a document based upon a much more ambitious target of 2.5 per cent. That is a substantial difference. I wish to emphasise more strongly the distance that the EU has to go to make that growth rate not just achievable but credible. I looked also at the growth rates of the three major continental economies—Germany, France and Italy—for the past three years. I was struck when I found that the average growth rate during that three years in Germany was 1.4 per cent.; France, 1.3 per cent.; and Italy 1.2 per cent. That is a major difference between the assumed 2.5 per cent. upon which the credibility of the Agenda 2000 estimates depend.
It is worth considering why the growth rates have fallen so remarkably. I refer now to a document by the IMF entitled World Economic Outlook of October 1997. It is a recent document. It has this to say:
"The unsatisfactory economic performance of the three major economies of Germany, France and Italy cannot be blamed on the external environment'".
It continues:
"The sources of weakness have been internal, and in fact domestic demand has expanded by less than I percent a year in these three countries combined over the past five years".
I come to the point which I know will cause great unhappiness to my noble friend Lord Barnett. Why have the German, Italian and French growth rates plummeted so much? We all know the answer, but many people do not have the honesty to face it—I am sure not my noble friend. It is the almost desperate effort of those three

1541
countries to meet the convergence criteria laid down in the Maastricht Treaty and to achieve below 3 per cent. GDP borrowing requirement by 1998.
Your Lordships should not dismiss that point—it is very serious. I know that on the whole this House is sympathetic to the European project and does not like to look too critically at some aspects of it, but this is a serious point. It is worth reflecting on whether all the pressure of compression of demand, which is well below their actual GDP, will change when we reach 1999 when the single currency comes into effect.
I am sure that that is the hope of everyone concerned with the problem of the growth of the European Union, but I can see no reason why it should be any better in 1999. First, the convergence reached with such effort—that is, below 3 per cent. GDP by 1998—must be continuing. A country cannot suddenly go above 3 per cent. If it does, it is in for trouble because there is the stability pact with its substantial impositions of deposits and fines. In addition, as was properly pointed out earlier, the world economy is not looking as healthy as we should like, particularly with the repercussions of the international financial crisis. Against that background and combined with expansion of 2.5 per cent., sustainable convergence seems to me to be almost impossible.
Therefore, there is no reason to believe not just that we are unlikely to achieve the 2·5 per cent. growth of GDP during the period covered in the report, but there is every reason to be seriously worried about a continuing pressure on internal demand which will affect the growth rate in the years which lie ahead. The main consequence of an inadequate growth rate has been the massive rise in unemployment in western Europe in the past few years and therefore we must turn our minds once more to the whole construction of economic and monetary union and see whether, having done without it for the past 30 or 40 years we cannot somehow stagger on in the future without it. I hope that there will be the most urgent reconsideration of that as the most major way in which we can assist in achieving a proper growth rate in the European Union.
Finally, as regards the consequences of being unable to achieve the growth rate that we need, we must re-examine the whole business of the financing of the Community. I do not believe that one can do a great deal with the funds which are already raised. Expenditures look unlikely to fall in the years ahead. We must examine the whole issue of financing and whether further financing resources can be released or found. We must examine the whole not-very-thought-through system of Community taxes which have grown up higgledy piggledy over the past 30 years.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and his Sub-Committee A on their admirable report. During the time I served on the Select Committee on the European Union it produced three reports on enlargement. Two were the work of Sub-Committee D during the time that
1542
I had the privilege of being its chairman. Therefore, I have an interest to declare in the subject. I find it especially gratifying that the line taken in this new report is wholly consistent with the line taken by our 1994 and 1996 reports. That line has been encapsulated in the report's opening paragraph:
"If enlargement is successful. the people of Europe could enjoy conditions of security and stability without parallel in their history".
Speaking at the Madrid European Council two years ago, the then Prime Minister said that he believed that enlargement was the most important task facing the European Union. The promotion of enlargement was at the top of the previous Government's foreign agenda. I shall be grateful if in reply the Minister will tell us whether that policy objective is being given the same priority by this Government. If it is the case that the UK Government will continue to take the lead in working for enlargement, it must be recognised that, in the words of the report:
"The enlargement now foreseen is a challenge of momentous consequences".
In the two reports for which I was responsible, Sub-Committee D concentrated on the challenge to enlargement presented by the common agricultural policy. We stressed the urgent need for CAP reform and told the Commission how it ought to be done. The report of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, takes exactly the same line. He described CAP reform as "pivotal" to the financing of enlargement. Numerous other speakers today support that view.
Before dealing with the problem of the CAP, I should mention one other problem which must be overcome. The EU is almost fanatically protective when it comes to trade in agricultural products. We found that to be abundantly obvious when my sub-committee looked at the trade agreements with the CEE countries in 1994. Those countries were being treated abominably, and so far as I know they still are. As regards this trade, the old Iron Curtain still stands and remains virtually impenetrable by farm and food products from the east. That must be put right.
I return to the reform of the CAP, which is crucial if enlargement is to proceed. I understand that Agenda 2000 assumes with admirable confidence a reformed CAP by 2006, which will apply only to the present EU 15. Pre-accession aid is to be given to the CEE 10 and estimates are given. The report is not,
"convinced that national governments have yet thought equally hard"—
that is, as hard as the Commission—
"about the way ahead or faced up to the sometimes uncomfortable decisions which will have to be taken".
I am sure that that is right. But I fear that in respect of CAP reform some member states have thought hard and that there will be continuing resistance by some member states and by politically strong organisations within them.
I remember well a trip to Brussels during the previous inquiry of Sub-Committee D in order to attend a conference on CAP reform and enlargement. It was attended by representatives of all member states and CEE countries. After the representative of the French

1543
farmers' union had his say, I wondered why the Polish and Hungarian representatives, whom we had met previously in Warsaw and Budapest, did not hurry back home to tell their governments to forget about enlargement and seek refuge instead in some resurrected eastern alliance. They did not do so because desire for accession among the CEEC 10 is immensely strong. Those countries are willing to show great patience. Nevertheless, the report is right in its final paragraph to utter a note of warning that delay imposed, for example, by an EU unwilling to reform the CAP might breed disillusion, putting the whole enterprise at risk.
The lack of a really robust set of recommendations for CAP reform in Agenda 2000 reflects the lack of enthusiasm on the part of some member states referred to by witnesses to the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. When my sub-committee looked at the MacSharry 1991 proposals for CAP reform, we criticised them and said how it should be done. Those recommendations were endorsed by our own government and were produced as an option in the Commission's 1995 CAP reform document. But they were not adopted because they were too radical.
Agenda 2000 presents a new set of reform proposals which come a bit nearer to what the UK would like to see. Once again the Commission shies away from what is necessary because, quite understandably, it recognises that there will be almost guaranteed resistance from some member states.
The need for CAP reform seems to present the biggest challenge of all. I am led to believe that this Government—and I should he glad to have this confirmed by the Minister in due course—continue to adopt the robust line on CAP reform taken by the previous government. Therefore, I am sure that the Government will do all they can, but they will not receive much support in Council except from perhaps two or three other member states. The only hope is that sufficient pressure from the renewed round of WTO talks in two years' time may loosen up the logjam. Unless it does, the dire consequences of failure to achieve enlargement which are so well expressed in this report will follow.
This is a most stimulating report on the financial aspects of that enlargement, on which the future stability of Europe depends. It complements and extends the views held consistently by your Lordships' Select Committee, which have up to now been supported by all sides of the House. From what I have heard during this debate, in the main that support continues.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Hussey of North Bradley: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I rise since I have not long been a Member of this House and for an even shorter time a member of Sub-committee A, to which I bring more enthusiasm than knowledge.
First, I must say, although this will be well-known to your Lordships, how much I have been impressed, not just by the wide and detailed experience of my colleagues but by the respect with which the committee is held universally. We do not receive many refusals if
1544
we ask anyone to come and talk to us. Much of that is due, no doubt, to the charm, experience and skill of our chairman. That is no surprise to me as he served long and patiently at the BBC under my chairmanship. I can only say that I have learned more in my seven months under his chairmanship than he learned in seven years under mine. Moreover, we are all indebted to the skilful work of our Clerk who has an unfailing eagle eye for the right phrase or telling quote.
The European Union and the part we play in it is the most important issue facing this country today. The prospect of enlargement of the existing 15 countries by a further 10 has been described by the Foreign Secretary as an historic opportunity which must be grasped to end the divisions which have soured our continent since the last war, and to enhance security and prosperity throughout Europe.
I was born in 1923. I am younger than some, although far from all, of your Lordships. My family, like virtually every other in this country, lost close relatives in the First World War. I sensed the increasing anxiety of that generation as it saw the inevitability of the Second World War. Although we were spared invasion, we suffered grievously and we should willingly pay a high price for a Europe which will reduce the likelihood of a third world war.
Of course, the history of our country is very different from that of our continental colleagues. The last invasion we suffered, as we all know, was in 1066, nearly 1,000 years ago. All our wars have been fought overseas—away fixtures, if you like. I believe we under-estimate the appalling memories of the many countries in Europe which have suffered invasion at least once every century, and many of them, like Poland and the Low Countries, more often than that. For them, there is no price too high to pay for stability.
In the first 50 years of this century, the threat to peace stemmed mainly from central Europe. But during the second 50 years, it came primarily from the east. The Community embraces already a large proportion of western and central Europe. The latest enlargement, including Poland, Estonia, Hungary, Slovenia and the Czech Republic, makes heavy inroads into eastern Europe. Dangerous and challenging boundaries are being eliminated. For that reason, if no other, their accession is hugely beneficial to the whole of Europe.
But what will be the financial costs? They are imponderable and the difficulties formidable. We look at the forecasts. Like many I have seen—and, quite frankly, like a few I have presented—they are extremely optimistic. The budget is very tight, but it may not be sufficiently tight. All expenditure rises alongside the Community's growth. The only thing that falls is the reserves. Growth rates are forecast at 2.5 per cent. for the Community and 4 per cent. for the accession states. That is not necessarily impossible. In 1995, the candidate countries averaged a growth rate of 5.2 per cent., more than double that of the European Union. But, as we all know, forecasts of growth rates are notoriously unreliable, not necessarily through any fault of the forecasters: they are subject to so many differing and unforeseen or even unforeseeable factors. The whole edifice depends on those targets being achieved.

1545
Like the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, I too found the report of the European Parliamentary Committee disquieting. It stated that it believed that the projected growth of 2.5 per cent. was over-estimated and stated that the current ceiling of 1.27 per cent. of GDP for own resources was not necessarily inviolable, a view from which our Government and the governments of Germany, France and the Netherlands strongly dissent.
The budget depends on two issues: the first is the growth rate; the second is the reform of CAP and the structural cohesion funds which amount collectively to 80 per cent. of Community expenditure. In that context, reform means that some will receive less or others will pay more. It will be no surprise to your Lordships to hear that we have not detected any great enthusiasm for either of those policies, partly, of course, because of the startlingly contrasting interests of the northern and southern member states. It is a simple equation: if the growth rates are not achieved, either there are further cuts in expenditure or we increase our own resources to fund expansion. Solving that equation is—I use an adjective which has been used frequently this evening—a pivotal problem. One member of the Commission staff commented that the accession of so large a number of new applicants raised the question of whether the Union has the ability to carry through such an ambitious project, to tackle either the agricultural and cohesion policies, or to take the financial measures necessary for a union of 20 states to achieve its objectives.
On the other hand, there is a contingency reserve—what Commissioner Liikanen called "a margin for surprises". I am sure we all hope that the reserve turns out to be bigger than the surprises. Overall, the impact of past enlargements has been positive but they are not neutral; their impact goes further than simply extending the scope of the European Union. New members lead to new attitudes and new areas of interest. Incidentally, we must remember that the last two enlargements were eased by the raising of own resources, which is not at present on the menu.
I am an optimist, although the noble Lord, Lord Desai, may think that I am a romantic. I also hope that this enlargement will be positive. In my opinion, there is no alternative way to achieve stability, cohesion and prosperity in Europe. Whatever the difficulties and uncertainties—and some of these have been exposed with startling clarity by your Lordships—I believe that the effort must be made. The history of the European Union is the history of awesome difficulties in some unlikely fashion being ultimately resolved. We all believe and hope that this will now happen again. It is certainly in all our interests that it should.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, there has been a nice mixture of optimism, realism and scepticism in today's debate. I am sure that that is down to the quality of the report which is before us. I should like to add my thanks, as a member of the European Communities Committee, to the sub-committee and in particular to my noble friend Lord Barnett. Of course, my noble friend is so
1546
far mainly famous for his excellent formula, of which I suppose I am a personal beneficiary. I am certain that he will become equally famous throughout the EU for the incisive nature of these reports. That is a serious compliment and I trust my noble friend is aware of that.
I should like to emphasise that my contribution will be on environmental standards and the cost of compliance with them, arising out of the points made clearly in paragraph 91 of the opinion of the committee. The committee emphasised that the:
"way ahead should be for maximum help to be given to the applicant countries in terms of advice and access to investment capital and for accession to be followed by transitional periods which may need to extend over ten or more years".
My worry is that that objective of ensuring compliance with the environmental acquis communautaire over 10 years, using the target figure that has already been mentioned—for example, in the case of Poland, an increase of 2 to 3 per cent. of GDP just to meet that level—may not be realised and that that in itself will create disaffection and concern both within the applicant countries and within the existing 15 countries.
In the whole area of sustainable development, we face changes of attitude and of implementation which have been very difficult to overcome so far in the 15. We are in danger of trying to apply standards of environmental management and targeting in the five that we are not yet successfully implementing in the 15. In particular, when one looks at the area of sustainable regional development, it must be clear that we need a combination of resources from the commercial/private sector, as well as that significant amount of public investment which is always required in order to ensure infrastructural standards. In some of the calculations set out in Agenda 2000, it seems to me that we are in danger of forgetting that necessary balance between public resources and private investment, especially in levering for successful development.
In addition, there are the serious costs of enforcement of the environmental standards. We have already seen within our own experience in the 15 how difficult it is to get consistency of enforcement of such standards. We need to ensure that in the whole area the five have the benefit of the pioneering work of the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen, which some of us had the pleasure in visiting last year, along with other members of a sub-committee.
When we consider the resources which will be required to meet the environmental objectives, it will be seen that it will require investment from World Bank sources and from the private sector. There is a tremendous opportunity in investment in environmental sector technology in order to improve standards. That is a major opportunity for manufacturing companies in the existing 15 in partnership with the applicant countries. Indeed, we have the benefit in Bridgend in South Wales of one of the most advanced companies as regards the development of cellular technology for solar energy. That is merely an example of the way in which the developing technology in the 15, in partnership with the five, can create employment opportunities throughout the expanding Union.

1547
However, that means that we need to have ways of thinking about sustainable development throughout the whole Union which go beyond the approaches that we have taken in the past. It is in that context that we must see the shifting of resources from structural funds and regional development in the existing 15 into meeting environmental and other objectives in the five not only as a widening of European Union standards but also as a deepening of our own technological skills, especially in the environment technology industry.
I am concerned that the targets for transfers set out in Agenda 2000 will be difficult to achieve. I know that I am beginning to sound like a Eurosceptic, so I shall try to conclude my remarks on a more jolly note in a few minutes. But looking at the cuts suggested in Agenda 2000—namely, 0.5 billion ecu in agricultural policy, which is a 1.2 per cent. reduction, and also at that I billion ecu per annum cut in structural funds, which is a 3 per cent. cut—which are intended as transfers into accession states, I foresee political difficulties not just within the agricultural sector but also within regions in the 15 as regards obtaining political agreement for such reductions. When one looks at the transfer of funds of 10.5 billion ecu in PHARE, that again will require a clear targeting if it is to be successful in its implementation.
Therefore, when we consider what is set out in Volume I of Agenda 2000—namely, an attempt to create a twofold approach by way of partnership with the European Union and long-term realistic strategies for alignment within the accession states—and when we look at the proposal for the matching of domestic and foreign financial resources, they all seem to me to be a little aspirational. I want to see the UK presidency taking a lead as these negotiations develop seriously to ensure that funding is in place, not only matching funding from the current EU resources and from the own resources of the accession states but also from within the private sector throughout the Union and Europe for developments of that kind. If we do not get that leverage and that balance, these targets will be worse than aspirational; they will appear unachievable.
As we try to adapt our own sustainable development strategies, the integration of the environment along with other economic and social policies, and as we extend that to the accession states, that will require an imaginative approach in terms of implementation. In doing that it is important for us to pay tribute—as the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, did—to the achievement of the accession states in biodiversity and nature conservation, which certainly puts to shame the achievement of many of us in the 15.
There are environmental gains and benefits from enlargement. However, I must issue a warning that on the current performance I do not think we have sufficiently assessed the amount of expenditure involved or the extent of the task ahead. I add my warning to that given earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. I hope that the Government will take this matter seriously as part of the initiatives of their presidency. It might indeed be called "Declaration Cardiff— because it looks these days as if that is about all we shall get in Cardiff.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords. I, too, wish to congratulate the two maiden speakers today not only on the speeches that my noble friend Lord Garel-Jones and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, made, but also on the fact that they will have realised that enlargement is a continuing process. We have had earlier debates on this matter and we shall certainly have many more. I look forward to hearing from them in those future debates. The more our debating team is strengthened, the better.
At this stage of the debate it is almost inevitable that one will overlap with some of the points that have already been made. I shall try to keep that to a minimum. However, I am bound to repeat something that others have said; namely, how much we have appreciated the leadership that we have always enjoyed from our chairman. I welcome the fact that he has managed to persuade the committee to produce a report so quickly. This morning I heard certain critical comments from a noble Lord who is not present this evening. He criticised the speed with which we had worked and said how much better the report would have been had we taken a little more time. I disagree with that view. As I say, this is not the first report, and it certainly will not be the last, on the financial aspects of enlargement. It is important that we state a critical view—it is bound to be critical—as quickly as possible to try to urge a closer appreciation of the problems connected with enlargement.
The opening paragraph of the report states,
"Enlargement of the European Union to bring in the Countries of Central and Eastern Europe is no longer a dream".
That may be so. The report continues,
"there is now a practical and immediate opportunity to set a course which will re-shape the political, economic and social life of the whole continent".
Opportunities arise but they are not much good unless they are adopted and driven forward. The whole purpose of our inquiry is to see how we can change opportunity into practical steps towards realising that opportunity. I have noted a strong feeling that the member countries have not yet got down to spelling out the tough decisions and consequences that are bound up with any such enlargement, particularly the financial consequences of enlargement, on the individual national economies involved.
One has only to look at the present working of the CAP in that connection. This has been considered several times by my noble friend Lord Middleton, who has had much experience of these matters when serving on his committee. Paragraph 87 of the report states that,
"The CAP has long been in need of reform",
and that such reform is,
"pivotal to the financing of enlargement".
Yet, as our chairman has said, we are told that it is no use talking about changes in the CAP until after the German elections next year. That is true, but, of course, those are not the only elections. Elections will take place from country to country. Someone will always find it

1549
inopportune to discuss the CAP unless we are careful and unless there is a will to bring about the change. That will not be easy.
Similarly, changes are also required with regard to the structural and cohesion funds. Whatever benefits may derive from the reform of those funds, and however necessary they may be, they will not be achieved easily. The reforms and disciplines connected with enlargement must be spelt out clearly because, once enlargement takes place, it is much more difficult to change the conditions that have been set out than it would have been to get them right in the first place. However, there is a practical problem here even without enlargement. As regards the CAP. the structural funds and the cohesion funds, necessary changes must be agreed between the existing 15 members whether or not enlargement takes place. I am not quite sure whether there will have to be two stages, with the existing members agreeing on changes and then discussing them with the applicants, or whether there should be one stage of negotiations.
However these problems may be tackled, there has to be a willingness for the present 15 members to provide agreed assistance to the applicants. Equally, there has to be a willingness by the applicants to ensure that such assistance is properly used. That leads me to something that has not been mentioned so far but which I always return to because I think it is so important—I am afraid that I have mentioned it probably too many times in this place—namely, the financial discipline in the Community itself. The Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1996 has just been published. Paragraph 0.8 on page 8 states:
"Almost all chapters of this Report (and five special reports to he taken into consideration for the 1996 discharge) include observations on administration and control weaknesses which demonstrate how far the development of appropriate systems of accounting and financial management, in particular in the Member States, has failed to keep pace with the expansion of Community activities and with their diversified nature".
We have to face the fact that in the Community as it now exists there is far too much misapplied aid and downright fraud. In presenting his annual report to the MEPs the president of the Court of Auditors, Bernard Friedman. has told us that the court had covered many irregularities and cases of fraud amounting to 5.4 per cent. of the 1996 budget, which itself was 77 billion ecu. That amounts to a total figure of fraud of 3.7 billion ecu. If my mathematics are right, that is about £2.5 billion. The president continues that the court was not able to give the Commission a clean bill of health for its management of funds.
The truth is that, although we have strengthened the hands of the Court of Auditors and the Commission, much still needs to be done to ensure a proper control of Community funds. In seeking enlargement we do not want to open the door to further misuse of EU funds. We have to remember that member states are responsible for the handling of some 80 per cent. of EU funds and are themselves in large measure responsible for the proper
1550
management of them. That is why at paragraph 95 of the report we stress the importance of developing,
"strong, capable and honest administrations in all the Member States and applicant countries. The judiciary and the civil service are key institutions whose capabilities will determine the effectiveness of the implementation and enforcement of Community law and practice".
How good it was to hear the Polish representative stressing the great steps Poland was taking to improve its administration and Civil Service.
Enlargement clearly will demand a steady progress and a continuous encouragement. In no way can it be a quick-fix operation. One has only to remember that it will take 25 years or so at reasonable rates of growth for the CEECs to bring their average per capita GNP up to roughly half that of the EU 15, we state at paragraph 15.
I fully support my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf in his more cheerful view of events. It is good to have a cheerful view; we are somewhat critical. Nonetheless, it is right to emphasise that the greatest spur to progress in those applicant countries is that we keep alive the hope that they will come into the Community. Towards that end, I am much in favour of something that we mention in the report; namely, the idea of a European conference at which we can continue dialogue with those applicants. We can keep the hope alive and progress towards entry within their view as well as our own.
Finally, I have always stressed the paramount need for financial regularity if the long-term success of the European Union is to be secured. But the other great need is to retain a flexible approach to the problems that must continually arise as we go forward. I am glad to say that I believe that such an approach has a good deal more general support than might often be supposed. In support of that. I conclude with three quotations. First, at the CBI conference on 10th November 1997, William Hague stated:
"Let us not have debates about who is pro or anti European. We should all he pro European. Pro about a Europe that is flexible, not rigid; that is about diversity not uniformity: that is outward-looking, and does not turn itself into a fortress".
The second quotation is by Joachim Bitterlich, Chancellor Kohl's national security adviser. At a recent German Government conference in Berlin he said:
"I am not an integrationist. I look at what works".
Finally I cite Dr. Hans Von Ploetz. He made a wonderful witness before the inquiry. He is the top civil servant at the German Foreign Office. He was speaking at the same conference in Berlin. He said:
"After Maastricht, Germans were no longer prepared to let power flow down a one-way street to Brussels. The burden of proof had shifted.
Now we have a British element—if it ain't broke—don't fix it".
8.5 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, first and foremost, like all other members of the sub-committee I wish to thank the skilful leadership and the skilful charm of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. I wish also to join in the thanks for the able guidance of our clerk, John Goddard. I was heartened when I heard the opening comments of my noble friend Lord Bridges: he

1551
thought that the report was essential reading for anyone who had an interest in Britain's presidency of the European Union next year. It is an extremely interesting report. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, I considered myself to be one of the most junior and naïve members of the committee. It was a steep learning curve for me.
There is clearly an overwhelmingly strong case for the advantages of enlargement of the European Union in terms of peace and security as well as economic growth and development in Europe as a whole. I say that as one of the younger noble Lords who has been fortunate enough not to have been involved in a world war. It is a small price to pay. However, it is clear from the report that there are major financial and political hurdles to overcome, and that the timetable outlined in Agenda 2000 is unlikely to be met. As the Economist in a recent article headed "Welcome to Europe" stated,
"it would be hard to find a European project that arouses so many suspicions and yet produces such beneficial results".
The report highlights a number of substantial adjustment pressures, both political and economic, that accession countries will have to face in order to comply with the acquis communautaire, including the enormous challenge of promoting environmental conformity with European Union standards which is likely in several countries to have a crippling effect on their GNP. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, mentioned that Poland would need to spend 3.2 per cent. of its GNP for 10 years to achieve the environmental acquis. It is not just the money to be spent on seeking to achieve the environmental acquis, but also the challenge of the enforcement of the environment acquis.
Of course the first questions posed by the sceptics of enlargement are these. Who pays? How much? How will it affect our national economies? Paragraph 11 of the summary states,
"National governments, conscious of their electors and their approaching elections, will not wish to pay more to, or receive less from, the Community Budget than they do at present".
The point has been made about the forthcoming German elections. Clearly a key to the success of the exercise will be the need to stimulate sustained economic growth if the Community policies are to remain affordable. The figure of 2.5 per cent. has been cited. As a consultant to Merrill Lynch, I asked our chief economist whether or not that figure is achievable. While noble Lords might feel that economic predictions are unreliable, I am pleased to say that the chief economist of Merrill Lynch assured me that, even though he is a Euro-sceptic, he felt quite confident that the economic growth rate of 2.5 per cent. was achievable. Reform of the CAP is, in the words of the report,
"pivotal to the financing of enlargement".
What is evident from the report is that the relative poverty of central and eastern Europe will impose unpopular extra demands on EU farm spending and the budget for regional aid. In fact, many believe that
1552
the biggest obstacles to EU enlargement are the existing 15 countries. I again cite the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. He said,
"The real obstacle is what present members fear will happen to them".
It is apparent that enlargement is entangled with the rest of Europe's unfinished business—namely, the single currency and the need for reform of the CAP. However, ahead of the forthcoming Luxembourg European Council meeting next week, it is encouraging to see that the enlargement debate is moving to centre stage.
While the Copenhagen criteria provide a sound screening process for applicant countries likely to be admitted to the European Union. it is important—as the noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Grenfell, mentioned—that those applicant countries that did not qualify for the first phase should be encouraged to be admitted as soon as possible and not feel snubbed, thus creating potential divisions in central and eastern Europe.
I welcome the Foreign Secretary's recent announcement that, when Britain holds the EU presidency next year, it will host a special European conference to which all applicants — I stress all applicants—for membership will be invited.
While the Copenhagen criteria and the acquis require new members to take on board most EU regulations and to observe the Maastricht financial disciplines. I. like most noble Lords who have spoken today, am concerned that, if that is rigidly applied, it will not only lead to lengthy delays in new members joining the Union but also impose on applicant countries economic, monetary and environmental costs inappropriate to their need for rapid economic and political transformation. I believe that only if the EU is flexible about these pre-conditions and reasonable transition periods are allowed will the full economic and political potential be tapped and costs of enlargement contained. I stress that CAP reform is essential.
I have read estimates that up to £50 billion could be needed to integrate the five potential members in the first phase compared to the relatively low cost of NATO enlargement. I have not seen the figures for NATO enlargement but I imagine that they are substantially lower than those for economic enlargement.
A key point made by several of the witnesses, including Mrs. Hubner, head of the European Integration Office in Poland. was the importance of foreign direct investment into the applicant countries, such as Poland. Mrs Hubner mentioned how foreign direct investment into Poland had resulted in the promotion of political and economic reform and the adoption of the acquis. Should the timetable for applicant countries joining the EU be delayed too long, the potential result could be a drop in foreign direct investment in the applicant countries, which could have devastating effects. It is to he hoped that, in the words of Commissioner van der Broek:
"It is not the if. hut the when of the applicant membership that is important".

1553
In conclusion, although the attraction of NATO's defence guarantee is obvious, after decades of Communist misrule, what embattled citizens want most of all is economic stability, and for that they will look to the European Union. Those unimpressed by the historical opportunity for Europe should think of the practical benefits. In the words of the recent Economist article:
"The new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe need to shake up and deregulate their economies in order to prosper in a tough competitive world, whether they manage to join the EU or not".
If the enlargement process is postponed or delayed, the success of this much needed political and economic enterprise will be at risk. Our target must be a stable Europe that is open to the world.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I believe that the report we are debating this evening is a good one. It was prepared in what seemed to me record time in order to be available for the EU Council meeting in the next few days in Luxembourg.
The report is special for me because it is the first substantial piece of work in which I have participated since being introduced into this House in October. I challenge the claim of the noble Lord, Lord St. John, to be the baby of the committee; I believe that I am. The calibre of the committee impressed me immensely. It would be tasteless to draw comparisons with the other place where I spent 14 years, but I should like to say how highly I regard this kind of committee work which shows the value of your Lordships' House in our parliamentary system.
The members' profound knowledge of the workings of the EU, particularly the financial aspects, and their experience and judgment made this for me an exciting and challenging project. Our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, upon whom praise has been heaped this evening, played a key role. He created just the right sort of ambience for a complex project of this kind. Sometimes we were deeply analytical and serious; on other occasions we had a good laugh. Our chairman must take great credit for the report. Perhaps I should say that the rumour that the report will be officially called the "Barnett Formula Mark 2" is quite untrue.
I associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, about the committee Clerk, Mr. John Goddard, who did an extremely good job. The report could not have been produced so expeditiously without his superb help and guidance.
One of the main political reasons for enlargement is to diminish the threat of war or conflict from those countries to the east of the EU border. Security of the European continent must, in my view, be a top political priority for the European Union. Consequently, enlargement must proceed and be effective, although it will be very costly. Those high costs will lead to great political pressure to limit the scope of enlargement or to delay its progress. If that is allowed to happen, aspiring member countries could become disillusioned, with very
1554
worrying consequences. We could be risking the security of Europe. None of us should forget that the war in the former Yugoslavia is an example of how close conflict can be to us in the European Union, even in the 1990s. We should never take our national security for granted. We must always be vigilant. We should never forget the enormous loss of life, both military and civilian, amounting to about 60 million people, in the last two world wars. Many were children. The waste of lives was indescribable.
I passionately believe that enlargement is the best tool at our disposal for reducing the risks of war and conflict in Europe. Enlargement results in the coming together of nation states and their becoming institutionally bound to the EU. But that binding process is not just limited to the institutions of the EU. It also includes NATO. I am pleased to see this joining of the EU and NATO going hand in hand.
It is encouraging also that so many countries wish to join the EU. Those countries accept that before they become eligible to join they have to meet certain standards; for example, in terms of human rights, democracy, institutional reform and the environment. Those strict requirements are laid down in two key EU documents; namely, the acquis communautaire and Agenda 2000. The conditions are very stringent and demonstrate the huge difference between the EU 15 countries and those in central and eastern Europe wishing to become members of the EU, referred to in the report as the CEEC 10.
The report we are debating today illustrates the difference between the economic performances of the EU 15 and the CEEC 10. The statistic quoted by a number of speakers is the one which makes reference to that part of the report which says that to bring the average GDP per capita of the CEEC 10 to just half that of the EU 15 would take about 25 years. It is an extraordinary statistic.
What all this adds up to is that enlargement is absolutely vital to ensure the security of Europe but at the same time the preparation of the applicant countries to meet the mandatory conditions will be very costly and will take perhaps a generation to complete. The commitment required from the EU 15 countries will be enormous, but we must not be deflected from the path of enlargement.
How do we move forward? Several things need to be considered. First, the member states of the EU 15 need to be fully aware of the scale of the financial commitments that are going to arise from the enlargement programme. I attended the Labour Party European conference a week or so ago in Eastbourne, where one very informed MEP described enlargement as,
"a make or break issue for the European Union."
That is a very strong statement. Is it reasonable? The committee felt that the financial perspective of the European Union for the period 2000 to 2006 was such that the budget allocated to enlargement would be very tight. There is a very limited built-in contingency in the budget, to which my noble friend Lord Shore referred.

1555
Next, the political pressures within the EU 15, particularly from Spain and Portugal, to allocate additional structural and cohesion fund money, will create conflict when it comes to allocating funds to the applicant countries of the CEEC 10 and Cyprus. That conflict will have to be reconciled. The CAP budget is unquestionably the single largest source of money which, if diverted, could fund enlargement. The Commission and the Council of Ministers have brought forward plans for CAP reform, which is very welcome. However, that reform on its own is inadequate. The CAP budget must be substantially reduced.
The question that arises is whether such substantial reductions in the CAP budget would be achievable. The committee felt that political pressures from elected Ministers are such that member states would not countenance such reductions, certainly in the foreseeable future. In addition, the committee felt, after interviewing various witnesses, that the possibility of increasing the Community budget by raising the EU GNP ceiling from 1.27 per cent. was remote.
My own view on funding is that since many of the applicant countries are proceeding with privatisation programmes which potentially can free up enormous sums of money and other valuable resources, then those countries should be encouraged to use as effectively as possible some of those resources to attract private financial institutions to invest in their countries on structural, environmental, social and other costly projects which must be carried out in order that such applicant countries can join the European Union. I stress, however, that such a potential contribution from these countries to enlargement should not diminish the EU 15's commitment to helping them make good progress in joining the EU.
I think the House of Lords committee has done a worthwhile job in highlighting some of the financial and political dilemmas associated with enlargement. I hope the council meeting in Luxembourg will give careful consideration to how those dilemmas can be dealt with.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this is an excellent report and we have had an excellent and expert debate upon it. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, for the amount of work he has done and the speed at which it has been reported. I have a healthy respect for the European committee in this House; indeed, I also have a long family association with it. Michael Wheeler-Booth used to delight in reminding me that my wife was one of the first ever witnesses to the committee when it was formed and that he had given her a double gin and tonic to steady her nerves before she started her evidence.
I was once a special adviser to the committee and, if I remember correctly, it was on the subject of enlargement which meant Spain, Portugal and Greece at the time. I held the then chairman, Lord Trevelyan, in great awe. As I recall, the entire committee went to Brussels with its special adviser and met a number of commissioners and had an excellent lunch. So something has gone wrong between 1978 and 1997 in
1556
the way that things happen now. As it is rightly said, we travel in twos and threes, carefully selected on these occasions.
As a new member of the Select Committee I have been parachuted into the chairmanship of the junior sub-committee, if I may so describe it. The third pillar is now one of the most sensitive and active areas of the European Union. We were told, when two of us were allowed to travel to Brussels in July—I went with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—that a third of the paper currently going through the Council's secretariat and more than a third of the meetings were now on the third pillar. Papers are coming out on the impact of enlargement, on justice and on home affairs and—heaven knows!—asylum, immigration and organised crime. That is a large number of issues which we are trying, in our small way, to investigate.
What I most liked about the report was the balance it achieved between the strategic objectives and the hard detail. That seems to me to be the most important thing about approaching enlargement. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, talked of not getting over romantic about this subject. But there are powerful interests at stake in making a success of enlargement. I remember in the mid-1980s—as I am sure the noble Lord does—the Cecchini Report on the costs of non-Europe, which powerfully argued the case that completing the single market through the 1992 programme was in our clear economic interest. One can imagine how one would now set about a report on the costs of non-enlargement.
We were spending a great deal more on defence up until 1989 than we are today. As my noble friend Lady Ludford pointed out, we are spending a great deal on Bosnia, having failed to manage the transition in Yugoslavia. The Germans and the Italians in particular are spending a great deal on half a million refugees from Yugoslavia, Albania and elsewhere. So there are costs in non-enlargement as well as in enlargement. There is also certainly a moral obligation, which we all feel, that matey of these countries have suffered from the results of World War II and the failure of the western powers "resolve resolve the consequences of World War II. There is also the question of what we mean by a European community or a European identity. In this respect one has to talk in rhetorical, romantic and emotional terms. The pace of enlargement, the way in which we lock the peoples of these countries into a broader European community, European society, European family of democracies, European market and European economy, matters. That is why the pace at which we approach the process of enlargement matters.
In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said that he did not quite understand what was meant by the regatta principle. As a young man I belonged to a rowing eight. The concept is entirely clear to me. In modern Olympic regattas, eight crews start at the same time but one or two of them reach the finishing line long before the slowest ones. But watching this process, I have a different image. It is what I used to do—tideway rowing. You rowed very fast down the Thames when the tide was with you and back extremely slowly. I fear that what we are doing with these countries is asking

1557
them to row up the tideway against the tide. It is important that we should provide a rather warmer flow of water than we are currently providing.
It is the characteristic style of west European governments in approaching European negotiations, to become lost in the detail. That, unfortunately, is the way in which the European Community was designed and is the way in which all governments, including our own, tend to behave. The record of the Commission on enlargement, as on most other matters, is slightly better than that of member governments. Agenda 2000 is a creditable report. It sets out a number of hard choices which most member governments do not want to accept. I do not think it is too strong to say that most member governments are in denial over enlargement. They want to put it off for as long as possible. They come up with phrases like "first reform, then enlargement", meaning that they are not too sure about reform of agriculture, institutions or whatever it may be. Attitudes in Germany are affected by the high and unexpected costs of unification. Attitudes in France are affected by the tremendous crisis of society, state and economy through which the country is going. If we look at our own record. I remember a former British Minister of Agriculture proudly announcing in another place on the conclusion of the Europe agreements that he had safeguarded the interests of Scottish raspberry growers in the course of the negotiations. That is going a very long way down into detail when talking about the future stability and security of Europe.
I find it very saddening that the Community as a whole has taken so much less generous an attitude to this enlargement than it did to the Mediterranean one. We were willing to increase spending for Greece, Spain and Portugal. We were not put off by the extent to which Portugal was an undeveloped country—more like Romania than the Czech Republic in 1977-78. Portugal has made a tremendous success of being in the European Union since then. We were also extremely generous to Spain. We ought to be reminding the Spanish Government of that now as they set out to do their best to block all economic and financial generosity to the new entrants. We are in severe danger, as Polish Ministers have said on many occasions, of asking the applicants to adjust—and they are adjusting remarkably rapidly and well—without being willing to adjust ourselves.
Perhaps I may remark on a few points which the report did not flag. The costs of the future stability of Europe do not stop with EU enlargement. Most governments have their own national programmes. Most generous are the Germans who have given a great deal of bilateral assistance to Russia and the Ukraine. We have our own small programme. The Know-how Fund is not particularly large, but from what I have seen in central and eastern Europe, it seems to be one of the most effective training programmes. Various noble Lords have mentioned NATO enlargement, the cost of which has now been reduced to within the range which the US Senate is prepared to accept. There is also the
1558
question of Turkey and of stabilising those other countries which will not join within the foreseeable future or may never join—Ukraine and Russia itself.
I recall at the Barcelona Conference in November 1995 the announcement of a very large package of aid for the Mediterranean countries which I thought at the time was unlikely ever to be disbursed and I assume—perhaps the Minister in replying can tell us—has not yet been disbursed. It was to be of the order of two-thirds of the assistance provided for the Europe agreement countries over the next 10 years.
How do we pay for this? We should not get hung up on whether we can expect 2 per cent. growth or 2.5 per cent. growth. Incidentally, my understanding is that the Polish economy grew by between 6 and 7 per cent. last year. So some of them are doing better than expected rather than worse than expected. If we are to be tough about how we pay for it, we have to insist—I hope the British Government and presidency will set out to insist—that governments graduate from the structural funds, that the cohesion funds must shrink. and that Ireland, having done extraordinarily well-8 per cent. of GNP and now rapidly approaching the same GNP per head as the United Kingdom—must of course graduate away from the structural funds. So must much of Spain, and so, necessarily, must much of Britain. I shall regret no longer having such things as that wonderful notice we have had for the past 18 months as one walks down to the station at Saltaire which says,"Your new footpath, paid for by the European Union", and all those little badges one sees scattered across northern England. But perhaps that is what we shall have to do without in future.
We also need to reform the Union's own resources. The committee's report just touched on that. One of the biggest scandals in the European Union is that Denmark is still a net beneficiary of the Union budget. I also regard it as deeply hypocritical that the Dutch have suddenly discovered that the European Union costs them money since they have now at last become a net contributor. Various people, including the leader of the Dutch Liberal Party, now go around saying, "We cannot afford to pay any more". Clearly, the Dutch. as a relatively wealthy people, ought to be paying more.
We need to have a wider definition of burden sharing. I have just seen a paper prepared for some transatlantic discussions on burden sharing which links together how much each European state is paying towards the European Union budget, towards development assistance and towards defence. Placing things in that wider context is not only fair but is also of some advantage to this country in the overall picture since we are one of the larger payers on defence. But we shall achieve that kind of redefinition only if our political leaders are prepared to redefine the issue and if we can place the details within the wider context. What distresses me most about the governments of western Europe, our own included, is the failure of imagination, the failure to understand that we are engaged in the reconstruction of a wider Europe and the construction of a stable democratic and prosperous Europe, and that it is worth spending a certain amount of money in order to achieve that larger goal. Rhetoric—even

1559
romanticism—has a role to play in catching the public imagination and in persuading politicians of all parties and the broader public that this is a goal worth pursuing and an investment worth making. We need to have our political leaders making speeches on that at home as well as abroad.
This is a challenge for the British presidency. It is something we may hope to see in the statement of objectives of the British presidency which is due at the end of this week. If leading Europe means anything in terms of language, this is the direction in which the United Kingdom should be leading it. That message should be addressed very clearly to the rest of the European Union as well as to the British public.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I join with all those who have spoken in this debate in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and the members of Sub-committee A on producing something which clearly is a remarkably helpful report, particularly so given that it has been produced in a short time on the eve of the Council meeting in Luxembourg. I hope that those at the meeting will have the opportunity of receiving the report. Perhaps the Government will consider ensuring an adequate supply of the document in Luxembourg—one might even suggest that copies of this debate should also be available. If one were convening a conference to discuss these issues on a Europe-wide basis, then perhaps one should take into account that many or even all of those who have spoken today have such a degree of expertise that their views are of considerable importance in dealing with what is an immensely difficult problem.
Everyone who has spoken has come out strongly in favour of enlargement, with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who had some qualifications. Equally, everyone has recognised that there are immense difficulties regarding the financial arrangements.
Perhaps I may be parochial for a moment and take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. For the past three Parliaments, as chairman of the Liaison Committee in the House of Commons which consists only of chairmen of Select Committees, I have had the rather unusual task of allocating the very scarce funds available for overseas travel. The result is that I probably do not have a friend left in the place. I have always taken the view that, if a Select Committee is travelling, if at all possible—and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Shaw, will agree with me—it is very important that everyone on the committee should travel together. If it is the case that in this House limits are imposed whereby only two or three go, that is an absurd economy and something to which this House should give attention. It is not simply that if some go and others do not, the ones left behind do not understand exactly what the situation is, but also they do not have the opportunity of getting together and taking part in discussions. Therefore, I urge those responsible to look at this matter very carefully indeed.
1560
I congratulate both the maiden speakers. My noble friend Lord Garel-Jones brought to the debate his experience at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He has always had a very clear view on the issues that we are discussing today. We congratulate him for that. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, made a speech which was perhaps a little more controversial than is sometimes the case with maiden speeches.
All those who have spoken have made very important contributions and have recognised that this is a matter of the utmost importance. The previous Conservative Government did so; they were among the first to call for enlargement of the European Union and the Conservative Party vigorously supports enlargement. Enlargement will undoubtedly enhance the security and prosperity of everyone in Europe and we want it to be successful, sustainable and affordable.
Perhaps I may now pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, regarding the jargon. This is a subject which is slightly bedevilled by jargon. There seems to be a distinction between whether it was a five-plus-one kind of arrangement which the committee favoured, or a so-called regatta approach. My experience of regattas is confined to sailing very small sailing boats rather than rowing. One can have a regatta of two kinds. There is one where everyone starts simultaneously (which I gather is what the jargon implies) but there is also the regatta with a handicap and where some start ahead of others.
If we are to have a five-plus-one system where some have a start, then it is tremendously important that the time difference and the handicap which the others suffer is not so great that they become disillusioned, despondent, and one might almost say dangerous. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, made a very powerful speech on that point. He stressed how important it was that we should ensure that all potential applicants should feel that they are involved in a process which, whatever the timing may be, is one in which they are participating. As has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, it may be that those who start at the back reach the finishing tape before those who start ahead of them in the first stages.
The report refers briefly to institutional reform and particularly whether there should be a change in the number of commissioners and the voting on the council. That is not primarily what we are concerned with tonight. We are concerned primarily with the question of costs. Three possible sources were identified in the report, although the noble Lord, Lord Shaw of Northstead, managed to produce a fourth—namely, if fraud, and so forth, were dealt with properly by the Court of Auditors, one might find an amount of about 2.5 billion ecu, a not inconsiderable amount, could be put towards the objective that we are seeking to address this evening.
As regards growth, the noble Lord, Lord Shaw, dealt with it in very considerable detail. Clearly, the assumptions which have been made may turn out to be invalid. Therefore, that is a very serious problem. Similarly, on the own resources issue and raising the limit, the report stresses the very real political

1561
difficulties arising from that matter. The other source mentioned was of savings on agriculture or on other funds.
In that context I pick up one particular point. The committee stresses very much the size of the task ahead of us. In its opening paragraphs it stresses that,
"The enlargement now foreseen is of a different order of magnitude from any that has happened in the past. It is a challenge of momentous consequence".
That is certainly the case. The report continues,
"National governments, conscious of their electors and approaching elections, will not wish to pay more to, or receive less from, the Community Budget than they do at present".
So there is here a very real problem. It is hoped that the Council of Ministers meeting in a few days' time will do something to help. It is true that national governments have not recognised, as the committee does, the sheer scale of the enlargement undertaking. I quote from the report at paragraph 28. The committee emphasises very clearly the size of the problem. The report states,
"Using figures for 1995, if enlargement brought in to the existing Union of fifteen Member States all ten of the applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the Union's population would grow from 371.6 million to 476.9 million; and the area of the Union would expand [enormously]: both population and area would expand by roughly one third".
I believe that that gives us some idea of the scale of the problem.
The report continues—and this is important—
"In terms of GDP per capita and of the proportion of the workforce employed in agriculture the differences between the EU 15"
and the 10 are enormous. The difference in purchasing power is pointed out. If one took the figure in 1995 as 100, the figure for the applicants is only 30. The percentage employed in agriculture was 5.3 per cent. among the 15 countries and 22.5 per cent. among the 10. That is very important.
Coming to this matter fresh (as I do in a way which members of the committee do not) as I have listened to the debate I have been a little puzzled. Many noble Lords have said that the important thing is to make economies in the CAP. That is certainly an important issue and perhaps I may expand on it for a moment. When the question of Britain first joining the EEC, as it then was, arose—and on balance, I came down strongly in favour—it seemed that there was a trade-off between the advantages of the single market for most things and the disadvantages of the EEC with regard to agriculture. It has always been a great puzzle that any first-year economics student would have no difficulty in explaining the appalling problems which arise from the present system of agricultural support through the CAP but, however overwhelming those first-year economics arguments may be, politicians have never taken any notice. As an economist, I have always regarded that with great regret. In this context, the figures that I quoted earlier are important. The number of people employed in agriculture will increase enormously. Therefore, the political pressures on the agricultural side will also increase considerably.
1562
We are left with a strange situation which I do not think the committee fully addressed. On the one hand, we are saying that we must find economies in the CAP in order to finance enlargement; but, on the other hand, those who are applying for membership believe that there will be great advantages in joining the CAP. However, the voting pressure, if I may put it that way, will be to spend more, not less. I found no analysis in the committee's report of how that will balance out. I found no reference to how the reduction in the cost of the CAP for existing members relates to the likely increase in costs for the new members.
Paragraph 51, on page 15, contains a most interesting statement by Commissioner Liikanen, pointing out the disruptive effects which would follow the application of the present CAP to Poland: agricultural income would go up by 47 per cent. "overnight" and investment would move from services and industry to agriculture where, given the strict quota system for production, the price of land would be forced up:
"it would fully collapse the structure there"—
that is, in Poland. I shall not expand the argument any further, but I do not think that we have given sufficient attention to the relationship between the CAP for the existing members and how things might look if enlargement is eventually successful, as we hope.
Generally speaking, I very much welcome the move towards a more efficient CAP with lower consumer prices, a move towards world market prices and a move to direct income aid. However, I still hearken after the system of support that we had in this country before joining the EEC which did not put up consumer prices and where we knew exactly what it was costing the taxpayer and the consumer. Despite the excellence of this report, I believe that we shall still need to consider such issues in greater detail on a future occasion.
I turn now to the move towards economic and monetary union. The committee did not deal with this in great detail, but I think it is true to say that the move towards economic and monetary union has, as the noble Lord, Lord Shore, pointed out, had a serious effect on the level of economic activity in a number of other European countries as they seek to meet the Maastricht criteria. My own feeling is that it is important to remember the fundamental argument against the single currency, which is that one is giving up for all time the major means of adjusting for differential movements in costs and prices. If one goes ahead without an adequate degree of convergence, one will find either that there is perpetual unemployment in some areas or that one has to make massive subventions from one country to another. If that is so, I fear—and this is a personal view—that if the Union goes ahead on schedule and with the present degree of convergence, there is a serious risk that it will not work and that it will break down. As has already been pointed out, that would be disastrous for the prospects for enlargement and for our economies generally. I feel that the great pressure to go ahead towards economic and monetary union for, I think, political reasons, should be viewed, in the context of enlargement, with considerable concern.

1563
If the single currency goes ahead and does not break down, clearly some countries will be members while others are not. That poses a problem with regard to the unity of the Union. Clearly, those members which are now applying to join EMU, or which wish to join, will find the problems facing them in the foreseeable future very difficult. The report points out the stark reality of the extent to which those countries are out of line with the other 15. That is a cause for concern, but at the same time it will be a very long while before they converge sufficiently for them to be able to join a single currency if, indeed, it goes ahead and if it is successful.
Finally, I believe that all noble Lords who have spoken are in favour of enlargement. The report has been helpful in highlighting the real problems that we face, but perhaps we should recall the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf: we need to press on with this in a direction which we believe is essential and important for our future security as a country, and despite all the difficulties, do all that we can to solve them.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I begin by echoing the widespread thanks that have been paid to the committee for its thorough, clear and exceptionally timely report. I thank also my noble friend Lord Barnett for his cogent exposition of the report. The reputation of your Lordships' House and of its Select Committees is continuously enhanced around Europe, even at the highest level, by the quality of such reports. This is a great addition to that record.
I am delighted to add to the congratulations paid to the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, on his maiden speech in this House. It demonstrated his vast experience of European matters which will doubtless inform and enlighten the House in the months to come. I even agreed with much of what he said.
I pay very special congratulations to my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone for her forthright and effective maiden speech, giving an environmental dimension which was perhaps absent from some of the other contributions. When I was general secretary of the Labour Party and we were trying to increase the party's membership, I was constantly reminded that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds had three times as many members. The Labour Party has since increased its membership, but the RSPB still has three times as many members. I do not think that that has anything to do with the British public's preference for cuckoos over canvassing; it has more to do with the quality of the RSPB's chief executive.
Enlargement is one of the most awesome projects facing us in the modern world. The UK Government, like their predecessors, support enlargement of the Community. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that the European Commission has done extremely good work in pointing out the difficulties and the strategy in Agenda 2000. The Government endorse the Commission's recommendations and agree that there are five countries ready to begin formal accession talks.
1564
During our presidency we shall work to secure the opening of those accession talks. I refer to the five central European countries plus Cyprus.
At the same time, the Government believe that the enlargement process should be all-inclusive; it should include the other applicants. The European conference proposed to be held in February should be open to all applicants who aspire to EU membership. A reinforced pre-accession strategy is required to ensure that all applicants remain fully engaged in that process. For example, countries like Slovakia could, with relative ease, catch up with some of the so-called first wave applicants. In the case of Slovakia, much is in its government's own hands. Principally it is the lack of democratic and political credentials that blocks its inclusion in the first group. In other cases it will be more difficult. Very strenuous efforts will be required to deal with economic, environmental, administrative and legal matters in Romania, Lithuania and Latvia. Despite the terrible recent economic performance of Bulgaria, it is possible that during the process of negotiations that country can catch up.
Therefore, the European conference is not a one-off event but an inclusive process. Earlier my noble friend Lord Barnett showed a regrettable lack of knowledge about voting techniques. That has been put right by noble Lords on two Front Benches opposite. The regatta approach requires that everyone starts at the same time if at different speeds. It is beyond the elite of European politicians to find an appropriate sporting term for the alternative which is to start at intervals. Without indulging in puns, we thought that motor racing and pole position were relevant here. However, perhaps motor racing is not the most favourite topic on this side of the House at the moment.
Nevertheless, the process is clear. As my noble friend Lord Grenfell and the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, emphasised, those who are not in the supposed first wave are still part of the process. It is very important that whatever sporting term is used everyone is in the race. Therefore, the other five countries, including Turkey—in a slightly different capacity—must participate in the conference.
Enlargement can enhance peace, democracy, stability, prosperity and human rights; it can stimulate economic growth and competitiveness both for the west and eastern Europe. It can reduce potential migratory pressures. Although it will cost money, it can engage substantially in the environmental clean-up that is needed in eastern Europe. But there is a cost. As my noble friend Lord Barnett and others said, we cannot meet the costs of enlargement without radical reform of the way in which the European Union currently does business. No one is ever enthusiastic about paying more, and that applies to both governments and people. But I believe that there is a universal understanding among the governments of Europe that enlargement will have a net cost for almost all existing member states. The concern is to keep that cost to a sensible and affordable level and to ensure that no single member state faces a disproportionate burden.

1565
To keep the costs affordable we must put the European Union's policies and institutions in a fit state for enlargement. National governments have very difficult decisions to make. For example, it would not be sensible or affordable for the common agricultural policy in its present form to be extended to the new members, even over a long time scale. For the reasons explained, it is not in the interests of Poland to increase the income of the Polish agricultural sector which that country recognises is in need of restructuring and modernisation. Therefore, one is talking about long time scales for transition but also about reform within that time scale domestically inside existing European Union countries. All of this means that the Agenda 2000 negotiations are even more difficult than discussions on any previous EU financial package.
There are some in this country who believe that any increase in cost is to be condemned. We reject that view. Despite its budgetary costs, enlargement is likely to be a good deal for the UK even if the reckoning is kept to economics. The benefit of trade with burgeoning new markets in the east will outweigh the budgetary cost. More importantly, there is a common realisation of the wider security, economic and military benefits of enlargement which mean that ultimately all existing member states will be prepared to face up to the financial cost. However, that financial cost must be managed and limited. To do that will require policy reform.
The Commission's Agenda 2000 has been examined by the Council of Ministers for the past few months. That examination has revealed broad, although as yet not unanimous, agreement that radical reform of the Union's agricultural policy and the structural funds is needed. The political will to make those changes is increasing but it is not yet fully there. Both the committee and noble Lords have commented upon the CAP. The Government are absolutely committed to radical reform of the CAP. As my noble friend Lady Young and other noble Lords pointed out, there is no point in exporting the cost and the damage that the existing CAP can do to eastern Europe.
The Government agree that EU funding will need to be augmented by resources from the international financial institutions. We agree with the committee that the building of strong, honest and democratic institutions should be given high priority. We also agree with the committee on the need for further institutional reforms as soon as possible and the importance of private investment and trade and capital flows.
However, there is one rather substantial area of disagreement with the conclusions of the committee. I believe that it is a matter of tactics rather than strategy. We agree that the own resources ceiling is not likely to be increased above the 1.27 per cent. of Community GNP for the period beyond 1999. But we also believe that, provided the decisions are taken on policy reform, that ceiling will prove adequate. We have not yet reached that ceiling. A very substantial growth in the process and a very substantial underspend in some of the budgets now and, as the noble Lord, Lord Shaw
1566
of Northstead, pointed out, adequate application of the Court of Auditors' recommendations would find further money within that budget.
Therefore, we cannot agree with the report's conclusions that we should now decide to have a review of the own resources ceiling before the year 2002. There are different ways in which the Union can deal with the financial challenge of enlargement. The first is to postpone enlargement purely on financial grounds. But if additional resources must be found the Union has the choice of increasing total resources or making the existing total go further. We believe that by suggesting a mid-term review of the own resources ceiling, the committee is ostensibly trying to keep open both options. We believe that that would put off reform rather than accelerate it.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. On that point, does he accept that if the growth figures over the next two years fall short of the assumptions made by the Agenda 2000 report there might then be the necessity for a review; otherwise the limited funds that are now required for expansion would not be there?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was coming to the estimates for growth, and I shall deal with the point now. The report estimates growth of 2.5 per cent. It is clearly prudent for us to have some contingencies around that figure. We do not believe that the figure would fall substantially below 2 per cent., but even with a slight variation there would obviously be greater pressures on the budget ceiling than there are in the mainstream estimation within the report. That seems to increase the necessity for ensuring that reform takes place whereas a declaration now that we will review in 2002 seems to take some of the pressure off the necessity for reform.
We do not agree with the committee's recommendation for a mid-term review of the ceiling. Obviously, if circumstances change, a review may well be necessary. To declare it now would, as I said, take the pressure off the need for reform. The Government therefore insist that there can be no increase in the own resources ceiling. In that we are in good company. The great majority of member states have a similar view. It is one of the strongest levers we have to press for policy reform which, as the committee suggests, is essential for enlargement.
We agree with the committee that governments must look closely at all the figures. They must tell their own electorates the implications of the figures. We do not want to do anything that will reduce the pressure for reform.
I shall deal with one or two of the other points raised during the debate. The receipt of structural funds has clearly been of great benefit to many UK regions, as in other countries. I do not believe that the outcome of the current negotiations will be as cataclysmic as my noble friend Lord Desai suggested, but there will be changes. We do not yet know the outcome of the negotiations.

1567
There will clearly be pressures not just from the UK regions but from Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland on those fronts.
On cohesion funds, the Commission proposes no increase from 1999-2006. We agree that there is a problem in relation to the definition of what cohesion funds are for. We should not over-estimate their significance. Even by 2006 the figure will be under 7 per cent. of total structural and cohesion fund expenditure.
A number of noble Lords referred to the recommendation that more co-ordination should be adopted by western European countries on the expansion of NATO and the EU. I agree that the costs of both should be considered and that there is a vital security dimension to the expansion of EU and NATO. The costs of NATO will be much lower than the cost of EU enlargement. Those costs have been assessed recently. The Government will shortly be able to give further details of them.
I need to respond to my noble friend Lord Desai who accused some of us who advocate enlargement of being romantic and emotional. I confess to being a little romantic and emotional about these things. When I was a young man I travelled quite extensively. In the early 1960s I visited rural Ireland, autarkic and fascist Portugal, and communist Czechoslovakia. Many parts of Ireland and Portugal were virtually third world. Czechoslovakia, although apparently more advanced, was repressed, albeit with a slight air of hope which all too soon was taken away by Brezhnev's tanks.
As has been said in the debate, Ireland is now at 90 per cent. of the EU average, on a par with the UK. Portugal, like Spain, is a burgeoning society committed to democracy and with an impressive economic record, much of that due to the efforts of its own people. A large part of the economic improvement and the consolidation of democracy in Portugal, Spain and Greece has been aided immeasurably by their membership of the EU. Regrettably, Czechoslovakia, like the rest of central Europe, went backwards from the 1960s both in terms of its economy and human rights.
In the way that we helped Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece, we owe it to the Czechs and the other countries of eastern and central Europe which have suffered 40 years of communist repression, fascist repression and, before that, war, to help them to come into the democratic world of western Europe. In the end, it was not western pressure; the people of those countries defeated communist governments in a remarkable and almost bloodless revolution. We spent 40 years spending vast sums of money on military hardware when we thought they were pawns in Soviet expansionism. I find it difficult to reconcile that with being begrudging about the relatively small sums of money which we need to find in order to bring those countries into the European Union.
The Government wish it to be on record that they agree with the committee on the potential costs of enlargement and the uncertainties surrounding it. We do not in any way regard those uncertainties as reasons for delay. Quite the opposite. Enlargement negotiations and
1568
ratification will take time. Even successful outcomes will be subject to lengthy transitional periods. Internal institutional and financial reform must take place in the interim, but we must start this process now.
In a few days' time, the Prime Minister will go to the summit in Luxembourg seeking progress on at least the principles for that institutional and budgetary reform. But it will be under the British presidency that we will see the first momentous steps in the European conference and in the bilateral formal negotiations towards creating a common European home for eastern and western Europe. The Prime Minister will be launching that British presidency tomorrow and enlargement will be central to his themes. This Government stand ready to undertake their historic responsibility in that respect, but at the same time we are humble enough to continue to take advice from your Lordships' committee and from my noble friend Lord Barnett.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those final remarks. I am delighted to hear that the Government will take note of all but one of our recommendations. I thank all noble Lords, particularly members of my committee, for their kind and generous remarks about my contribution. It was the committee's work, and I was delighted and honoured to have the pleasure of chairing such distinguished and able colleagues.
I thank the maiden speakers. When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, I thought that I was in the wrong debate. European monetary union was only briefly mentioned in our report, but he and my noble friend Lord Shore could not resist mentioning it. We had the single currency argument all over again. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, because I agree with him. However, my noble friend Lord Shore knows that I agree with him on most issues but I disagree with him entirely on anything to do with the EU. I disagreed with him again today. I thank both maiden speakers for two excellent speeches. My noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone was good on the environment. I am sure that the House was delighted to hear both maiden speeches and the non-maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
I am delighted by the way in which the House received our report because I like to think that it was an excellent report. Perhaps I may make one comment to my noble friend Lord Whitty about his disagreement with our recommendation on a possible review of the own resources issue. Although I was not happy, I was not too surprised to hear what he said. In some ways, I was pleased because it means that the Government may have read the report. I was worried that they may not have done so. It elicited from my noble friend an answer to a question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, which included the words "if circumstances change". I noted those words carefully in a speech by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another context. I hope that they will enable us to join a single currency well before a fixed time of five years. But that is another matter. I assume

1569
that my noble friend used the words "if circumstances change" with the authority of the Cabinet itself. I see him smiling in agreement and I hope that I am not upsetting him too much. I do not want to see him sacked because he is a good Minister.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, reminded me of the days when we used to debate across the Floor of another place. I was not surprised to hear a highly intelligent contribution. He referred to the problems of agriculture and what they might be with the incoming countries. I did not refer to it before but it is worth quoting a reply from Mrs. Hübner. It is Question 39 on page 11 from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. Mrs. Hübner was an excellent witness and she said that:
"there is a myth of Polish agriculture which is based on the real agriculture of Poland that we had in the past. The last census, the 1996 census, I think shows that Polish agriculture is not as it is presented very often. First of all, it is not for example, 28 per cent. of the population, it is just 25. Out of the 25, one third, more or less, depends on the income from agriculture. Around 50 per cent. work".
That demonstrates to me that one should be extremely careful about the use of statistics. The plain fact is that when it comes to agriculture in Poland, the people are not selling what they produce. They produce for the family and one member of the family or another works elsewhere. So that destroys many of the statistics we often take too much for granted.
I learned my own lessons this evening from the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Wallace of Saltaire. They gave me an explanation of the regatta approach, to start negotiations with the 10, rather than the five plus one which we should prefer. I had not realised—and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, obviously did not realise—that it could be a handicap race. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is a former senior athlete in other fields. He knows about these matters and he said that it may be a handicap. I hope that it will not be a handicap when we come to start negotiating on a bilateral arrangement.
It has been an absolutely excellent debate and I am obliged to everyone who has taken part in it. I hope it will be helpful and I hope that it will be read widely. I hope that somebody will take note of the recommendation that copies of our report should be made available to those attending the meeting of the Council in Luxembourg on 12th December. It will be extremely good reading for them. I hope that they will take note of the majority of our recommendations. We know that at least one recommendation will not be accepted by the Government. If they take note of our report, I hope and believe that that may contribute to a successful enlargement which will be to the benefit of all concerned.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Equal Opportunities in Companies
9.22 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camdenrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will amend the Companies Act to include a requirement for companies to set out in their annual reports their equal opportunities policies in relation to age, disability, gender and race and what steps they are taking to further those policies.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to commend to the House a modest measure concerning equal opportunities. In doing so, I apologise to the House that we are debating this measure much later than I had originally thought.
Our economy and society is weakened and damaged if people are excluded from opportunities in employment simply on the basis of arbitrary and unfair stereotypes and preconceptions, whether they are on grounds of age, gender, race, disability or for any other reason. We have had measures on the statute book for more than 20 years in relation to discrimination based on race and sex. More recently, we have acquired regulation of discrimination on grounds of disability.
When in opposition, my party made known its intention to introduce legislation concerning age discrimination, in which I have taken a particular interest, notably in supporting the work of the Carnegie Third Age Programme. I was one of several who spoke in your Lordships' House as long ago as 1994 in a debate on the Carnegie Report on the Third Age introduced by my noble friend Lord Stallard. In that debate noble Lords from all parties joined in condemning the waste and folly of debarring experienced and willing older people from work simply because they were over a certain age. That report was widely welcomed and respected for the quality of its research and analysis.
If the intentions relating to age become law, we shall have in place a comprehensive set of statutes regulating the major causes of discrimination which will fill the present unfortunate vacuum created by the exclusion of age from legislative attention. It will remove any last impression that ageism is a form of discrimination which is seen as less important in the eyes of Parliament.
Let us not assume that this is an insignificant problem. The total number of registered unemployed people of all ages today is 1.46 million; that, of course, is the claimant count and many of us believe that the actual number of unemployed is rather higher than that. The number of people over 50, but under normal retirement age, who are either registered unemployed or classified as economically inactive—and I emphasise the phrase "economically inactive"—is 2.8 million.
Although the passing of legislation against age discrimination would represent good and valuable progress, we may have to wait quite a long time to see it enacted. In requiring companies to set out their equal opportunities policies in annual reports I believe that the Government would be sending out a clear signal of their intentions. It would be an early warning, a precursor to change that employers should prepare for and heed.

1571
The various statutes which are already in place have served us reasonably well, both in outlawing the worst forms of discrimination and in acting as a deterrent to employers. But none of us can be satisfied with progress when we look around us. Ethnic minorities still experience much higher rates of unemployment and hold a lower proportion of skilled jobs than white people; women are still seriously under represented in senior managerial jobs, as well as in Parliament.
For some six years I was a member of the Equal Opportunities Commission. The commission did and still does valuable work in enabling both men and women to enforce anti-discrimination law, but inequalities still remain. While on the subject of the EOC, I was somewhat concerned to receive a letter from the chairman in the past two or three days indicating that the commission is under the impression that its grant-in-aid could be cut. That would be a great pity because, as I understand it, the commission was given the impression a year ago that its grant-in-aid would not be cut, or reviewed, for another two years. It is quite obvious that the equality programme of the present Government requires the assistance of a body like the EOC. I shall be glad to hear from my noble friend the Minister what the situation is in relation to the commission's grant-in-aid.
My proposition to your Lordships is based on my belief that legislation to deal with these matters is necessary but not sufficient. Parliament has the power and responsibility to influence both behaviour and attitudes through the statutes which it approves. However, real changes in attitudes and behaviour will only come about if employers are convinced not only that it is legally prudent but also that it is in their business interest to eradicate all forms of unfair discrimination from their businesses.
My proposal is that the Companies Act should be amended to require employers within its scope (those employing over 250 people) to include in their annual reports a simple statement covering the employer's equal opportunities policy—namely, the policies relating to gender, race, age and disability—and the steps being taken to further it. At present, the Act requires employers to give information on their policies concerning disabled employees and on the steps being taken to encourage and implement employee involvement and participation. I suggest to the House that this is a partial, though important, treatment of discrimination and that the measure I propose would represent an opportunity to encourage employers to view equal opportunities in a much more integrated and comprehensive way. Such a requirement would also constitute a regular reminder to businesses that these are matters which merit attention and policy at the most senior level.
I have been encouraged in considering whether to put forward the proposal by the knowledge that it is unlikely to be seen as either controversial or unduly onerous. These policies already exist in many forward-looking, enlightened businesses. Where they do not exist, they should. This measure would be an important spur to their creation.
1572
I also draw noble Lords' attention to the decisions which have been taken by many leading employers to include such statements of their own accord and without any statutory requirement to do so. I refer, for example, to such employers as SmithKline Beecham, Northern Foods, the BBC, Booker and Zeneca. We shall not rectify the damage caused by unfair discrimination through laws alone, important and essential though they are. We need action on several fronts, gradually and steadily bringing it home to employers that the arbitrary exclusion of people from employment for reasons which have nothing to do with their ability to do the job in question is totally unacceptable and has no place in the modern workplace. Not only are such practices inequitable and deeply frustrating for those affected by them; they also deprive employers who practise them of the real business benefits of a diverse and balanced workforce and of the widest possible range from which to select and recruit.
The House may agree with my view that unfair discrimination is rarely practised out of malice or prejudice, although I acknowledge that neither is unknown. Much more frequently it comes about through ignorance and neglect. Carnegie's work on age discrimination, for example, reveals that it often occurs as a result of relatively junior recruitment staff using age limits as an effective but unfair way of cutting down long lists of applicants. Sometimes, too, it occurs because those making appointments are worried about having people working for them who are older than themselves and who may show them up through their greater experience and maturity. Neither practice stands up to any objective scrutiny. They ignore the examples of intelligent employment of older people, for example, as mentors and trainers, as a source of recruitment when younger people are not available, and as the all important memory of an organisation without which the lessons of experience are dangerously ignored. But the abuses and prejudices are likely to be eradicated only if a business has in place a genuine set of policies and practices endorsed at the most senior level and reinforced by example and monitoring.
The measure which I propose is aimed precisely to bring that standard of employment policy into place on a much more widespread basis. It is, moreover, a proposal which has been specifically endorsed and welcomed by the TUC and its affiliated unions. It would represent a standard against which good practice could be audited and measured by employers themselves, by organisations representing their employees and by interested external organisations. It is not an artificial, externally imposed standard but one designed by the individual business to suit its own circumstances.
I commend this measure to the House as a valuable means of maintaining momentum in the promotion of equal opportunities. This is a topic which requires regular stimulus and promotion. It calls for many different actions both inside and outside organisations to keep it on the agenda. There has been an enormous and welcome change in attitudes over the past 20 or 30 years. Discrimination against people on gender, ethnic origin, disability and, increasingly, age grounds, is widely seen as unacceptable, and yet it still happens.

1573
The Government have repeatedly and, I believe, sincerely said that they seek a fairer society. This measure is a small step along that road. In that context I commend it to your Lordships.
I look forward this evening to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I am pleased that he has chosen this subject on which to speak tonight because I know that he speaks from a wealth of experience in this area. I commend the measure to your Lordships.
9.33 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I consider it a great honour to contribute in your Lordships' House. I do so with all humility but also with a sense of pride that the composition of your Lordships' House now reflects, to a small extent, the multi-racial and multi-cultural society we live in. Of course, there is a twinge of nervousness on my part as would be the case with anyone contributing for the first time in this historic place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and I serve on the council of Save the Children Fund and I am well aware of her concern for justice and fairness, whether on the grounds of gender, race, disability or age. My involvement in race relations goes back over 30 years. I joined the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants set up by the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, and continued with the Community Relations Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. I make no secret of the fact that in those early years of colonial encounters, in many cases with the remnant of the master-servant relationship that existed then, it was difficult for many of us who wished to make our homeland in this country to make a happy start. There were those who exploited race for political purposes. Equally, others fought for justice and fairness. It is right, therefore, that we pay tribute to the many who have helped to shape our multi-cultural society.
I remember working in the early 1960s with my noble friend Lord Lester, who has an even better record than I have. I worked with him in campaigns against racial discrimination in the 1960s. His record of fairness is ably demonstrated by his work on race relations legislation and now on human rights legislation.
I shall fail in my duty if I do not put on record the valuable contribution of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, whose foresight and concern about equality resulted in race relations legislation during his time as Home Secretary in another place. His definition of integration is as valid today as it was in 1966 when he addressed a gathering of voluntary liaison committees. I remember this distinctly because I was present. He said that integration was not a flattening process of assimilation but one of equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance. How right he was then and how right he is now. Equally, we should not forget the contribution of the late Lord Bonham-Carter who chaired the Race Relations Board and the Community Relations Commission. It is a great delight after all these years to see the contribution of all those people who fought for justice and fairness.
1574
For as long as I can remember I have expressed my concern about the rights and plights of the minority communities: the right to live in peace, to receive an education, to get a job, to raise a family free from fear, and, above all, the right to be treated fairly without reference to race, colour, national or ethnic origins. Those are the issues at the core of everything that needs to be done. They stand at the heart of every issue. No longer can a society live at peace with itself or prosper in all ways if an individual or an establishment denies minorities the right to those ideals by directly or indirectly discriminating against them.
Even after 50 years of ethnic minority settlement in this country, many agencies are unwilling to give credence to the fact that the system might treat people from different ethnic backgrounds in an unequal manner. The slogan often bandied about is that fairness, after all, is blindfolded and therefore colour blind and impartial. Trends in race relations show that racial discrimination is still persisting at a depressingly high level. Successive annual reports from the Commission for Racial Equality make it clear that minorities are still to be found disproportionately among the poor, the unemployed, the homeless, those who have never worked, those who are stopped and searched, in penal and mental institutions, among the under-achievers in schools and as victims of racial harassment and violence.
The response of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, is timely. There are sound reasons for amending the Companies Act so that we are all aware of what steps are being taken to further equal opportunity policies within companies.
Perhaps I may cite just three reasons. It is in companies' interests to convince potential employees, clients and customers of their intention to act fairly. It is in their interests to value the potential, ability and needs of all sections of the community. Public high profile statements are a key element. They have a major public relations value and no company acting in the public or private sector can afford to underestimate that factor.
The self-interest or business case argument is important. We cannot ignore the key moral and social responsibility argument, which is supported by both the Government and the Liberal Democrats. It fits well with the social cohesion and the good corporate citizenship role which companies can play.
This one amendment in the Companies Act would provide a significant reinforcement of current non-discrimination legislation. It would increase the public accountability of companies with regard to the relevant laws and the corresponding codes of practice.
For too long, equal opportunities policies have been strangled by the gulf between what we want to achieve and what we have actually done. My colleague, Sylvia Denman, a prominent black woman, who until recently was a member of the Criminal Justice Consultative Council, recently said:

1575
"Equality and quality are inseparable. Making sure that we treat everyone with respect, dignity and fairness is not something that you do today and forget tomorrow. I wonder if some of the impetus from the disturbances of the early 80s has been lost because there is a tendency to think it has all been taken care of".
One of the arguments often advanced is that measures such as those proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, are likely to put an additional burden on companies, which still have to comply with a lot of bureaucratic paperwork. I am afraid that that is a very weak argument that smacks of doing nothing. People are this country's greatest asset. Race and colour have no significance in people's ability to provide a service. That fact has been recognised by the Commission for Racial Equality. Let me pay tribute to the chairman of the CRE, Sir Herman Ouseley, and his staff, who have continued to identify equality targets, despite all the adversity and hostility they suffer. It is indeed a credit to them that they have never compromised on issues of racism and racial discrimination.
The CRE has issued a leadership challenge, which invites people in positions of influence in all areas of society to give a personal lead in promoting the principle of racial equality, together with the practical action that will make it a reality. The leadership challenge invites leaders to use their positions on committees and boards to put racial equality issues high on the agenda. It invites them to report on issues concerning racial equality and its achievement in their annual reports, public statements and speeches. There is a positive benefit to companies in ensuring that they and their organisations are at the forefront of best practice. It will encourage leadership among their colleagues and demonstrate the success of their equality programmes.
A large number of organisations, including those of employers and trade unions, have accepted this challenge from the Commission for Racial Equality. They cannot all be wrong. The publication of company records will demonstrate their employment practices. Acceptance of the challenge will allow people's talents to be used to the full and ensure that selection decisions are based on objective criteria. It will allow a company to become an employer of choice, to get closer to customers and understand their needs and to operate internationally with success. It will help sustain a healthy society, make a company more attractive to investors and avoid the cost of discrimination. Companies should accept this challenge because it is the basis on which they could provide a high quality of service, free from discrimination.
The bottom line of my contribution is that equality and fairness are the cornerstones of the democratic process that we are all used to. If at any time we deny an individual the fairness and equality he or she expects, we have no right to claim those ideals for ourselves. Thank you, my Lords, for your patience.
9.43 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Turner. Before turning to the discussion, I should like, on behalf of all noble Lords, to extend the very sincerest congratulations to the noble Lord. Lord Dholakia. He praised many of
1576
his colleagues, and he was right to do so; but his contribution was born out of his own personal experience and his commitment over many years when people chose not to discuss this topic publicly but to close their eyes to it. The noble Lord has made a powerful and thoughtful contribution to that topic this evening. We look forward to hearing many more contributions from the noble Lord.
In addressing the issue before us tonight I shall concentrate on ageism. In so doing I wish to declare a retrospective interest. I was a member of the Carnegie committee of inquiry into the third age. I must confess that when I joined the committee I was not into the "third age"—I was just under 50—but our work took us so long that I was into the third age when we finished.
We discussed the issue of how to persuade companies to address this problem. We had to bear in mind that there was much that mitigated against people as they grew older. Pension schemes were often used by employers as an excuse not to employ someone in the older age bracket; or perhaps the lack of ability to become multi-skilled or an inability to take on the new information technology with which we increasingly work.
We considered calling for legislation to ban discrimination on the grounds of age and looked to the experience of the United States, which was ahead of us in that area of employment. We came to the conclusion that we would not call for legislation; we would see how the report percolated through society. We felt sure that responsible groups would face up to the issue.
What happened is what often happens in reality: good companies responded; bad companies did not, nor did companies which preferred to turn their faces against it. Without anticipating what may be said by the Minister when he declines to accept this Motion, I should like to share with the House some of my experiences over the years in representing individuals and looking at many company annual reports. Since I left the trades union movement I have been a non-executive director for Plcs. I know how the process works on the ground, round the boardroom table.
Companies go through their reports with a fine-tooth comb. It is the only connection they have with their shareholders and the outside world, and is an indication of where they stand on certain issues. I fully accept that a company report is a retrospective financial statement of a company, showing how it has performed, what the directors are paid and other financial aspects. But some of the first good practice we saw was a declaration of health and safety policies. It did not bring down companies. It did not turn the world upside down when they had to consider and print those policies. We have also seen introduced on the statute book the Disability Discrimination Bill which places requirements on companies.
Another aspect of my work was to be a founder member of Target 2000, which concerned discrimination and equal opportunities for women. One of the requirements of a company joining was that annually it would monitor, and publish the results of that monitoring, its own internally set targets for bringing

1577
women through the system. Surprise, surprise! After two years of that requirement being introduced, companies started publishing voluntarily in their annual reports their equal opportunities policies. Good companies did that. Why? Because they saw it as an asset and the badge of a good employer.
What is the difference between all those examples and a company publishing its employment policies on ageism? How does it approach that issue? I suggest that in this world, where we talk of the interconnection between various aspects of our lives—our business or our personal lives—and we talk about the interconnection of good education flowing through to good health and so forth, there is also an interconnection for our community when we consider the fact that 2.8 million people over 50 years of age in Britain have either retired early or are not economically active in our society.
Is it not also a fact that the longer you stay active the less dependent you are on the community? And the less dependent people are on the community the less money is required from the community to look after people who are not active. Many companies which have these forward-looking employment policies based on healthy ability and an all-round view recruit people from the older age group as well. In my experience, the best kind of workforce is not one from a particular age bracket but one from across the ages, with people working as a team. That is what helps a company to succeed. We frequently hear these dreadful terms "down staffing", "letting people go" and "releasing people", all of which mean making people redundant. This leads to companies losing their memory bank, which is damaging those companies. How different it would be if companies applied equal opportunities policies based on the ability to do a job or the ability to be able to retrain when companies are going through change.
I believe that this is a small measure to ask for. Many companies publish their employment policies in their reports; not many publish their attitude to ageism. Perhaps that is because they have not been confronted with the suggestion. As good companies take these changes on board, we shall see a drift towards such policies. Not much has really happened since the Carnegie third age report was published. I hope that the patience over the years of the noble Lord. Lord Dholakia, and his contribution to the mainstream of society will mean that he will not need so much patience in this area. I hope that we do pick it up and run with it. We have now a new government full of vigour and energy. Impatience gets places. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to respond positively to the debate.
9.52 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, my first and very pleasant task is to second the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, and welcome my noble friend Lord Dholakia to these Benches and thank him for a remarkable speech. Nothing is ever better in this or any other House than to hear someone speaking from their own experience. Not
1578
only that, but he reminded us of a fundamental human truth. We are all harmed by other people being harmed by discrimination. It is a canker in society. If we can be discriminating to other people, who is to say that one day that weapon will not be turned on we who do the discriminating? We all look forward to future contributions from my noble friend in the debates in this place.
It is a great pleasure for me also to speak in the debate. I come to it from a slightly different background. I have been involved for many years in my party in policy-making in terms of equal opportunities for men and women. Indeed, with Polly Toynbee, I chaired the first policy group to make a policy decided by both the SDP and the Liberals when we were in alliance. That is one of the best things I have done, and it was on the subject of freedom and choice for women. So we did something that was worth doing.
I wish to reinforce one or two points which have already been made. Sometime ago I had the opportunity to take part in the appointment of doctors. I asked one of my colleagues, "It seems to me that we get a number of very good women candidates reaching the last hurdle and then we never employ them". Incidentally, I could have said the same about doctors from different racial origins. The very senior person to whom I was speaking replied, "Well, I do not believe that that is discrimination quite yet because many of these women do not have the same background as the best of our men in terms of the research that they have done", and so forth. "However", he added, "if it is still going on in five years' time"—that is about a year from now—"then it will be discrimination because the younger doctors coming up are quite the equal of their male counterparts".
I do not know what is happening in the medical profession, but at that time I remember hearing the phrase, "A good Tommy's man is always a good Tommy's man". That was justification for offering a post to an individual doctor. I thought to myself, "Keep your ears open on this one because there is something going on here". That is just a little example.
I wish to reinforce the point made about the importance of leadership. As many noble Lords know, I come from local government. It has made such a difference there when leading members of an authority have backed efforts to be extremely careful in their recruitment policy or to be absolutely rigorous in ensuring that people are not discriminated against, for example, because they are disabled. I remember the enormous pleasure that people working in my county council felt when they achieved the two-tick symbol for their employment policies towards disabled people.
These factors reinforce each other. It will not happen often in any organisation. One will not get equality of opportunity unless one has leadership from the top. But when you have that, it is amazing how quickly organisations adopt new practices to the benefit of everybody.
I support very much what is said in the Question before us today. It would be of great use to all of us if we knew more about the recruitment, selection. training,

1579
remuneration, promotion, holiday and leave allocations and pension policies of major companies. Not only that but, as other noble Lords have said, these matters, presented attractively, are of positive benefit to the company involved, not only because it enables the company to recruit the best people available but also in these days of ethical investment there will be a number of people who will be more likely to invest in such companies because they are pursuing ethically respectable policies and are openly doing so and declaring themselves—in other words, nailing their colours to the mast.
That is what one does when one talks about one's policies in the annual report. One is saying, "This is us. We are these people. We manage these things in this way". How much better it would be to make these declarations than simply to make the normal, traditional, complimentary remarks about the hard work that the staff have done in the past year—and well done, chaps! That is not enough in these times when, as the noble Baroness reminded us, employment security is by no means what it was some years ago.
Finally, I have been concerned about the rights of women. Employment patterns for women have traditionally been different from those for men as regards level of salary, the job done and so on. Women's careers have been interrupted in ways that men's careers traditionally have not been. But the situation is changing. Even a man can no longer assume that he will start work at 16, 18, 23 or, indeed, at any age and remain in employment for the rest of his life. Moreover, some men now positively want to share the joys and difficulties of child-rearing. In a few years' time I think that we shall see men's career patterns become increasingly similar to those of women.
Some men, like some women, will be strong career people. They will put their careers first. They will push their way through any glass ceiling or difficulty to have the job and career pattern on which they have decided. Others, however, will not—and for a variety of reasons. All the employment practices that we have encouraged in order to enable women to play their full part in employment may also be welcomed by men in the workplace. For all those reasons, I am delighted to support the noble Baroness and the terms of her Unstarred Question.
10 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in recognising a most excellent maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. He clearly spoke from what seemed almost a lifetime of experience before coming to this House. We shall be the beneficiaries of all that expertise. I look forward—if my noble friends were with me tonight they would also look forward—to hearing very much more from the noble Lord in future debates.
I have a difficulty with the debate. I find it difficult to take issue with almost anything that has been said in terms of employers' obligations, not only to their staff, but also to their potential staff and to that reservoir of talent which is out there among women, the ethnic minorities, disabled people and those of us who happen
1580
to be on the wrong side of 50. However. I am reading the wording of the Unstarred Question and I shall address the very specific proposal that is now before the House, so anything that I say does not detract one iota from my recognition of the importance of these issues.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, noted, the primary purpose of annual reports is to record key financial and economic information. Many companies use their annual report both to reflect on the previous year and to look forward to the coming year. I believe that it is absurd to require by law statements of policy and of progress towards achieving the aims and objectives of that policy in relation to equal opportunities to appear in annual reports. Presumably, if we are talking about legal requirements, there will also be sanctions for failure to meet that requirement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner. said in passing that the requirement would relate only to those companies with 250 or more employees. That is not made clear in the Unstarred Question and it is a new understanding for me. If the aim is to benefit the aged, those with disabilities and the ethnic minorities, and to enhance the equal treatment of men and women, the restriction of the measure to companies with 250 or more employees discounts more than 80 per cent. of our companies. A very large percentage of companies employ many fewer than 250 employees. If we are now to accept that the Unstarred Question relates only to companies with 250 or more employees, we have a difficulty.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive my cynicism, but whenever I hear the suggestion that something is just one more "small" additional task for companies, I am reminded of the continuous cry "Just one more penny on income tax will solve all ills." I do not accept that a company that does not specifically address its equal opportunities policies in its annual report is failing to meet its obligations to non-discriminatory practices.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, made a very important point, and on that I rest my case. She referred to the extent to which companies have moved along the road to doing things voluntarily. I believe that that is the best way to encourage companies to address these issues more publicly and to communicate their policies to the wider community. Equal opportunities is an important issue for the reasons given in the excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. Companies have made great progress in pursuing equal opportunities policies. In the case of gender, race and disability, employers already have an obligation under the law, and there is redress for any aggrieved employee.
My principal objection to the matter before the House today is the compulsory nature of it. This is to be imposed upon companies. That can be the only interpretation placed upon it because the word "requirement" is built into the Question. When the Prime Minister recently addressed a gathering of representatives of European Union member states to discuss the problems of unemployment across Europe and to search for solutions, he was in the happy position of having inherited the lowest rate of unemployment—

1581
and still falling—throughout Europe. At that time the Prime Minister emphasised the need for flexibility and minimal regulation of business. I say "Amen" to that.
However, when one considers the additional burdens to be imposed on business, or being actively contemplated, the idea of adding a further requirement in the form of this measure is unthinkable. Future burdens on businesses include measures in the Competition Bill now before this House; the application of the minimum wage; the adoption of the social chapter, including matters such as the part-time and temporary workers directive; a directive which shifts the burden of proof in sex discrimination cases on to employers—in other words, following an accusation by an employee the employer would be deemed guilty unless and until innocence was proved—the possible extension of works councils to companies that employ as few as 50 employees, with sanctions against an employer who fails to conform; and the entitlement of employees to three months' unpaid maternal and paternal leave on the birth or adoption of a child. Another measure is the working time directive. All of these measures add costs to business.
It is all very well for the Government to say that they oppose some of these measures, for example, the possible extension of works councils to very small companies. However, where qualified majority voting applies, this country can be out-voted. As if all of that was not enough, an additional clause in the Teaching and Higher Education Bill, which is to have its Second Reading next week, gives 16 and 17 year-olds an entitlement to time off work with pay for studies at the expense of employers. I believe that the cost of that is between £80 million and £120 million.
The issue of equal opportunities is a very important one, but to take the superficial, almost box-ticking approach, of using the annual report to address this area of policy is no answer. Why stop at equal opportunities? What about health and safety, fire regulations and endless other areas of policy where there is a legal requirement to address these matters in annual reports? Certainly, there is a legal obligation to deliver health and safety and non-discriminatory policies. There are endless, very important policy areas without any requirement to address them on an annual basis in the report. What information goes into an annual report should be a matter for the company itself. Already a number of requirements must be met.
The Hempel Committee has some interesting comments to make in its interim report on corporate governance. The report agrees that it is no good just ticking boxes. All that does is create an air of cynicism. If the Government believe in flexibility and minimal regulation to allow companies to flourish, expand and thereby create yet more opportunities and jobs, then they will reject this measure.
10.10 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Turner for introducing the debate. Despite the fact that we were reminded this afternoon
1582
by the Lord Chairman that it is only the speaker who comes after the maiden speaker who congratulates the maiden speaker, I should like to say a few words to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, about his contribution, and welcome his important and extensive experience in a multi-racial society. What he said struck a chord with me because I, too, am an immigrant into this country. I came here as a child. Many of the things that he said reflected my experience. To have someone like him with us in the House of Lords will make an important contribution to a greater understanding of the problems faced by those who come here as immigrants.
Noble Lords have raised many issues. The Government take them seriously, but we do not believe that statutory reporting requirements are, in general. the answer to those issues. The reason is a practical one. Non-financial reporting requirements are notoriously difficult to define. They are also difficult to audit and enforce. That non-financial reporting, in my experience, tends to define low and minimum standards. There is sometimes a place for legislation to establish minimum standards, but there is a much better case for encouraging rather than prescribing good practice in those areas to encourage higher standards.
The Companies Act is concerned with core reporting requirements for companies and minimum standards. During my 30 years in business I found that higher standards come from peer pressure and peer example and from the economic need to secure a competitive and flexible workforce. I say to my noble friend Lady Dean that it is the ethos that directors create which is important or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. put it, the leadership that they show.
In most cases therefore direct policy action by government, or the promotion and dissemination of best practice, will be more effective in raising standards in a particular area. What are the Government doing about that? We are pursuing a package of positive and complementary policy strategies which will help to underpin best practice. We are working to encourage companies' own efforts to develop that best practice. It seems to be working.
I warmly welcome the lead which business organisations such as the Employers Forum on Age is providing to its peers in promoting the benefits of a mixed age workforce. I join my noble friend Lady Turner in applauding the fact that on the reporting issue some UK companies are already developing policies of the kind she suggested as a matter of best practice. She mentioned Northern Foods, SmithKline and Zeneca. They are all examples of companies which, I believe, have done so. Those firms confound some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, put to us.
I should like also to compliment and thank those many organisations such as the EOC, Age Concern and the Race Relations Board which have helped companies to adopt best practice by preparing a well thought out code of practice for them.
The Government are not in any sense complacent about the problem. It remains to be tackled. We agree that discrimination in employment is wrong, wasteful, unfair and makes bad business sense. The employer who

1583
operates in that way will lose out, as many noble Lords have told us. That employer will lose out to competitors who take a modern and inclusive view and approach to employment practice. The economy will also lose out because all companies are not performing to the same high standards as our best companies. Hence the Government's concern.
The Government are therefore actively developing a framework that will help to deliver these objectives. Our strategy is to look further than measures which simply target a particular problem, vital though these are. We aim to tackle those root causes of company underperformance which limit job opportunities; and we aim to help companies develop their own best practice strategies.
It is UK competitiveness which is at the heart of the Government's campaign for jobs. Dynamic and inclusive relationships between companies and the whole of the workforce are central to the competitiveness agenda. And we believe that an important element of this competitiveness is that every individual in work should have the right to decent minimum standards of fairness at work, enforceable by law. We have already begun to deliver this aim. It is not an additional cost and regulatory burden, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, suggested. It is a contribution to making the economy more competitive. We have set up the Low Pay Commission, we are preparing a National Minimum Wage Bill and we are preparing a White Paper on fairness at work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has rightly drawn attention to practices which continue to lead to division in society. In her Question she speaks of age, disability, gender and race. I would like to set out briefly what we are doing about each of these.
In the area of gender, the Equal Opportunities Commission is undertaking a statutory review of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equal Pay Act 1970. The commission will report its findings to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in April next year and the Government have given a commitment carefully to consider any recommendations put forward by the commission.
My noble friend Lady Turner asked about the equal opportunities grant in aid, and I thank her for giving me notice of that question. There is no question of grant in aid to the Equal Opportunities Commission being discontinued. We expect the level of grant in aid to the commission for next year to be announced in the near future.
The Government are also deeply committed to racial equality. The Government believe that the Race Relations Act is a well regarded piece of legislation which works well. However, we have promised to keep the legislation under review. A number of recommendations have been received in relation to the Act and the Department for Education and Employment is looking at these as part of its overall race relations strategy.
We have also taken action in relation to the disabled. In his Budget the Chancellor announced an additional £195 million set aside from the windfall tax to fund a
1584
range of measures, as the final element of the Government's welfare to work strategy, to help disabled people and those with long-standing illnesses into work and training.
About 25 per cent. of all disabled employees work for employers currently excluded from the Disability Discrimination Act; that is, those with fewer than 20 employees. Yesterday the Government launched a consultation exercise to gather views and evidence on whether the threshold should be reduced so that the Act's employment rights can be extended to more disabled employees and job applicants.
The Government are firmly opposed to unjustified age discrimination in the labour market. I agree with my noble friend Lady Turner and others that older workers are a valuable resource and the Government recognise both the contribution which they can make to society, and the experience and reliability which they can bring to their jobs. My noble friend Lady Dean called it "memory". I share also her experience and feeling towards ageism. Of course, it makes good economic sense to keep people employed as long as possible. But it is important to ensure that any action to tackle age discrimination in employment will bring real and lasting benefits.
In that regard, we have already taken some action. The Government's new deal for the unemployed will benefit older workers. From June next year, the new deal will offer payments of £75 per week to employers who recruit people aged over 25 who have been unemployed for two years or more. That will include a number of older workers. There will also be opportunities for study—and there is no age discrimination on that—for up to 12 months in employment-related courses which are designed to reach an accredited qualification. The life-long learning White Paper will be a statement of the Government's commitment to that.
There are other examples of important work. The noble Baroness mentioned the Carnegie Third Age Programme. I am aware that that has done much to raise awareness of third age issues and age discrimination; for that it is to be congratulated.
There is no quick fix to the problem of discrimination or unfairness in the workplace. There is a need for further concerted action and persuasion in relation to those issues. There is still a need to change some deeply entrenched attitudes and expectations among employers and individual workers. I hope that in setting out today the Government's strategy on employment issues I have been able to illustrate and convince noble Lords of our deep commitment to equal opportunities in the workplace. The Government sympathise entirely with the very good intentions behind the noble Baroness's suggestion. That is why we are taking direct and comprehensive action on a number of fronts to end discrimination in the workplace and to promote employability.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past ten o'clock.

  Calves' Milk Replacement: Bovine Blood Cells and Plasma
  Calves' Milk Replacement: Bovine Blood Cells and Plasma
  Mul2tilateral Agreement on Investment: Developing Country Preferences
  Mul2tilateral Agreement on Investment: Developing Country Preferences
  Alcohol Risks: Education Measures
  Alcohol Risks: Education Measures
  Ferry Operators and Foreign Tourists
  Ferry Operators and Foreign Tourists
  Summer Time
  Summer Time
  Schengen Acquis
  Schengen Acquis
  Parole Board: Composition
  Parole Board: Composition
  West Midlands: Housing Provisions
  West Midlands: Housing Provisions
  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Russian Federation: Diplomatic Missions
  Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Russian Federation: Diplomatic Missions
  Middle East: Weapons
  Middle East: Weapons
  Diego Garcia
  Diego Garcia
  Sudan: UK Entry Visa Applications
  Sudan: UK Entry Visa Applications
  Bosnia: UK Supply of Armoured Range Rover
  Bosnia: UK Supply of Armoured Range Rover
  Small Arms Trafficking
  Small Arms Trafficking
  EU Council: Forthcoming Business
  EU Council: Forthcoming Business